I’ve been extremely hesitant to bring this issue up here for a number of reasons. One, I think discussion on this topic has been dominated by men and I don’t want to simply add my noise thus drowning out the women whose voices are so important on this issue. Two, I’m not sure of my abilities to steer the conversation in a direction that keeps us away from the partisan political lines and fosters real geniune dialog. But, better to have tried and failed then to be silent and not screw this whole thing up (or something like that).
Here is what I’m proposing for the purpose of this discussion. We are going to take this in three parts. And will address each on a different day.
- Monday- The post and conversation will stipulate that life begins at birth.
- Wednesday- The post and conversation will stipulate that life begins at conception (fertilized egg)
- Thursday- The conversation will discuss when life begins (using the Christian scriptures as a reference and authority).
My hope is that this format will help us address some of the issues around the topic without getting into an emotional debate regarding when life begins (until Thursday). So, on with the discussion.
Much of my thoughts on the topic are up in the air, still shifting, not quite solid. But I do have a few I’m pretty sure about, and they mostly relate to the topic from my role as a male.
- I think men, on the whole, need to shut-up and yield the floor to women on the issue of abortion. For far too long women have had to fight for their rights, to vote, to their bodies, against discrimination and for fair pay. And though they have won many rights in theory, men continue to hog the conversation, even when it comes to issues centered around women and their bodies. It’s time for men to step aside and trust and support the women in their lives to make the right decision.
- And in the mean time, we need to seek to make women’s rights and fair protection a reality. We can start by fervently addressing domestic abuse and sexual assault which are vastly under-reported because of the stigma and shame and blaming the victim that occurs. We can make changes in our businesses and encourage others in our circles of influence, that support paid maternity leave and equal pay, that doesn’t discriminate against mothers who keep their children as a priority. We should make sure church and office policies support nursing mothers.
I think that might be enough for discussion. Remember keep in mind that regardless of your current opinion on when life begins, we are stipulating for the purpose of constructive dialog on this post that life begins at birth (not at conception).
If you stipulate that life begins at birth, then there is no discussion to be had over abortion, any more than there is a discussion over whether a woman may remove a tumor from her body.
I don’t think that any reasonable person thinks that life begins only at birth, not even the most strenuous proponent of abortion rights.
So, that is not where the action is at all in the abortion debate. The debate is over whether the unborn child/foetus/embyro/zygote has any rights, and if so, when and of what kind, and in what way the rights of the mother interact with those rights.
I think it is a sophism to say that men should be omitted from the debate over abortion, but even if you do, I think there are plenty of women who can carry the conversation on from either side of the debate.
Ok, Aaron broke rank first 🙂
Sorry, I am a man commenting, but I hope my sex can be overlooked because of the statement I am going to make.
There is a difference between morality and legislature. Everyone has heard the old statement, “You cannot legislate morality” and abortion is a prime example. I have had this discussion before with conservative “pro-life” people and here’s the bottom line, “If your daughter/wife/mother was raped, would you approve of abortion?” Most answer “of course…” and then continue with we could make allowances for this… But the bottom line is you either ALLOW or DISALLOW, that’s what laws are supposed to do. When a law is drafted that has language with loop holes, the law becomes either a red tape nightmare or total ineffective.
If there is ANY reason you would allow someone to have an abortion, then you CANNOT support a law banning abortion.
The subject of abortion for simply “unwanted pregnancy” is something that needs to be discussed in a moral context, which is the home and church. The “church” needs to do a better job of loving those that are pregnant and helping them make good decisions.
While I am a male, I am also a 42 year old grand father, I have a little insight 🙂
Aaron and Kev,
Thanks for chiming in (Kev, glad you can join us).
@Aaron, I think your right that most would agree that the fetus in the whom is “alive”, but I intended “life” to mean something along the lines of fully-human, full-person. Are you sure there are no reasonable person’s that would say life begins at birth? I recall meeting a few otherwise reasonable people who would disagree with you.
@Kev, Normally I would disagree with your statement, but after thinking it over, I think I agree with you when you said:
If there is ANY reason you would allow someone to have an abortion, then you CANNOT support a law banning abortion.
You have met “reasonable” people who think that a baby the day before it is born is not a fully alive, fully human, full person?
My point was that there really is no reasonable debate that babies at some point should have protection, or that abortion at some point in pregnancy needs restricting. Maybe you can find some person who thinks that an abortion at 8 months and 29 days is not murder and should be legal, but not even the NARAL crowd takes that position. All the action is over when in pregnancy abortion can take place.
The Roe v. Wade position is that states may restrict abortion in the third trimester, during which it is generally accepted that the baby is “viable”, meaning able to live outside the womb. [What’s a “whom”, and can babies live there?]
Under Roe, second trimester abortion can be restricted for reasons relating to the health of the mother, just like any other medical procedure can be restricted.
First trimester abortions may not be legally limited at all under Roe.
Aaron, clearly from my poor statements and spelling you can tell I was talking through my rear end. I guess I’ve made an assumption of people’s opinions, when they’ve said they don’t believe that “life” begins at conception I guess I assumed it meant they believe it begins at birth. Maybe this points to how shaped by the conservative perspective I grew up around my views have been on this issue.
I did not mean to hurt your feelings with the spelling snark.
I do think it is true though that even pro-choice ppl believe that pre-born babies get protection sometime. As I say, even Roe allows abortion to be outlawed in the third trimester, based on the science at the time that showed that babies born that early could live. Roe holds that whatever a baby is during the first 2 trimesters, a mother’s right not to be pregnant is superior to any interest the unborn baby has in not being killed.
Pro-lifers generally believe that life begins at, meaning to them “deserves protection at”, conception. Most will allow at least for abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy for example, because otherwise both the mother and baby would die. Those who would allow abortion in the case of rape or incest do so as a compromise in exchange for outlawing elective abortions in all other cases, which make up the majority of abortions.