Ungrateful
By Ben Domenech Posted in Culture — Comments (173) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Update [2005-4-27 14:26 by Augustine]: Ponnuru offers a full response here.
Hadley Arkes is an intellectual hero for the pro-life movement. The Amherst professor is best known for thinking up the basis for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 - which ensures that infants born alive count as "persons" under federal law. In the wake of numerous stories of infants who survived an abortion only to be denied medical care after birth and left to die, Arkes' innovative way of attacking the issue inspired frustration and anger from NARAL and their ilk. As C. Everett Koop once wrote, what started off to be a woman's right to abortion-on-demand has become a woman's right to a dead baby; but Hadley Arkes spoke, people listened, and the bill passed.
That brings us to Prof. Arkes' latest piece in last month's issue of First Things, the publication that pro-life conservatives know to be the most friendly to their cause. The article is entitled "Bush's Second Chance" - and it details at length the many ways that the President has failed the pro-life movement, in large ways and small, over the course of his first term. Arkes points out that the Bush administration has been lax in enforcing laws that Congress has passed (including Born Alive), and points out that the President has, despite saying lots of nice phrases and hiring many pro-lifers, explicitly refused to lead in any public manner on this issue.
Now we come to a response to Arkes' piece from Ramesh Ponnuru, a writer respected immensely by the community here at RedState and by me personally on these issues. Ramesh is perhaps the most eloquent pro-lifer we have in the political press, yet he takes issue with what Arkes has to say.
Read on.
Because Arkes is a gentleman, and not given to flights of anger, the piece is inherently optimistic. He is not just grousing - he is hopeful that the President will take the right course, and keep his promises to build a culture of life instead of just using that as a throwaway line.
Arkes begins by taking stock of the possibilities for success on conservative issues in the post-election world. He rightly points out that while the White House displayed optimism on a variety of issues - Social Security, tort reform, tax cuts - the issue of abortion was entirely missing:
On the matter of abortion, however, the President did not seem to be seized with any comparable sense of moment, or any heightened awareness of possibilities now come into sight. And yet, in the case of abortion, the new possibilities had already been visible for more than two years. The President showed no keen awareness of these possibilities now, just as he had shown no awareness earlier. It was not that the facts were not there to be seen, or that the President had no means of knowing. For at least two years the White House staff, and the President it advises, had ample reason to conclude that America had reached a turning point, and that, with the slightest moves on the part of the administration—moves so slight that they did not require the exertion of an executive order—they could have produced some striking gains for the pro-life cause while fostering a deep crisis in the ranks of their adversaries.
Arkes agrees that the President has filled his administration with individuals who are pro-life, and that he has rarely parted ways with the movement. Yet at the same time, he has repeatedly passed on the opportunity to lead.
In 1999, when he was preparing for his first presidential campaign, Mr. Bush took soundings among prominent conservatives, and the word went out: he was emphatically, decisively, on the side of the pro-lifers. He could be depended on to do the things that President Reagan and his own father had done before him to preserve a coalition that included pro-lifers. But, as the report went, he did not feel that he could "lead" with the issue of abortion. Either it was impolitic to make this question his defining issue, or he did not feel confident of his own facility in making the argument. He would speak on this vexing issue only when it was absolutely necessary for him to do so.
We could not grasp at the time just how strictly he intended to follow this rule. But we grasp it now, for it has become chillingly clear in the experience of the last two years. It was as though the White House had taken an account of the simplest, slightest measures that might be taken, and then come to the judgment that it was not in the interest of the President to do the slightest thing.
Arkes points out that the President has willingly signed Born Alive and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Bush even described the former bill as the "first step in changing the culture." But the Bush Administration has been enormously lax in enforcing these laws or even using them to their potential effect on the culture, one of the chief reasons for their passage.
Arkes details at length some of the many methods at the President's disposal to make small advances for the pro-life cause, efforts that demand little more than a few speeches and executive orders - not even further legislation. He points out that if the current Partial Birth Abortion ban goes down in the courts, it is unlikely to pass again. And he poses the idea that the Administration can at this point cut off funds to hospitals in which partial-birth abortions are performed.
In the end, Arkes is upset by the fact that in a pro-life administration, the impetus for enforcement of the law and furtherance of the culture of life is not coming from the White House, but from the Congress or outsiders - and he asks why a supposedly pro-life White House has become the chief barrier in this effort.
Hence the paradox that afflicts us now: we have the most pro-life administration that has ever been assembled, and at the head of that administration is a good, sympathetic man, who is deeply reluctant to make the pro-life argument in public or to start the kind of discussion that might bring about real change ... This state of affairs leads to the following melancholy judgment. For pro-lifers Mr. Bush must be counted as a real friend. But by his example, he is establishing what must surely stand as the most corrosive lesson that could be taught in this country right now — that in the judgment of an accomplished political man, it is either impolitic or unrespectable to make the pro-life argument in public. Whatever else may be accomplished by the Bush administration, this implicit teaching can have only debilitating and destructive effects on the pro-life cause.
There are several intelligent and true responses that can be made to Arkes' argument - and as might be expected, Ponnuru makes all of them. He is respectful and accurate: he points out that when given the opportunity, the President has always or nearly always done the right thing. He has nominated more pro-life nominees to the judiciary than any modern President. He has signed Born Alive, the PBA ban, and the Unborn Victims of Violence act. He did not give in to the temptation - that would have been popularly received - to fund embryonic stem cell research. And the President's rhetoric on the life issue - when he has spoken up - has been solid and occasionally quite good.
For these steps taken as a whole, Ponnuru argues, pro-lifers ought to be grateful to the President and the White House. And on all these counts, Ponnuru is entirely correct. But there are two areas in my estimation where his view is unconvincing, and Arkes' argument still stands.
First, on the matter of enforcement of the law. Ponnuru opens his article by using the example that new HHS Sec. Mike Leavitt announced last week that he was taking steps to enforce the Born Alive law and working to ensure that hospital departments are informed of it. That's nice. Yet the law was passed in 2002.
Arkes is absolutely right to point out that pro-lifers should not have to remind an ideologically friendly administration to act on the pro-life laws they've passed. The implication that the movement ought to be grateful for such acts is downright silly. One wonders the best way for pro-lifers to express their gratitude for Mr. Leavitt's activity, and the fact that this administration has suddenly decided to pay attention to a law passed three years ago - perhaps a fruit basket is in order.
The second and more important point is found in the closing section of Ponnuru's article, where he advances the idea that "political realities" prevent the bully pulpit from being an advantageous position for advancing the pro-life argument.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Republicans were able to bring millions of voters into the fold by condemning abortion. But now most of them are in the fold. Louder and more frequent attacks on abortion would, perhaps, get some more pro-life Democrats to switch parties. But they would also drive some voters away. And the backdrop here is a general public that is ambivalent about abortion but not at all ambivalent in its desire not to have to hear much about the issue. There are many places in America where a politician can get elected as a pro-lifer. There are few places that would elect a politician who defines himself, first and foremost, as a pro-life crusader.
The public's temperament sets limits that are immensely frustrating to pro-lifers (and, indeed, to anyone who advocates a change in the status quo: supporters of increased public funding for abortion must also contend with the public's hostility to activism on abortion). But we can't simply wish them away.
I believe this viewpoint is exactly wrong, and it ignores an idea that Arkes addresses at the very beginning of his piece. The reality is that, as countless polls have indicated, the country is more and more open to the arguments of the pro-life cause.
There's a reason why Hillary Clinton is testing out pro-life rhetoric. And there is simply no evidence that a frank discussion of pro-life issues — in reasoned, careful, and compassionate terms — does anything but help conservatives and their candidates.
I would argue, in fact, that this has been the President's greatest failing. Forget the more public matters, such as the dominance of pro-choicers in his Cabinet and as speakers at the RNC convention. It is indisputable that the President has personally on several occasions used the excuse that the cultural climate in America has not moved to a point where they will accept a ban on abortion - an excuse which is at best cowardly, at worst a crass political maneuver - yet the simple fact, based again on numerous polls, is that the current law is far less restrictive than what most Americans would tolerate.
And even if you doubt all of those polls, the question becomes: what is the permanent standard for the President on abortion? Is it expecting him and his Administration to work in a dedicated, sustained manner to stop abortion? Or is it an expectation that they will only undertake what they think "our culture" and "political realities" will tolerate?
I am a pro-lifer first and foremost, and I am not one who is as calm and restrained as Prof. Arkes or as intelligent as Mr. Ponnuru. I just remember that it was only 20 years ago that the nation saw a sitting President publish a lengthy intellectual essay on the evil of abortion and euthanasia. I see a President who promised us that he would work tirelessly to build a culture of life, yet expends vastly more effort and political capital toward reforming Medicare, Social Security, and our tax system - as he and his compatriots have done in countless jury-rigged town halls around the country.
Pro-lifers should recognize that the President has successfully convinced the movement that it is better for us if, on our issues and our issues alone, he remains silent outside of the most friendly of audiences. Arkes believes that President Bush is a good man - yet as one blogger noted, he "helpfully attributes the president's reticence to his keen interest in maintaining a reticent stance." The President signs what we help pass; he appoints good people; he calls down to the march; but he remains steadfast in his refusal to lead the way in actually taking steps to convince people that life matters, that it has value, and that society should protect it from conception to natural death...the most tangible way there is to help create a culture of life.
That, you will remember, was President Bush's promise. Now that he is in his second term, having won the last election of his life, his reluctance to participate in the process of presenting to Americans the simple, gradual arguments that move us toward this goal is disappointing. In the end, this fact does not make President Bush a bad man. It only makes him a liar.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | Orthodoxies, part one. — Comments (70) »
Ungrateful 173 Comments (0 topical, 173 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Let me just say, 5. 5.
MachoNachos
but I also think that people are uncomfortable with the idea of legislation against it. I think speaking in measured and reasonable tones about abortion is only a mask for what is really a fundamental difference. Either someone is against abortion in all cases, or they are not. Most people welcome the idea of limitations on abortion, but few are willing to outlaw all exceptions I think.
I have found that many people wish to allow three exceptions for abortion: medical necessity, rape, and their own family's situation whatever it may be.
inconvenience.
I have a lot of sympathy for the difficulties the Pro-life movement faces in America, I support the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, especially on its legal grounds. My posts yesterday that might have seemed contradictory to that was only meant to point out that some of these decisions are enormously difficult to make, and I'll be the person to admit that I'm not as educated in the arguments of the pro-life movement as others on RedState. Let me make an observation anyway:
There's a reason why Hillary Clinton is testing out pro-life rhetoric. It could be that she is a woman. And because of that, she believes that she may be able to gain the support of more women if she moderates her views on abortion and moves in a pro-life direction.
In contrast, whom do we have here? Well, we have Augustine, Paul Cella, Thomas, MachosNachos, and Maximos. Unless I'm mistaken, they're all men. And we are discussing an article by Hadley Arkes and Ramesh Ponnuru and debating whether or not President Bush has done enough substantively to help the cause and to create a culture of life. All of them are men. And thank you, Augustine, because this post has really helped to bring me up to speed on some of the issues -- it is excellent. And if we look at the Table of Contents of First Things this month, we see articles by: Richard John Neuhaus, Gilbert Meilaender, George Cardinal Pell, David Singer, Peter J. Leithart, Rodney Delasanta, Robter T. Miller, Stephen M. Barr, Gregory Wolfe, Ishmael Law, Paul J. Griffiths, and poetry by Mark Jarman. That's 12 men. By contrast, the women represented in this month's issue of First Things consist of the poetry of A.E. Stallings and an article by Bette Howland. That's 2 women -- a poet, and one writing about Studs Lonigan, who was a man.
Maybe I'm all wet here in pointing out that the public face of the pro-life movement in America seems to be lopsided in terms of gender. Maybe you think that it's an "irrelevant, candyland" kind of observation to make - one that's umimportant morally, intellectually, legally, politically or even emotionally. But I have to say -- and this is coming from nothing but my own experience with a lot of pro-abortion liberals in the past -- I have to wonder if the path wouldn't be easier if the pro-life movement had more women out in front, and in more visible leadership roles?
And since I am not really qualified to comment about the other aspects of the movement, that's the only observation I'm going to post for now.
of inconvenience is the primary reason why people are uncomfortable with the all or nothing view that you seem to espouse. There are most certainly other considerations involved.
like children would be too close, or the baby would interfere with job or school, of you don't have the means to support an extra child.
Oh... wait. Those are inconveniences.
both the mother or child, or rape, are ever valid reasons for exception?
of abortion if the mother's life is in jeopardy. There is no moral requirement to accept martyrdom. But you'd know that if you'd ever read anything I've written on abortion.
Off hand I can't think of an medical necessity, other than that mentioned above, where killing the baby would be a solution.
Since we don't execute rapists I am more than a little nonplussed at the cavalier way in which some advocate executing the innocent product of a rape.
But if I offered a compromise where the exceptions to a total ban on abortion were life of the mother, rape, and incest would you accept it.
Tunnel-vision concern about abortion misses the point.
Excellent post, Augustine... I sent an email to Ramesh this morning, noting that there is a great difference between using the presidential bully-pulpit to attack and using it to persuade. If he believes in the rationality of the pro-life position (and presumably he does), then it should be a no-brainer, right?
...on life issues, particularly in the areas that have an actual impact on communities, such as crisis pregnancy centers. In the life community, women like Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Maggie Gallagher, and the Janet Parshalls/ Laura Ingrahams/ Dr. Lauras of the world are often the most outspoken members. Feminists for Life, Concerned Women for America, and other faith-based organizations are almost entirely driven by pro-life women and mothers. You may not be familiar with them, but they are the ones who lead on the life issue among people of faith.
I think you'll just find that FT's writers equate almost exactly with the overwhelming proportion of male writers at other political publications, such as The New Republic, The Nation, The Weekly Standard, National Review, Commentary, etc. - let alone publications like Time and Newsweek or The Washington Post, which are all male-dominated to a lesser degree. There are just fewer women who write about theology and politics for these publications (just like there are fewer female political bloggers), and there are only so many Midge Decters in the world. There are many good, prominent, and active pro-life women on Capitol Hill and in communities across America - reading off a masthead is just not representative of the movement as a whole.
On the Hillary question, I think it's fairly obvious that she wants to avoid the error John Kerry made on the abortion issue (that horrible answer in the second debate) and put herself in a position to be thought of as a "moderate" on the issue, which I think is a tactical decision that would be just as wise for Evan Bayh or John Edwards to follow.
Parochial concern with the fetus and infants ignores "principle".
decide to choose the mothers life over that of the child?
And to answer your question, I wouldn't accept that compromise. I think that we live in a large enough country where the laws may by necessity go against what an individual thinks is moral occasionally. And in the case of abortion I'm okay with the idea of viability. I don't think we can force a mother to sustain a child with no other options. We don't do that at any other point in life. In fact the whole point is that there is never another time in any circumstance where a person is forced to sustain another person (and even if we disagree we have no right to create that situation)
And if you are willing to make exceptions for rape, etc..., then it's all relative to you as well right?
Mrs. Nachos is every bit as "extremist" in the pro-life position as I am. She will tell anyone who listens about the pro-life movement, and she walks into the teeth of a liberal college campus every day.
She just doesn't understand my fixation with this website, so you don't see her posting here, that's all. :-)
MachoNachos
Women are preponderant (for obvious reasons) in the "after abortion" contingent of the pro-life movement. Their signs and posters at the rallies are often the most moving of all: "I regret my abortion," and so forth.
Cripes, man. What a bizarre critique this is. Suffice it to say that we can be pretty sure that Arkes is not an advocate of euthanasia. You can't fault someone for focusing upon a particular aspect of the culture of death.
Usually doesn't post on this topic, in no small part because she makes me look mild by comparison. No matter how big a firebreather you may think me on this issue, I assure you, I'm milquetoast next to her.
She sounds like a brave voice. Get her on here!
Please understand that my background before becoming a Republican about two years ago consisted entirely of time spent in the opposition's camp over the decade prior to that, and because of that I have my share of blind spots, and there are several subjects where my knowledge is still almost painfully limited.
I will say that anecdotally, and in my experience, the Conventional Wisdom among several of the activist pro-abortion women I knew was that the pro-life movement was nothing but a monolith of patriarchy and a bastion of exclusively male power, with perhaps a few token women tacked onto the outside for public-relations purposes. That was, more or less explicitly, the central reason that so many of the feminist women I knew opposed it so vehemently. The central dogma was that pro-life women had been hoodwinked, coerced or manipulated into supporting a movement which was directly opposed, not to say destructive, to the exercise of their constitutional rights and interests as free citizens and as human beings. That is the primary reason that the women I knew could construe themselves as liberators, and portray all of their efforts as fighting for women's equality and rights -- as part of a long tradition stretching back to the battles over voting rights. I'm sure you're familiar with the rest of the arguments.
It's not "parochial" and it's not "tunnel vision." I don't really understand why you're saying that, especially considering the depth of this issue. Arkes is particularly active in one area - that does not mean he ignores the overarching principle.
I can thank of any number of reasons why a mother and father may not want her to die in favor of an ectopic pregnancy. If you can't handle the logic in that decision then I can't help you.
Actually I think it is absolutely grotesque that it is illegal to execute rapists but a lot of people, you apparently included, see nothing wrong with offing the innocent by-product of rape. So no, its not relative.
I only said I'd be willing to compromise on rape/incest in exchange for you compromising on the other 800,000+ babies killed each year. As you aren't willing to trade then I'm not either.
he would make exceptions for rape. In fact, his comment read quite the opposite. He merely posited a hypothetical question to you to expose the fact that the pet "exceptions" always brought to light by pro-choice advocates are really straw men. The reason abortion is so stridently fought for isn't primarily for the raped, or the medically necessary. It's for convenience.
I don't have the exact transcript handy, and I'm about to head off to bed (after a graveyard shift), but can you remember in one of the debates when Kerry was asked why he opposed parental consent for minors seeking an abortion, and he responded in mock horror, "I'm not going to force a ten year old girl who's been raped by her father to get her father's permission for having an abortion." I've never wanted to vomit over something someone said so much as I did at that moment. I suppose in John Kerry's world we all know that the only reason most minors don't want to tell their parents that they're getting abortions is that they're the children of incestuous rape.
Others may be squeamish with being consistent on abortion, but I'm not. Punishing a child with death because it is the product of rape is no more logically or legally warranted than torturing the child of a convenience store owner, because that convenience store owner was robbed. The question was raised in another thread about whether, in the ideal pro-life society, mothers would be punished for infanticide for seeking an abortion. If the unborn child really is human, I really see no way that legally a charge of solicitation of 2nd degree murder at the very least would not apply. I'll stand by that until someone can show me where that is not a logical consequence of believing that the unborn child has the same legal rights as a child.
I'll respond to comments (if any) when I awake.
MachoNachos
The problems is actually that sometimes she has trouble tempering her rhetoric (coming from me, I know that's rather scary to some of you), and also she is studying for her last semester finals - and also attempting to find gainful employment for after-college to support me through law school. She's flippin' swamped.
MachoNachos
for anti-abortion rallies: "Kill the rapist, save the baby."
As a former pro-choicer, one of the major differences in the movements is the emphasis. Pro-choicers often focus on the mother and the movement is tied up with the feminist movement. So they see their opposition as a bunch of old men trying to "control" women and "put them in their place." That's about as silly as those who argue that pro-choice want to "kill lots of babies." Pro-lifers focus on the child.
FWIW, most statistics I've seen show almost no difference in the pro-life/pro-choice makeup of the sexes. And I have never seen any pro-lifer push the issue as a way to control women or deny liberty. The emphasis is on the right to life and the government's responsibility to protect life.
Personally, I think we should focus on creating anti-Roe groups for now since that is a unifying point of view between the ban all abortions (except life of the mother) and the ban some abortions groups. In fact, it would be nice to start a pro-choice, anti-Roe movement along the lines of David Brook's reasoning:
The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better
This is also why younger voters are slightly more pro-life. They don't associate the abortion movement with feminism as much. One can believe women should vote, work outside the home, have equal rights... and be pro-life.
abortion if it saved the mothers life, then you are choosing the mothers life over the childs, correct? (I may have misread you). Once you make that exception, the whole thing becomes relative.
Also, is it the numbers or the morality behind it that bothers you. If only 8 instead of 800,000 occurred, would it be ok?
To contend that all abortions are for convenience is ignorant and frankly, cruel.
Although I will agree that the vast majority of abortions are to end an unwanted pregnancy, a signifinant minority are medically necessary or performed to remove a non-viable fetus to spare the mother unnecessary complications that could threaten her health and life. This is especially true of late term abortions.
Ectopic pregnancies are one medically necessary reason for abortions (no chance of fetal survival, high chance of maternal death or serious health consequences like severe internal bleeding and sterility).
I have friends who had been trying to have a child for years. She and her husband were excited when she finally got pregnant. Unfortunately, an ultrasound in her fourth or fifth month showed that the fetus' brain was developing outside the skull. There was no chance that the fetus would survive outside the womb. The safest choice for her was an abortion. It was devastating. But all other options (waiting for a miscarriage or carrying to term) would have put her health at greater risk and the outcome would have been the same--a dead baby. To say that her decision was one of "convenience" is to belittle the most agonizing decision of that couple's life.
It is not a "strawman" for pro-choice advocates to ask what will happen to people like my friend if the most extreme pro-life advocates get their way and all abortions are banned.
But I would like to scope out the numbers you're referring to if you have a cite.
..have no support from mainstream religion and voters.
has a supermajority of support. Specifically, limiting abortion to cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. Abortion-on-demand and blanket prohibition both get roughly 20% support in the country.
And abortion makes many mainstream voters uneasy. It is a rather gruesome procedure that ends a life. I can see why it makes people so uneasy.
The reason abortion is so stridently fought for isn't primarily for the raped, or the medically necessary. It's for convenience.
Of course it is. I don't know the exact figures, but I am willing to bet that at least 95% (probably more than 99%, but if there is money on the table I'll error on the side of caution) of abortions in this country are for convenience.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the abortion laws before Roe vs. Wade prohibited abortions if the mother's life was in danger. Most probably didn't prohibit it in cases of rape or incest, although I don't know for sure.
The point is Democrats oppose abortion on the basis that it would outlaw abortion for medical necessitiry, rape or incest and then oppose abortion laws that specifically allow abortions in those cases.
...but can you remember in one of the debates when Kerry was asked why he opposed parental consent for minors seeking an abortion, and he responded in mock horror, "I'm not going to force a ten year old girl who's been raped by her father to get her father's permission for having an abortion." I've never wanted to vomit over something someone said so much as I did at that moment.
See what I said above, but also this is the same John Kerry who, in the same sentence said that, as a Catholic, he believed that life began at conception but also believed that abortion should be allowed.
Punishing a child with death because it is the product of rape is no more logically or legally warranted than torturing the child of a convenience store owner, because that convenience store owner was robbed. The question was raised in another thread about whether, in the ideal pro-life society, mothers would be punished for infanticide for seeking an abortion. If the unborn child really is human, I really see no way that legally a charge of solicitation of 2nd degree murder at the very least would not apply.
I agree. What is the difference in finding Scott Peterson guilty of the death of Conner and a mother who goes has a doctor kill the baby? I don't see any except for the fact that Lacy was killed as well, but that was a different charge.
I'll stand by that until someone can show me where that is not a logical consequence of believing that the unborn child has the same legal rights as a child.
Actually, the government is supposed to represent people who can't represent themselves. It's part of equal protection. Who is less able to represent themselves than an unborn child? I personally believe that medical necessity, in order to save the life of the mother, is the only reason for abortion. In cases of rape or incest, the mother should have her medical bills paid by the offending party, in addition to any lost time from work or any other inconveniences, and the baby should be allowed to be put up for adoption if the mother wishes.
...I'm about to head off to bed (after a graveyard shift)...I'll respond to comments (if any) when I awake.
Hope you slept well and dreamed of tennis-playing buffalo as well as Helen Thomas, Janet Reno, and Rosie O'Donnell in the swimsuit portion of the pageant.
A few days ago, probably I should have mentioned that in my comment. :)
it would be better. We haven't stopped all murders, but we prevent many by making it illegal. Ditto rape. Ditto theft.
Most were gallup polls from the 1970s through the early 2000s. Gallup is now a pay site, so I don't have access to them (it made me realize that their layout and historical data is quite useful). I don't know who else would have several decades worth of data, let me look.
From the NYTimes, as I recall.
A study of American college freshmen shows that support for abortion rights has been dropping since the early 1990's: 54 percent of 282,549 students polled at 437 schools last fall by the University of California at Los Angeles agreed that abortion should be legal. The figure was down from 67 percent a decade earlier.
A New York Times/CBS News poll in January [2003] found that among people 18 to 29, the share who agree that abortion should be generally available to those who want it was 39 percent, down from 48 percent in 1993.
a personal experience. Here in Oregon we had a group that managed to get several anti-Gay intiatives on the ballot. I had known the leader of the group from my youth in Northern California.
He was very clear that his idea was to go after the gays first, then abortion, then birth control. He felt that a woman's place was in the home in submission to her husband. His feelings were bible based. This was in the 80's and early 90's. His movement was quite devisive for the state. And for me personally, a turning point in the fusion of religion and politics. I say this as a church goer myself.
I understand some feminists "all or nothing" stance simply because I have witnessed what they were talking about, though I don't agree with it. The "old men trying to control women and put them in their place" is not as outrageous as you imply.
Disappointed with their liberal clergy, do many Christians want Bush to be a martyr-Pope?
In anything more than a tangential way?
so I just think that making exceptions for abortion in any situation turns ones argument into a relative one. If someone doesn't believe in abortion because they value human life, then make no exceptions, and then try to justify it when the mother will die if there isn't an abortion. Otherwise there is no moralally superior view, just exceptions and compromise.
And self defense is one of those.
Re: In fact the whole point is that there is never another time in any circumstance where a person is forced to sustain another person
I do believe that we enforce child support upon parents, indeed we do so with some fairly draconian legal statutes these days. I would even suggest that, absent medical problems with a pregnancy, child suport requiurements are more difficult to fulfill. Nature, after all, does all the work sustaining a child in utero (absent problems, again) And unlike child support (which can last for 18 years) pregnancy lasts for just nine months after which the woman is indeed free to repudiate the child, humanely, into the care of others.
Re: ...An abortion if it saved the mothers life, then you are choosing the mothers life over the childs, correct?
This falls under the category of "justifiable homocide". I don't think that anyone would make the argument that this is a relativist position, or would ever seek to extend the fact that you can kill an assailant in your home to a right to kill anyone who inconveniences you anywhere.
Do you really think all abortions would end? To say 40 million children have died because of Roe v. Wade is deceptive because abortions occurred before Roe v. Wade, both illegal and legal and would continue after Roe v. Wade, even if they were illegal in all 50 states. Women with sufficient means would always be able to get an safe abortion, either from a private doctor or by going to another country. The poor would be reduced to back alley abortionists again.
As a biblical principle, why is abortion such an obsession? There is no direct mention of abortion in the bible. The only thing that even comes close is the admonition in Leviticus that if you strike a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage the husband can demand restitution. I don't know how the ancient Jews viewed "culture of life" issues, but they were surrounded by cultures that routinely practiced abortion, infanticide, ritual murder, genocide, euthanasia, and murder for entertainment. Yet very little ink in the bible is spent worrying about it.
Our understanding of fetal development and our ability to extend life beyond its natural end has complicated our theological understanding of "life". The idea that "life" begins at conception is a thoroughly modern one because until recently we did not know enough about physiology to pinpoint conception. We talked about "ensoulment" and "quickness". Same with end of life issues. If Terri Schiavo had had her heart attack in 1960 instead of 1990, she would have been dead soon thereafter. We were simply incapable of keeping someone alive in a PVS for more than a month or two until the late '70s.
Re: Here in Oregon we had a group that managed to get several anti-Gay intiatives on the ballot. I had known the leader of the group from my youth in Northern California.
Are you talking about Lon Mabon (I think that's the name)? Last I read he's really gone down the tubes, since his positions have gotten so extreme (he even denies that the courts have any jurisdiction over him in any way, like those Freemen types out in Montana) that no one else wants anything to do with his group.
That said, I am really astounded at the way gay issues have been raised to the same level as abortion by the social conservative movement. Whatever one feels on either topic it ought to be fairly obvious that an issue which (potentially) involves human life is orders of magnitude more significant than one that merely involves some (potentially) illicit bedroom pecadillos.
for 'life of the mother' provisions.
Personally, I'd feel the same way about abortion if I was an atheist. I am probably in the minority on that point, but it's simply not the motivating factor for me. But stories like this may help explain the other motivating factors that exist.
As for pre-Roe abortions, that's another debate - but according to more recent research, the conventional view on the back-alley abortion issue is incorrect on several points.
Re: As a biblical principle, why is abortion such an obsession?
Slavery was actually approved in the Bible, but that did not stop religiously-motivated abolitionists from protesting its injustice.
Despite the sometimes strident Bible-thumping by some Fundamentalists, Christian morality rests on a good deal more than the Bible. In the case of abortion it was NEVER approved of by Christians. The Diadache is one the oldest non-Scriptural Christian documents we have (late 1st century or early 2nd). It is a morals and worship manual for new Christians. It mentions abortion quite explicitly as something to repudiate and in the "Way of Death."
This is where the entire abortion debate goes academic. Delivering a baby has risk in itself, even with a perfectly healthy woman. Virtually everybody can come up with a sad story in extended friends or family where a routine delivery went bad and resulted in an injured child and/or mother, or even death.
Virtually every woman has 1 or more risk factors that need to be watched during pregnancy -- first pregnancy, smoking, high blood pressure, thin build, overweight, blood sugar issues, history of bleeding, and a hundred other factors can cause issues during pregnancy or delivery. If a woman has several risk factors, then there's a "medically necessary" case to make for an abortion. And virtually every woman has some risk factors.
Providing abortions is a medially subspecialty. Do you really think it would be hard to get a specialist to certify that any given pregnancy may cause medical issues to either the mother or baby? There's money at stake, and it wouldn't take much of a case to get a signature from the doctor to go forward.
On the physical issues then layer the entire mental health debate. A person can always find a psychiatrist that will certify that they're suffering from mild depression or some other issue. Would a person suffering from mild depression be negatively impacted by the prospect of a pregnancy? By paying for a couple of sessions it wouldn't be easy to find a shrink that would say yes to that.
So my contention is that abortion is with us forever. Very few people are comfortable with closing abortion to people whose life may be at stake when faced with a pregnancy. But there's no way to draw a line between a woman whose life may be at risk and one with some physical or mental risk factors.
Re: As for pre-Roe abortions, that's another debate - but according to more recent research, the conventional view on the back-alley abortion issue is incorrect on several points.
True, but not particularly germane to today's debate. Roe vs Wade may well be overturned (as it should be) but that will not simply turn back the clock to the pre-Roe era.
Yes, yes it was him. I have to say that I was relieved that he crashed and burned. I don't know if other states experienced this in that time period. Eventually most of his supporters began to realise what an extremists he was.
And pretty much the only reason for it to be legal. Anything else ultimately balances someone's life against your emotions or at most your health. Not good enough.
It's fairly universally sacred, but that's a different point. From that same impulse, however, I cannot command someone to kill herself so that another might live; that is itself tantamount ot murder, and also forces martyrdom on another. I can command someone not to kill another if the worst the killer would face otherwise is something short of death, because that same respect for life compels me to stop an execution.
Keep trying.
But what does this do for the 'status' of women in our society when we constrain them so emphaticaly to their biological function.
Acts have consequences. I hold women to the same standard I hold men to -- be responsible for the consequences of your action, and don't kill anyone -- because I respect them as much as I do men.
If I go skiing, there's a decent chance I'll break my leg. I accept and deal with the consequences. If I guzzle a cup of liquid lard, there will be consequences. If I engage in sex with a woman, there's a chance (in my case, apparently a great chance) she'll get pregnant. I have -- and should have -- to support that child and to the extent required, the woman carrying that child. She must carry the child, absent a mortal threat to her life. She can put the kid up for adoption or raise her; but she cannot kill the child.
In other words, if the unfortunate side effect of treating adult women as rational adults is to force them into carrying a child to term rather than killing the kid, well, I'd rather treat other humans as equals and let the chips fall where may.
the doctor to save one life at the expense of the other? If they both have equal value, what criteria do you use: Who has existed longer? Who can speak for themselves? ...
I think by making this distinction (if you do), you have already lost the "respect for life" principle to stand on and your views become relative, (not wrong, but no more or less principled or moral then any other view.
In that case you just choose to define when life becomes sacred at a different point from others.
Simply because I cannot compel someone to lay down her life for another does not mean that I have chosen to value one life over another, or have chosen "to define life as sacred" at any point. I face two near absolutes, with neither having greater weight than the other, and have an additional compulsion upon me not to actively kill another.
Let me repeat: Neither life has greater value. I just can't force someone to commit suicide.
It's a bit more complicated than that, but I'm trying to keep this understandable for you, as you appear to be reading things that aren't there.
why birth control is bad? I recognize I'm injecting a tangent into this conversation you're free to let slide. The combination of the two makes me suspicious about the anti-abortion movement as a whole. If women cannot have abortion and should not be taught nor use birth control, they will invariably become pregnant. Forcing women to fulfill their "biological role" has pretty serious gender implications, don't you think?
So very true. You subscribe to a religion that proscribes contraception and would push for legislation to prevent women with foresight from using contraception to prevent pregnancy. Yet you claim to want people to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Be honest, you want sex to be all about procreation and not recreation and are willing to sacrifice the rights of living human beings, women, for the rights of the unborn.
You may be willing to make the exchange, I am not, and I am particularly concerned that the government not get into the business of legislating private morality. The unborn is not yet an independant being because it cannot exist without the willingness of a mother to bring that life to term. That is a contract between mother and child in which the unborn has no say and neither should you, unless you are the father, and the government should certainly not be involved.
but that doesn't mean that both are going to be able to live. Generally, when you are talking about aborting the baby to save the mother, the baby wouldn't have lived anyway. The baby can't survive without the mother, after all. (And in cases where the baby can survive outside the mother, then a c-section can be emplyed to save both their lives). So it's not a choice of saving the mother or the baby, it's a choice of saving the mother or saving neither.
I guess our "tinfoil" is tuned to the same frequency today. We must have posted right on top of each other.
(1) It interrupts the normal course of events and is therefore outside of normal human procreation;
(2) It degrades the sexual act;
(3) It has been condemned as illicit since the first century;
(4) It degrades the human person; and, in the only point that is remotely relevant to this discussion, and the only point I feel like sparring on at all in this thread:
(5) It can lead to the death of a child who, though alive, cannot attach to the uterine wall and continue to live.
Women will only "inevitably" become pregnant if they "have sex." Not to be cute about this, but if they don't do the latter, they won't become the former.
I'm not forcing anyone to fill any "biological role." I'm saying accept the consequences of your acts, accept that acts have consequences, and act like a freaking adult.
Just to add on to everyone else's comments about female pro-life advocates...I am a female who is strongly, strongly, pro-life (not for religious reasons either..in fact, I used to be pro-choice) but I just don't have the energy to debate it on the internet.
I never thought of it as a woman vs. man issue.
FWIW, one can be pro-life and not have a problem with birth control. I think its more common in protestant circles, but conflating the two does not address the arguments of those who want to limit abortion to certain cases.
and not because of religion. Count me as one of them.
The unborn is the person who needs the protection of the government the most. The government is supposed to represent those who can't represent themselves.
The unborn is not yet an independant being because it cannot exist without the willingness of a mother to bring that life to term. That is a contract between mother and child in which the unborn has no say and neither should you, unless you are the father, and the government should certainly not be involved.
Your test for whether or not a baby is an independent human being is whether it can exist without her? So, does that mean that Scott Peterson should not have been guilty of second degree murder for killing Conner? After all, Conner was not yet born when Lacy was killed. Therefore, he couldn't have survived without her so was not a real human being. What about killing a newborn? The mother or someone else has to provide it with food for it to survive. Where is the difference there? Inside or outside the womb, the infant depends on the mother.
In the contract between a mother and child, the child should have something to say. The mother should not have the right to kill the child because it's not convenient for her to be pregnant.
You subscribe to a religion that proscribes contraception and would push for legislation to prevent women with foresight from using contraception to prevent pregnancy.
Okay, there you lost me. Are you saying that people are having abortions are getting pregnant because they are religious and can't use birth control? I haven't seen ANY legislation prohibiting access to birth control. Saving a life is another matter entirely.
that ban would force another to lose their life, in which case your law would allow for the taking of the first life? That sounds to me like you are selectively deciding when a life can be taken and when it cannot (and which one can be taken).
For the day.
You subscribe to a religion that proscribes contraception and would push for legislation to prevent women with foresight from using contraception to prevent pregnancy. Yet you claim to want people to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.
I subscribe to a Faith that teaches that the use of contraception is a grave error. I'm unaware of active lobbying by the Catholic Church to make birth control illegal. Curiously, there's no disparity between these things and my desire to have folks accept responsibility for their acts. But nice non sequitur. I love the chrome.
Be honest, you want sex to be all about procreation and not recreation and are willing to sacrifice the rights of living human beings, women, for the rights of the unborn.
Yes, and I want posters who use mangled forms of beloved cartoon character names for their posting handles stoned to death.
Actually, the "sex being all about procreation and not recreation" is a great, old anti-Catholic slur. I commend you to The Meaning of Life which had, ahem, a much more nuanced take on these things.
I'm willing to sacrifice my right to kill you in cold blood for your right to life. Why shouldn't I be willing to do the same for someone much cuter than you?
You may be willing to make the exchange, I am not, and I am particularly concerned that the government not get into the business of legislating private morality.
Then you won't mind when I kill you, I suppose. After all, what's really at stake is my private morality.
The unborn is not yet an independant being because it cannot exist without the willingness of a mother to bring that life to term.
Interesting idea. So if you woke up attached to someone else, your life dependent on his whim, and he wanted to kill you, you're ok with that?
That is a contract between mother and child in which the unborn has no say and neither should you, unless you are the father, and the government should certainly not be involved.
(1) Then it's not really a contract then, is it? Or do you allege that there is mutually bargained for consideration, but that once that consideration (whatever it is) is made, the unborn child loses the right to leave or exercise its rights under the contract? Because if you're doing that, it's an adhesion contract, construed against the drafter (the mother), and the kid gets a free ride. Thanks for playing.
(2) Actually, the government's first duty is to protect life. Keep trying.
(3) At any rate, you've simply made bald assertions without any supporting logic. Wanna fill the rest of us in?
The level of greatest simplicity. You insist on reading something that's not there. I can't help you with that.
I guess what I was getting at was, at least to me, the two are interrelated. Ultimately, despite vigorous assertions to the contrary, there is an element of gender control in the fight over procreation. Needless to say, I have a very different take on human sexuality than Thomas does.
between the mother and the baby. You're making a choice between the mother and neither. If the mother dies, then the baby will die too. If the baby could survive without the mother, then it wouldn't be an abortion because the baby would be kept alive.
On what basis are you pro-life (I assume you mean abortion should be illegal under all circumstances) if not out of religious conviction? I can understand, although I disagree with a absolutist religious, pro-life stance. But how do you base a pro-life position on a non-religious basis? I can defend being pro-choice as a result of my staunch agnosticism. I don't know when a fetus becomes a human being and I certainly don't think it is the government's place to make such a complicated philosophical decision.
The government is supposed to represent those who can't represent themselves.
This deserves Thomas's snarky reply from another thread. Suffice to say life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not establish the primacy of the unborn over the life of the mother and by life I mean to include liberty and happiness for the mother.
Scott Peterson? a good example of aggravated circumstances entirely in line with proposed hate crime legislation to protect gays, not surprisingly denounced by conservatives.
birth control?
Google Catholic church, and pay close attention to the posts of Thomas, Trevino et al on the subject. They prefer their women on the twin horns of a dilema to wit no conraception and no abortion, I do not.
die upon delivery. That fits the situation I think.
tell me if I did.
that is almost never the situation. If a normal delivery is what endangers a woman, a Ceaesarian can be done. Most therapeutic abortions by far involve situations like ectopic pregnancies where there is already no possibility that the child can survive
there is a procedure called a c-section that is used if the mother would be in danger upon delivery.
Anyone who properly exercises his natural reason.
I think when voting happens, most social conservatives I know are moved by abortion more than gay marriage (but those are not the only two either). I just think the media likes to play up gay marriage because it can be spun as conservative intolerance whereas abortion would require them to show photos of unborn children and explain why killing them is acceptable.
The pro-choicers on this thread did. Augustine made no mention of Christianity in his piece, and on my reading, none of the other pro-lifers have brought it up either.
The pro-life position is one that can be arrived at by the proper functioning of man's natural reason. It does not require the assistance of revelation.
The same can be said for the great bulk of the vexing "culture war" issues of our day. It is simply an effective debating tactic of some to assume that religion is the only basis for these positions.
For one, your definition of pro-life is majorly skewed. Many people consider themselves pro-life and think abortion should be legal in some cases (rape, incest and life of the mother).
I became pro-life while still an agnostic. If we don't know when life begins we should error on the side of life. Do you support a parent's right to kill a three week old child? There is not scientific way to differentiate that from a 8 month unborn child. We nevertheless outlaw killing three week old children. Allowing a more powerful parent to decide when another life begins puts the vulnerable unborn child at risk.
Life begins before birth. Whether it is a beating heart, a pulse, or a certain shape, none of those factors occur at the moment of birth. The question is when that life deserves the same rights as every other American. I choose to error on the side of life until science can show that the unborn child is not alive. I don't think parents should be allowed to harm their children; abortion is just one occurance of that problem.
I expected nothing less.
You subscribe to a faith, Catholicism, which refuses to countenance the use of contraception as a practical means to improve the lives of women and families throughout the third world by allowing them to control family size and as a solution to the Aids epedemic. You subscribe to a political philosophy that has spawned an administration in agreement with this 'family planning' agenda, at least as it can be applied to the third world through governmental aid. Why should I( not conclude that ypu wouldn't countenance the same practice here in the USA, should the opportunity prevail?
Leave the legal mumbo jumbo for your colleagues at the federalists, or wherever, it cuts no ice with me. For I live in the real world, not Bushworld, though I do live in a redstate though it pains me to inform.
I won't discuss abortion here except to observe that abortion seems to creep into many threads here at Redstate.
Lately I've seen abortion brought into discussions on Mrs. Shavio, judical nominations, the pope, morals, "serious challenge to Redstate" a why are you Republicans thread, the filibuster,
"dKos scares me sometimes", Hillary Clinton, "Baptists v. Catholics - Help me out", and "Judges... The New KKK... according to Dr. Dobson".
Many of these threads more amoung the most popular on Redstate (received many comments)
I draw no conclusions here, just my observations.
It is probably the biggest moral question in the political sphere today. Most pro-lifers are facing an issue they believe kills roughly 1,000,000 innocent lives each year. This is no death penalty or gay marriage or prayer in school or educational reform issue. It's a major life and death issue with ramifications on a scale of any major genocide or the holocaust. I think it is quite understandable why it is a major issue that won't go away.
from the pro-life side of the debate all those who arrive at that position because of religious conviction we would be left with what?
That it is possible to reach the pro-life position from an agnostic one doesn't make it the rule or negate the fact that the pro-life side of the debate is controlled and orchestrated by the religious right. I can't believe I am having to point this out, it's so obvious, I realize now why no-one else has bothered to point it out to you.
and by life I mean to include liberty and happiness for the mother.
But life is just that, life. It does NOT include liberty and happiness. I see NO case where the life of one person should be subjugated to the liberty and happiness of another.
Google Catholic church, and pay close attention to the posts of Thomas, Trevino et al on the subject. They prefer their women on the twin horns of a dilema to wit no conraception and no abortion, I do not.
Nor do I. The Catholic Church is not the Congress. There are NO LAWS that proscribe birth control, only a mandate from the Pope that applies only to Catholics. Saying that abortion should be a matter of convenience just because someone who is a Catholic can't use birth control is stupid at best.
Scott Peterson? a good example of aggravated circumstances entirely in line with proposed hate crime legislation to protect gays, not surprisingly denounced by conservatives.
Hate crimes? How does Scott Peterson fit the definition of hate crime? Was Lacy or Conner a minority?
I oppose hate crime legislation because it is not necessary and more importantly treats people unequally under the law. Crime is crime, and it should be prosecuted equally irregardless of the race of the victim or the accuser. Why should writing ethnic slurs on someone's front porch be punished more than any other type of vandalism? Why should a white man killing a white man be punished any less than a white man killing a black man? Plus, hate crimes, according to the hate crime laws, can only be perpertated against a minority. Why should a black man attacking a white man because of his race be treated less stingently than a white man attacking a black man because of his race? And how do you prove motive? Is it just assumed to be a hate crime if there is white criminal and a minority victim?
Leave the legal mumbo jumbo for your colleagues at the federalists, or wherever, it cuts no ice with me. For I live in the real world, not Bushworld, though I do live in a redstate though it pains me to inform.
How are we to take your opinions here seriously, as Thomas has endeavored to do, when you take this path?
It is not sophistry, merely because you don't understand. I commend you to a dictionary.
You subscribe to a faith, Catholicism, which refuses to countenance the use of contraception as a practical means to improve the lives of women and families throughout the third world by allowing them to control family size and as a solution to the Aids epedemic.
You subscribe to a category error that no amount of argument can overcome, and a skewed perception of the world that makes this argument pointless. And, you can't spell. Next.
You subscribe to a political philosophy that has spawned an administration in agreement with this 'family planning' agenda, at least as it can be applied to the third world through governmental aid.
Oh, I would to God that were true.
Why should I( not conclude that ypu wouldn't countenance the same practice here in the USA, should the opportunity prevail?
Why should I try to prove or disprove a negative to someone caught in a categorical error?
Leave the legal mumbo jumbo for your colleagues at the federalists, or wherever, it cuts no ice with me.
I suspect that the use of English grammar gives you as many headaches.
For I live in the real world, not Bushworld, though I do live in a redstate though it pains me to inform.
Neighbor, of all the things I can say about you, "living in the real world" is clearly not one of them.
Ta ta.
You seem to imply that abstinence is ineffective at curbing AIDS and controlling family size? Are you shilling for a pharmacorp, or are you upset with the idea that people ought to exercise will to overcome desires the fulfillment of which entails potentially deleterious consequences to themselves or others? Is it so much to suggest that one ought be willing to suffer some 'indignity' for the sake of someone else?
Your point is exactly right, Paul. "Why do you believe X? Well, it must be because of religion. Therefore, we can ignore it."
It reminds me of Twain's old line: "In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."
Do you support a parent's right to kill a three week old child? There is not scientific way to differentiate that from a 8 month unborn child.
One is born, a process that involves a mindful decision by the mother to procure certainly more mindful than a decision to have sex, the other is not. Not sure how 'scientific' that is, but it sure is diffinitive.
Perhaps it's the relative mindfulness of the decision to have sex and the decision to carry a child to term you have problems with. Fine, I can see the moral argument for that, so let's have some legislative proposals to deal with the problem of women seeking sex for purposes other than procreation. You own the House, the Senate and the Presidency, should be a snip. So have at it!
I see NO case where the life of one person should be subjugated to the liberty and happiness of another.
Because the two lives are bound inextricably together by simple biology. Without one you cannot have the other and to infer primacy of the fetus over the mother is to subvert the liberty and happiness of the mother.
It is the only case mind, a function of biology not sophistry.
But I definitely defend the choice of people to choose when they have children and at the same time enjoy sex. I am using contraception like a banshee almost four years into marriage, and will do so until Leigh and I decide to have children. Abstinence is great if that's what you want to do, but don't insist on it as being the only responsible position. For the purposes of this thread, I was only trying to point out that I connect abortion and birth control as interlocked issues regarding procreation and the role of women in society.
Tend to be the ones who care the most about stopping evil acts.
This surprises you - why?
I never denied that the pro-life movement is largely composed of believers; what I did deny is that one must have religion to be pro-life.
It is a little strange to be lectured about a point I never made.
As I talked about my position and perspective on this more than enough on Monday.
this sentence:
"I choose to error on the side of life until science can show that the unborn child is not alive."
Is a perfect example of either a poor (or clever, depending on your motive) choice of words to define the debate. If you are actually open to thinking about the problem, its a poor choice of words, if you are simply trying to spin your perspective as persuasively as possible, its clever. I will not try to devine your motives.
The fetus is alive. A single celled fertalized (or unfertalized!) egg is alive. A white blood cell is alive. A sperm cell is alive. Science will never 'show' that the 'unborn child is not alive' because that isn't really the question is it? The question is, do you consider a fetus a human being with the same rights as a human being and if so, when do you make that distinction.
The question is not "is it alive" nor is it "is it human life". The question is, should it have the same rights as you and I and if so, when?
My only post in this thread. Debate if you want.
When applied.
However I am conversant enough with human nature to realize that it will not be applied, thus my concern that the morality of allowing practical solutions to solve real problems is consistently trumped by impractical theological morality proposed by religion and my government.
Just think of what the abortion looks like. They show operations all the time on the Discovery Health Channel. They show emergency room surgeries, liposuction, huge tumors being cut out...would you care to watch an abortion? It's a little bloody baby, not fully formed maybe, but with little tiny hands, feet and head, and it wriggles and fights back. Can you hazard a guess as to why this would be peculiarly revolting? (Clue: It's not in Leviticus.)
We all seem to have this strange predisposition to favor life over death, and fight for our own lives the way any living creature does, a mouse in a trap or a rainbow trout on a hook...so, is it going overboard to project this desire to live on a being-in-utero? So where do we get off taking its life away?
The only thing Christianity adds is that human life has precedence over all other animal life. (Of course, there are many who don't buy it. In fact, it's fair to say the lives of the other animals have been elevated over our own in a perversion of Christian humility.)
Tend to be the ones frequently hoisted by their own petard, unsurprisingly.
You know, when it's framed like that, as a genocide or "holocaust," I can only wonder at whether that's what's really meant. We bomb countries that commit those acts, at least if the victimized populace is European. If that's what "the majority" of pro-lifers really think, they seem rather effete in their efforts to stop it. I think Thomas has passed off something about nothing good comes of evil, but I also believe he's the one that has pictures of Bergen-Belsen under the caption "who says war is good for nothing?"
I think it is overheated rhetoric that can and has lead to bad things happening. I can understand why it is a major issue and won't go away. Even if Roe was abandoned and insituted abstinence until marriage as a law, the issue of abortion won't go away.
Really are a waste of time, in my opinion.
At conception, what exists genetically is a living and complete human. Not an organ, a cell, or a fingernail; not bark on a tree or grass clippings, or any of the other logical leaps that some like to throw around as equivalent. At the earliest stage of existence, we are talking about a complete and unique human being who is alive - and therefore, a human life.
If you would like to make a distinction between a human life and the societally defined quality of "personhood" - as in, whether that human life deserves the same rights and protections, whether the law should acknowlege the existence of this unborn life, or whether the child has value and worth - that is one course to take. It is one that many ethicists do take.
The lessons of history, in my mind at least, show that course to be dangerous and inherently wrong.
apparently believe two incredibly implausible things: 1. That people have the right to have the pleasures of sex without experiencing any of the natural consequences, and that it is therefore the duty of the state to "make it so". Heady metaphysical stuff you're smoking there. 2. That Christian Churches are under some sort of undefined obligation to sanctify violations of their ancient moral teachings. Again, heady metaphysical stuff you're smoking there.
I submit that in all of the interminable philosophical disputes since philosophy became an intellectually decadent discipline (probably within 200 years of Aquinas' death, actually), no one has suceeded in providing even the semblance of a foundation for such grotesqueries.
Was that a profanity warning? I certainly din't mean to offend and if I did so, I humbly apologize. Or was it just watch out for unexpected kids? Just want to know if my knuckles have been rapped - I try to play by the rules as much as possible...
who are not deeply religious. It comes from respecting the rights of other people. I believe that an unborn child is a human being and has the same rights under the Constitution of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As to when a fetus becomes a human being, science shows that once fertilization occurs, you will get development into a human being. If there is no fertization, no human being. Pretty easy line to draw.
Even John Kerry says that life begins at conception.
Jennings: "You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?"Kerry: "My belief, just my, my, my personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process as a, as a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins.
He just thinks it's okay to kill the child if the mother finds it inconvenient.
Jennings: "Could you explain to me: What do you mean when you say 'life begins at conception'?"
Kerry: "Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established -- is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I -- you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard."
Jennings: "If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?"
Kerry: "No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins.
In other words, life begins at conception, but it's not a human life. Maybe it's a Paramecium or Escherichia coli. Although I only have 15 years of college studying biology, from what little I've learned, a fertilized human zygote always ends up becoming a human, unless of course it's aborted.
maybe it's not the duty of the state to "make it so," but rather not an interest of the state in general.
I'm willing to sacrifice my right to kill you in cold blood for your right to life. Why shouldn't I be willing to do the same for someone much cuter than you?
Then you won't mind when I kill you, I suppose. After all, what's really at stake is my private morality.
Interesting idea. So if you woke up attached to someone else, your life dependent on his whim, and he wanted to kill you, you're ok with that?
Sophistry - A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
Plausable - Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
Oh, I would to God that were true.
It's just as true if they tried to enshrine this in UN policy even if they don't succeed and US aid is restricted to programs that exclude abortion or family planning intervention.
Is no more your strong suit than is spelling, I see.
you have to die because your mommy doesn't want to get fat for a couple of months.
I don't think so.
In NO case should a life be subject to another's pursuit of happiness. I'm not even talking about liberty here. The question is not whether there should be a primacy of the mother over the fetus. The baby is not being given any rights the mother doesn't have, so it's not an issue of primacy. The question is what about the baby's civil rights to LIFE, libery, and the pursuit of happiness? There is no clause in the 14th ammendment that says "unless your mommy doesn't love you."
Faith, as they say, is the ability to discount reason for a belief we know to be untrue.
Have a nice life!
Or are you only agnostic on some things?
the notion that it is not the interest of the state in general to interfere in private decisions to manipulate the natural order, irrespective of any deleterious consequences or violations that may ensue, has never been established as a precept, principle, postulate or maxim of some rational morality which, when comprehended, cannot be denied by any rational person. Rights claims in this area have the character of wishes or wants, rhetorical sleights of hand by which the liberal-leaning endeavour to equate their policy preferences with the deliverances of pure reason.
Is doing the same thing over and over again when a rational person would know it won't work.
Bye.
Although I only have 15 years of college studying biology, from what little I've learned, a fertilized human zygote always ends up becoming a human, unless of course it's aborted.
Only 15 - what a slacker. :)
First (and again), not all pro-lifers have a problem of sex as recreation (um, in fact, many are all for it...). However "not mindful" one may be when making that decision, however, one's action has consequences. If one does not want to get pregnant by accident, don't have sex. It's not that hard.
I've seen anecdotally cases of teenagers who either don't know or who mentally can't deal with the fact that they are pregnant, and so they block it out until the moment they give birth. If the baby is born, alive, then it is illegal for that girl to kill the child. Until we know definitively when life begins, why shouldn't it be illegal to kill a child still in the womb?
I was pro-choice when I still framed the debate in terms of the adults or teenagers involved. I still feel for girls, including close friends of mine, who are raped or even those who were just stupid one night and now have to deal with something they never really thought about. However, as soon as someone actually made me think about the consequences for the child, I began to reevaluate my beliefs. Where do you draw the line between a life and "just a fetus"? THAT's what the debate should be about, not "women's rights", or "a choice"...and until we figure it out, I believe we should err on the side of caution.
Although I only have 15 years of college studying biology, from what little I've learned, a fertilized human zygote always ends up becoming a human, unless of course it's aborted.
So they didn't mention miscarriages in college biology? Maybe they get to those in the 16th year.
What I guess you mean to say is that a zygote, in your opinion, is already a human. Although in that case it's odd that you said "ends up becoming a human." That makes it sound like you think there's a difference between a zygote and a human.
I am always amazed at conservative arguments over abortion and yet I never hear such commitment from them for the living. The major religions do not agree when life starts and 1 out of 4 or possible more conceptions are discarded. Every 2 seconds a child dies of malnutrition in the world. I have never heard arguments or protests that poor living standards matter, or nutrition matters from the right, it is always about a sort of abstraction. The argument is that cells will become a child also says that those cells will die. I am not pro abortion, but I think the living child matters too and do we not have a responsibility to them too?
If John Kerry believes life begins at conception it must be true. Even if I concede that "life begins at conception", I really have no idea what that means.
You say that being pro-life comes from respecting the rights of other people. But from conception until at least the point of viability the fetus cannot survive without the cooperation of the Mother. If nothing else she can always terminate the pregnancy by killing herself. So at some point even the most hard-line pro-lifer will have to admit that there will be situations where someone will have to decide between the life of the mother and the child, maybe even to prevent the mother from committing suicide (and if you don't think that depression is a sometimes fatal illness, then you are not living in the real world).
According to this very informative study, the reasons women in the United States chose abortions in 1988 broke down like this:
- 25.5% Wants to postpone childbearing
- 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
- 14.1% Partner doesn't want (or 'relationship problem')
- 12.2% Too young/parents object
- 10.8% Child would disrupt education/job
- 7.9% Wants no more children
- 3.3% Risk to fetal health
- 2.8% Risk to maternal health
- 2.1% Other
Clearly in the US abortion is overwhelmingly an economic and lifestyle choice. I appreciate the terrible situation that mothers are placed in when their health is threatened or they are pregnant as a result of rape, but let's deal with the 95% case before overhwhelming the discussion with the exception, shall we?
I also have a question for the rest of the pro-life contingent. I count myself in that number (and without being a Christian, to add to another discussion) insomuch as I believe abortion should be tightly restricted and should require full disclosure both to parents and to legal authorities, but I acknowledge something like a spectrum of rights or a spectrum of life between conception and birth. For those who do not, meaning those who claim to believe that an abortion at any time is ethically equivalent to the murder of a born child, have you fully considered the consequences of your belief?
If you heard that there was a house on the corner wherein children. . preschoolers say, were being executed daily by gunshot, what would you do? Would anyone who was not a coward do anything with their life other than try to stop that outrage by any means necessary? With sacrifice, if that's what it took?
There are a handful of people who believe fully in the equivalence. They tend to shoot doctors or bomb clinics, but they are in small minority. For the others, are you exaggerating the equivalence. . do you acknowledge that an abortion is not morally equivalent to the murder of a child, or are you really just standing by and letting that happen?
....improve the lives of women and families throughout the third world by allowing them to control family size....
Good God. Been to the Third World? No? It shows. Let me clue you in, here: as a rule of thumb, small families would not improve life in the Third World. Children are, after a certain age, economically productive and, later, means of support.
Remind me to tell you sometime about my trip to Africa on HIV/AIDS work. Make that two trips. No, three.
If you haven't seen conservative commitment to the living, it's because you haven't been paying attention.
If the residents of the third world don't follow the church's teachings on abstinence and fidelity (which is a cause of the AIDS epidemic), then why is it so horrible that the church also teaches against birth control? Are there really large numbers of Catholics in Africa going, gee, I'm going to have sex with people I'm not married to, but doggone it, the church says I can't use a condom, so I won't? If they're going to break a commandment or two, why would you expect them to follow papal pronouncements?
to use condoms but the availability of condoms.
As if you didn't know.
Elsewhere in the thread.
In the first place, what I stated is a very common criticism I have heard of the Catholic Church in recent weeks.
In the second place, who has prohibited or failed to fund providing condoms to the Third World? U.S. aid is general conditioned on not being used to perform abortions, but I'm not aware of any restriction which would keep U.S. aid money from being used to purchase and distribute condoms.
In a single province in South Africa in 2002, USAID helped provide some four million condoms. In fact, the U.S. has been criticized for favoring condoms over promoting abstinence and other programs which had proven successful in Uganda.
From Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2004
The Politics of AIDS: Engaging Conservative Activists
"The involvement of conservative groups in shaping AIDS policy has been most problematic in the area of general AIDS-prevention strategies, where their distinct sexual mores have led them to dissent from what most others consider medical best practice. For example, since condoms, if used properly and consistently, are at least 90 percent effective in preventing AIDS transmission, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has quietly provided millions of them annually to AIDS-stricken countries. Now that religious conservatives have taken up the AIDS cause, however, such programs have come under attack. Thus the Family Research Council has insisted that the Bush administration's AIDS plan not become "an airlift for condoms," while conservative religious groups convened by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) have taken aim at various prevention programs that the plan had considered funding. By the time legislation implementing the president's vision -- the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 -- was completed, conservatives in the House had succeeded in redirecting one-third of its AIDS-prevention funding toward programs urging abstinence before marriage."
Read the whole article (which is generally positive).
Read the article I linked to, which provided data to show that providing condoms instead of abstinence programs undermined successful efforts in Uganda.
Even with the redistribution of funds you discuss, we're still, under President Bush's leadership, distributing millions upon millions of condoms in Africa.
precisely because of the Uganda example you are using. It continues:
"The conservatives are inspired by Uganda's "ABC" (Abstinence, Be Faithful, and Use Condoms) program, which has helped lower prevalence dramatically, and are particular fans of its A and B components, which, if faithfully adopted, might offer nearly total AIDS protection. As Chuck Colson and William Bennett of the organization Empower America argued in a recent essay, "African nations that promoted condom use alone, and which have the highest condom user rates on the continent ... also suffer the highest HIV prevalence rates. Clearly, condoms must no longer be considered the first line of defense against HIV. ..."
Unfortunately, however, scientific evaluation and medical surveillance paint a different picture. Studies of Ugandan AIDS prevalence that try to assess the relative contributions of abstinence, multiple-partner reduction, and condom use in lowering infection rates have found that abstinence actually made the smallest contribution, while condoms and partner reduction had the largest impact. David Serwadda, a Ugandan physician who chairs the Global HIV Prevention Working Group, has stated, "As a physician who has been involved in Uganda's response to AIDS for 20 years, I fear that one small part of what led to Uganda's success -- promoting sexual abstinence -- is being overemphasized in policy debates."
have 2 lovely accomplished daughters.
We have had a loving intimate relationship for 24 years. I will tell you as a woman, our private life would have been very different without birth control. If evey intimate moment carried the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy, there would have been exactly 2 intimate moments.
(1) I never "passed off" anything of the sort. It's sort of an elementary Christian teaching.
(2) I'm flattered that you wandered your way over to that post. That was a looong time ago.
(3) Violent insurrection against the lawful sovereign is, unfortunately, an attractive response to what is undeniably the state sanctioned murder of millions. That does not make it any less wrong.
(4) We're not responsible for every lunatic who gets it in his head to take justice in his own hands, any more than your side is for having a church sprayed with bullets.
(5) Maybe abortion wouldn't go away, but the numbers would go down. It's a start.
the type of comment that would get heavy criticism from the RedState.org brass if it was made by a more liberal poster. While I certainly don't agree with 90% of the posters on this site, I still continue to come back day after day because there is some level of intelligent debate. My only complaint is the superior attitude that many choose to take by making sarcastic or utterly dismissive comments. Asking someone how the weather in Candyland is brings nothing at all to the arguement and serves only to put someone else's opinion down in an unconstructive way.
Of course, my wife tells me, as a woman, that every intimate moment does not in fact carry the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy. I have consulted a broad array of biology textbooks, and it looks like she's right.
Of course, insofar as every one would: Actions->Consequences.
is taught by the Roman Catholic Church alone (of major religious denominations). It is, as such, a point of sectarian morality, like Jews not eating pork or Mormons avoiding caffeine, and as such is not a proper matter for public policy debate that applies to all persons.
So they didn't mention miscarriages in college biology? Maybe they get to those in the 16th year.
Miscarriages? No, never heard of having an intentional miscarraige. I was under the assumption we were talking about abortion, not accidental death, which can occur anywhere and any time.
That makes it sound like you think there's a difference between a zygote and a human.
Yeah, size.
at some point the child would die without the mother. What's the point? That makes it okay to kill them? My 1 year old relies on someone to feed him. That makes it okay to kill him if he gets to be inconveninet?
You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness UNTIL IT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER PERSON. That's basically the fundimental axiom our criminal code began with.
The mother has the right to her life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness, but her pursuit of happiness should not put another life at risk.
Depression can be treated with counselling, etc. You don't need to kill another person to do it. I'm depressed because my child is needy. Kill it.
to try and equate policy preferences with the deliverance of pure reason. I suppose you're saying conservative policy preferences are the deliverance of pure reason...curious.
Actually, on second thought, predictable.
Humanity is most noted for its manipulations of the natural order, with or without state interest. Our works are by definition unnatural, manmade.
Nothing good comes from evil may be an elementary Christian teaching, but Just War is also a Christian concept. If the United State rounded up Jews and put them in gas chambers, I would hope we would have some serious violent insurrection on our hands. If a tribe of secular humanists took machetes and started hacking off limbs of Mormons while the Army looked on, we would have violent insurrection. If our government started shipping off politically inconvenient people to ANWR work camps where they were executed, I hope we would have violent insurrection. You cannot believe that the Lawful sovereign has the right to conduct the most heinous of human activities so long as it is legitimated by votes. I think the Hutus had the votes in Rwanda....
My point is that if I believed we had an actual holocaust going on in this country, I don't think the appropriate method of "fixing" that problem is judicial nominations and Senate votes, for crying out loud. Think about it. I'm not arguing that the pro-life movement should engage in violence, I'm saying if you really believe what you say, that this country is actively conducting a holocaust or genocide, you would engage in violent opposition. I'm trying to persuade you that the abortion-holocaust thing is sloppy, lazy, dangerous rhetoric.
still proves that you can make a comment about anything on the fly
and pure reason was presupposed. Conservatism does not require a belief in a set of pure, timeless truths derived from the exercise of pure reason, abstracted from all historical experience; that is an enlightenment chimera.
Your last sentence involves the fallacy of accident; it does not follow from the general fact that human beings modify nature that the specific modifications of nature involved in the manipulation or thwarting of the process of reproduction are rationally justified. In fact, were that latter notion to be justified, it would have to be justified on the basis of the establishment of some doctrine of extreme individualism as a truth which a rational man could not refuse. And that would require a doctrine of "rationality" that.... a rational man could not refuse.
They've been trying this BS since the enlightenment and haven't pulled it off yet; it ain't gonna happen now, either.
Predictable.
would complete the overall pompous effect of lecturing about logical fallacies.
I did not read your post to be limited to reproduction, but rather natural order. I took that to be much broader than merely reproduction.
I will let you try to undo the effects of the nefarious enlightment without further ado.
Assume a broader context than the immediate one, without justification, draw a general conclusion, and apply it to the specific context at hand. Mock efforts to point out faulty reasoning and observations to the effect that the enlightenment project of grounding a rational morality failed. Am I supposed to cower before a sneer?
But you might try to make your prose a little less turgid, for readability's sake alone.
I can exchange those all day long. Cowering is in general bad practice, so I don't recommend it to you.
I'm don't think my assumption was without justification. But I accept your explanation that my assumption was wrong, because they are your words and your meaning. I've had enough drawn out fights trying to explain to people that despite the meaning they gleaned from my words, that was not my orininal intended meaning.
I've seen you pull out your logical fallacy card before, and I think the behavior deserves to be mocked for pomposity. I'm sure you disagree. But logic is not the exclusive preserve of conservatism, and you are not its final arbiter. The sneering, if that is what you wish to call it, begins there.
that faulty reasoning contains more than its fair measure of pomposity.
I never claimed that logic was the exclusive possession of conservatism, and, as I have never asserted the right to define my own conception of meaning, the universe and morality, I am surely not its arbiter, so if you're not conceding yet another unwarranted assumption, you have no grounds to begin sneering.
I'll play the logic card whenever someone in a discussion of interest to me fudges logic to conceal his assumptions and equate his doctrines with reason itself. And for the record, I don't sneer at illogical or faulty arguments; I wish that liberals would put together more cogent articulations of their doctrines. In the case at hand, I'm not much impressed when liberals assume some version of individualism particular mainly to the late twentieth century, and utilize it as a fulcrum to roll away anything they happen to sneer at. To return to the posts which occasioned this little dustup: I'd really like to see an attempt, on the part of liberals, to articulate a rational and commanding defense of the thesis that religious bodies such as the Catholic Church are under some transcendent obligation to endorse violations of their sexual ethic, merely because some people just really want to violate it. Because that is what would have to obtain were all the idiotic sneering over the refusal of the Church to endorse condoms, gay sex, etc. to be justified.
The problem is the relation of the sovereign to the act. Insofar as the government of the United States is actively engaging in this mass slaughter, then there is a very cogent argument for violent insurrection. It is giving state sanction, however, not making itself out as an active participant.
Look, you want to know the big problem here, you, me, and whoever reads this comment? I'm aware that the logic you propose is actually extraordinarily seductive. It resonates. Let's say I've found it alluring from time to time and leave it at that. The problem is that it's ultimately counterproductive to the end desired, and as a matter of faith, possibly a fairly grave sin, because you wouldn't be taking up arms against the sovereign, you'd be taking them up against the individuals undertaking the slaughter one by one. I have no desire to see a civil war in my lifetime -- and this would be a real civil war, anarchy, with communities turned in on themselves and blood everywhere. And, because abortion is undeniably the mass killing of innocents, it would be way too easy to justify.
But seductive though it might be, it is unequivocally wrong. John Brown was not a hero.
That a fetus depends solely on one person for its survival. Your 1 year old depends on you for his survival, but any number of people (billions actually) can take care of him. For any single fetus, there is one and only one person that can sustain that fetus (until someone perfects a fetal transplant). As such there is a conflict between the rights of the pregnant woman and the fetus.
Even if you eliminate all elective abortions there are going to be situations where the rights of the mother and the fetus conflict. The aim of the pro-life movement appears to now be define life, and full constitutional protection, at the moment of conception. This is an unworkable solution. Even if it would produce the desired resulted of eliminating elective abortions there would be all kinds of real-world negative effects on women (those 5% who get medically necessary abortions).
That it would be wrong, for this issue. I think it would be right if we were executing Jews in death camps outside Baltimore. That's why the practice of referring to legalized abortion in this country as a holocaust or genocide serves no one well.
John Brown was wrong. He and his goons inflicted indiscriminate slaughter on Kansans suspected of pro-slavery positions. His gang gloried in the violence up to the bitter end at Harper's Ferry. But the civil war wasn't, was it? Tragic, avoidable, but not wrong in the sense that there was moral justification for the North's actions.
Lawless slaughter would be wrong here. I'm not prepared to say that a civil war to end legalized abortion would be morally wrong.
And I don't think it's inappropriate to refer to an ongoing mass murder as a holocaust. Just because some folks might take it the wrong way doesn't mean those of us who use accurate terminology are responsible -- like I said before, any more than your side of the aisle is if some nutcase sprays bullets into a Baptist church because he's afraid the Religious Right is trying to control him.
Nuts are nuts. The rhetoric is dangerous not just for influencing screwballs, but in twisting the discussion into something unrecognizable.
I think we have reached another agree to disagree moment. I think the difference here is state action; the death camps were an organ of the state, abortion clinics are private enterprise.
I maintain using the term holocaust is at best inaccurate, and moreover, the use both cheapens the term and implies a greater call for action than I think you and others actually intend. An active holocaust, IMHO, demands whatever steps necessary to bring an immediate end to it, not patiently waiting for the system to work. Using the term holocause here either calls for violent resistance or it cheapens the term.
Unless you think the Germans would have fulfilled their moral obligation by protesting outside Auschwitz and petitioning the Reichstag that Hitler appointed too many activists Gestapo agents.
I don't think I slept enough last night. That last post is a little repetitive. Apologies. Also, for others reading, please know I'm not trying to offend.
Agree to disagree that is, for a host of reasons.
I didn't take any offense.
where the rights of ANY two individuals conflict. I could have a great life if I were able to take the money that other people earn and spend it on myself. But that would be infringing on the property rights of others, so my rights end.
I realize that that argument could be turned around to say that the baby is infringing on the rights of the mother, but abortion infringes on the rights of the baby in a much more extreme fashion and therefore is not allowed in most cases.
For example, if you are being threatened by someone who does not have a weapon, you are not allowed to draw a gun and shoot them. That would be considered unreasonable force.
Killing a baby is exactly the same. The baby does not threaten the life of the mother, so therefor taking it's life is unreasonable force. Now, if the baby threatens the life of the mother (in other words, medical necessity) that's another matter. But not having to put up with a couple of months of being fat and uncomfortable is NOT worth a life. Particularly MOST of time the woman chose to engage in the act that got them pregnant in the first place.
In the cases of incest (extremely rare) or rape (still rare although not as much), I still have a problem killing someone over a few months of inconvenience. I think that the responsible person, in additoin to jail time, should be required to pay all medical bills, adoption fees (if the mother wants to give the baby up for adoption), and an inconvenience fee in the terms of lost wages or whatever.
The bottom line is KILLING is an inapproriate response to a couple of months of inconvenience.
And I commend you for that but can everyone do that? This is so common in conservative thinking that it astounds me, "if I did it it is possible." But really not recognizing that just maybe that doesn't apply to all people or to all situations. I can easily say I made it why didn't you? But life is much more complicated and institutional or government support does things not possible by the individual or the small group.