Abortion: My personal experience

[RandFan]

I'm not saying there is nothing you can say. ... But there is no way to tell who is "correct" and who isn't

Dude that's what I meant.

...and no authority to appeal to to decide the issue when opinions conflict. We are who we are, we act how we act, we make judgments of ourselves and others, and we act upon them. We may be wrong about everything, but that doesn't mean we have to stop. We don't have an alternative but to proceed as best we think anyway.

And if most of us have the same ideas about what is best? Wouldn't it be reasonable to follow those ideas?

Why? What makes you think those things? It certain sounds nicer to raise children sheltered from things, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily better. It is nicer to live a comfortable life free of pain, but such a person is unlikely to create any great art. Better, or worse? It depends on what you consider important.

The word "nicer" sounds like a value judgment. Could we say that unnecessarily causing pain is not "nice"?

I understand your point. I really do. But it doesn't answer the pivotal question. Why should we harm someone for no reason? Would it be okay for me to harm you so I could have great art?

I don't get what you're trying to prove with that. They were attempting to pursue mass murder more efficiently. If you think efficiency is a good thing and mass murder a bad thing then, yes, you can pursue a good in order to commit a bad. Just because one activity is part of a larger one doesn't mean they have to have the same moral valuation. Death row inmates get medical care when they get sick, because it would be cruel to deny it to them, but they still get executed. Society frowns on causing animals unnecessary pain, but is perfectly okay with killing and eating them.

The Germans recognized that mass murder harmed their soldiers. That's all. Mass murder isn't conducive to a healthy society. It causes pathology and maladaptive behaviors.

• If most of us can live a life we like and want to live, good.
• If most of us can't live a life we like and want to live, bad.

Is there anything about either premise you disagree with?

Jesus. I never said you can't make value judgments, just that they aren't universal and they don't derive their correctness from outside forces, nor are can the correctness be assessed by scientific means. If I find a thing boring, that's my judgment and will affect my behavior. I don't need to convince anybody else that the topic is boring, I'm not interested in converting people to think like me. Why would I be?

Why did you bother to tell me about boredom? What if most people shared your judgement?

Important? Depends on the context. It would be important to know what most people think of certain behaviors if you are attempting to coexist with them peacefully. That doesn't mean they're right and you're wrong.

That is incoherent. If your goal is to live in peace, and there is a behavior that increases the likelihood of peace, why would that behavior be wrong?

As for what I personally believe, why would that matter to you? It only matters to me. As long as we all keep our behavior sufficiently in line with those around us (as far as they are aware of, anyway) to the point that they don't feel a need to interfere with our activities, who cares about anybody's morals?

I care no more than you do. In that we are in the very same boat.

 

[RandFan]

Sigh. I would never attempt to design a new society. Societies design themselves. I certainly wouldn't want the burden of telling other people how to live.

If you could devise the society democratically with others?

And your thought experiment doesn't tell you anything about my personal ideals for society because you state that I would be at risk of occupying the nastiest position I devise.

Mom: Share this candy bar with your brother.
Tom: How?
Mom: Cut it in half. However you will get the smaller piece.

How equitable do you think Tom will be in halving the candy bar?

Yes, you would be at risk but since you are the one designing it you could ensure that the nastiest place isn't as nasty as it could be (the candy bar isn't as small as it could be)

It's not a thought experiment to elicit people's true beliefs in the "best" society

It is as good as the candy bar. People don't want to be slaves. They don't want to be tortured. They prefer no pain to having pain.

...it's a Solomonic solution to try to convince people democracy and equality must be universal ideals because that's the choice with the least gamble in it in this scenario. But you can't tell whether people would pick that because they really think that's best or because they're not willing to gamble their own hides.

That makes no sense. How would you divide the candy bar and why?

Anyway, we probably are coming to an end of this discussion. I think you are at least beginning to understand my point. FWIW: I've argued your position dozens of times on this forum. There is not one single premise you are positing that I have not posited. Theists think morality absolute or objective in a way it simply cannot be.

You are arguing a bit of a different animal. You are saying there is nothing we can use to craft morality. That all moral principles are equal. Rearing a child in a healthy environment is equal to raising a child with abuse and neglect.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You are arguing a bit of a different animal. You are saying there is nothing we can use to craft morality. That all moral principles are equal. Rearing a child in a healthy environment is equal to raising a child with abuse and neglect.

Good heavens, that's not what I'm saying at all. Believing that moral judgments aren't derived from an external authoritative source and aren't scientifically validated doesn't mean they're all equal. Again, you seem to conflate "isn't scientific" with "cannot exist". You can't assess the quality of a piece of art using science, but that doesn't mean all art is therefore of equal quality. Judgments are judgments, they aren't scientific theories.

 

[Minoosh]

Getting back to abortion - here is perhaps a "moral" question:

If we assert a woman has a "right to choose," and amniocentesis results are being used to systematically kill "girl" fetuses, is that wrong?

I respect this couple's right to their decision but I don't quite see it as an expose of appalling public policy and heroic bravery on anybody's part.

Sometimes I've wondered - what if we agreed abortion is taking a human life, and that in some circumstances it's acceptable to take a human life?

I understand (I think) why some people think a human being's life begins at conception. Presumably no other individual on the planet is endowed with this exact genetic variation, so the fertilized egg does have a potentiality that is unique.

That said I don't have any problem with the "abortion pill" and first-trimester abortions. In the third trimester not so much. And at near term - I mean, at some point it's a baby, not a fetus.

Every once in a while you hear about a frightened young woman strangling/smothering a newborn and maybe this is a failing on my part but I don't feel a lot of outrage - after all, if she had somehow contrived to kill the fetus in utero she'd be perfectly within her rights. And yet if a viable fetus dies in the commission of a crime that's homicide some places. I believe this patchwork of rules reveals an overall ambivalence about abortion.

But here is the most important thing I have to say:
Plan B. The "morning after" pill. Good for 3 days after the fact. Over the counter (but you must be 18). Can prevent conception; also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

Everyone should know about this as far as I'm concerned.

 

[RandFan]

Good heavens, that's not what I'm saying at all. Believing that moral judgments aren't derived from an external authoritative source and aren't scientifically validated doesn't mean they're all equal. Again, you seem to conflate "isn't scientific" with "cannot exist". You can't assess the quality of a piece of art using science, but that doesn't mean all art is therefore of equal quality. Judgments are judgments, they aren't scientific theories.

You are not making ANY sense. I don't claim an external authoritative sense. But okay, you say it "can exist". Very well, HOW DO WE KNOW? How do we decide what art has higher value?

This is the part that you are failing to grasp. You can't have it both ways. Either things have different values and we have ways of determining what those different values are or we don't.

And you keep refusing to answer my questions. What if you and I have the same values? If you don't want to feel pain and I don't want to feel pain isn't it good that we don't hurt each other?

So, how do we as a society decide?

 

[TragicMonkey]

You are not making ANY sense. I don't claim an external authoritative sense. But okay, you say it "can exist".

No, I'm not saying an external authority exists. I'm referring to the fact that in all your posts you seem to think that if a thing isn't reached via science it's nonexistent. Hence my example of art. Art has value, that value is not scientically measurable. It's a whole dimension that is utterly inaccessible via science, but nonetheless real and apparent and quite ripe for human judgments to be made about it nonetheless.

Very well, HOW DO WE KNOW? How do we decide what art has higher value?

We can't know. We can only form opinions.

This is the part that you are failing to grasp. You can't have it both ways. Either things have different values and we have ways of determining what those different values are or we don't.

Third possibility you've missed there is that things don't have values at all. Value is a judgment we make about things. A dollar bill doesn't have inherent value, its value comes from people thinking it's worth something. If someone from a culture that didn't recognize paper currency found it they'd deem it valueless--and they'd be right because to them it would be.

And you keep refusing to answer my questions. What if you and I have the same values? If you don't want to feel pain and I don't want to feel pain isn't it good that we don't hurt each other?

It depends. Maybe a situation arises where I decide I need to hurt you.

So, how do we as a society decide?

A society decides things by consensus, out of utility. That doesn't make their decisions right.

 

[RandFan]

No, I'm not saying an external authority exists.

That wasn't my question. Sorry.

I'm referring to the fact that in all your posts you seem to think that if a thing isn't reached via science it's nonexistent.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "nonexistent". I'm an ethical nihilist and I don't believe there is any existence of any a priori morality. In that sense it doesn't exist. I only believe that there are objective moral truths.

Hence my example of art. Art has value, that value is not scientically measurable. It's a whole dimension that is utterly inaccessible via science, but nonetheless real and apparent and quite ripe for human judgments to be made about it nonetheless.

What about demand? Could that be something we could measure?

We can't know. We can only form opinions.

Can we figure out if there are any shared opinions?

Third possibility you've missed there is that things don't have values at all.

But you said that they "do exist". You are not being consistent.

Value is a judgment we make about things. A dollar bill doesn't have inherent value, its value comes from people thinking it's worth something.

Is there any way to measure the percieved value, like oh I don't know, say a market, stock market, futures market, or just market in general?

If someone from a culture that didn't recognize paper currency found it they'd deem it valueless--and they'd be right because to them it would be.

But if they were hungry and found out that they could obtain food for the paper currency would they suddenly realize the value?

It depends. Maybe a situation arises where I decide I need to hurt you.

Until then would it be good not to hurt me? Can you think of a way to keep me from not hurting you if I think a situation arises where I feel I need to hurt you? Perhaps a social contract?

A society decides things by consensus, out of utility. That doesn't make their decisions right.

I don't believe in an ultimate "right". But if we move closer and closer to a society that has less suffering can't we decide that there is utility in that? Couldn't we say that if less suffering is our goal then behaviors that reduce that suffering is what we ought to do?

BTW: Utility IS a moral philosophy. Funny you should use moral philosophy to defend the ideas that morality is just words and opinion.

 

[Minoosh]

This is the part that you are failing to grasp. You can't have it both ways. Either things have different values and we have ways of determining what those different values are or we don't.

Physicist Richard Feynmann felt the same way, then he tried doing Chinese calligraphy. He rejected his early efforts as "too blobby." His wife challenged him - "how do you know how blobby it's supposed to be?"

"There's a particular way you have to make a stroke for it to look good. An aesthetic thing has a certain set, a certain character, which I can't define. Because it couldn't be defined made me think there was nothing to it. But I learned from that experience that there is something to it ... and it's a fascination I've had for art ever since."

From "What Do You Care What People Think?"

 

[RandFan]

Physicist Richard Feynmann felt the same way, then he tried doing Chinese calligraphy. He rejected his early efforts as "too blobby." His wife challenged him - "how do you know how blobby it's supposed to be?"

"There's a particular way you have to make a stroke for it to look good. An aesthetic thing has a certain set, a certain character, which I can't define. Because it couldn't be defined made me think there was nothing to it. But I learned from that experience that there is something to it ... and it's a fascination I've had for art ever since."

From "What Do You Care What People Think?"

Im a big Feynman fan. Thank you for that. I didn't know.

 

[Minoosh]

Im a big Feynman fan. Thank you for that. I didn't know.

And you even spelled his name right which was more than I could manage

 

[RandFan]

And you even spelled his name right which was more than I could manage

I once spelled Ayn Rand Anne Rand. I caught hell for awhile. Then someone posted "Who is John Galt"? So I provided a short biography of the character. It was about 15 minutes before I slammed my head into the desk (RandFan is for Ayn Rand).

 

[foxholeatheist]

<snip>
I respect this couple's right to their decision but I don't quite see it as an expose of appalling public policy and heroic bravery on anybody's part.

<snip>

But here is the most important thing I have to say:
Plan B. The "morning after" pill. Good for 3 days after the fact. Over the counter (but you must be 18). Can prevent conception; also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

Everyone should know about this as far as I'm concerned.

First statement (first in my edit of your statement), I agree to the latter but take exception to the former. Perhaps I was naive but I believed that it would be an expedient procedure, considering that time is a factor and there are only a handful of clinics in my state that are authorized to perform the procedure several hundred miles apart. Information, in my case, was not forthright.

Note: I have received several PM's asking why it took several hours to drive roughly one hundred miles. You have not driven much in Missouri. The roads here are exceptionally windy and the freeway system serves only the large urban areas while the rural areas are served by a network of highways that pass through numerous small towns. My point was the hurdles faced by those: 1. without reliable transportation, 2. Those broke, 3. Rural folks, 3. Any combination of the above are unnecessary and will not serve any purpose other than to make the process difficult.

As for your statement about the morning after pill, my wife and I were practicing safe sex. We have no idea what day she may have conceived. If you're suggesting we get the Morning After pill after each session of coitus I would suggest that this is impractical since we're both crazy about each other.

Thank you for saying this. I am 27 weeks and while I don't resent my little proto-human, this pregnancy has NOT just been life as usual with a little extra weight, which is how too many people view it.

No kidding. I thought she just was sick, like really sick. Working at a clinic which sees hundreds of new inductees into the Army daily with every imaginable germ and pathogen I felt that she might have picked something up from me. She couldn't keep a thing down and she couldn't even work.

I am now in a MEDDAC unit and before I was in an Armor unit. MEDDAC is docs, nurses, and medics while armor was only tankers, thus, only males. Several of the female Soldiers in my unit have been coming into work every day until 2 weeks before delivery which I find admirable considering how simply miserable my wife was.

Hi FHA.

If I could ask you a question which you may have already answered (sorry, I haven't read the thread in its' entirety):

In your post you said,



My fiance and I have had similar discussions, and we came to the opposite conclusion; that being adoption is the preferable choice.

Your wife obviously struggled with the abortion. I must admit I don't know much about you or your living arrangements, but I want to ask why adoption was not an alternative if you, or both of you, had some sort of mental reservations about abortion? What made abortion the rational thing to do?

*ETA

Thanks for sharing this experience with us, by the way.

Rock and hard place.

We thought that if we carried the kid to term that 'letting it go' would be a much more harrowing experience than if we had an abortion as soon as possible. I believe there would be a huge difference between 'giving away' a healthy kid and ending a 6 week pregnancy and our concern was that our emotional attachment would override our reason and practicality.

In our current state we are 'comfortable'. I don't make much however we don't spend much. My father raised me on an enlisted salary and often struggled financially and was always away for vague reasons like 'Desert Storm' and 'Kosovo' or even 'Training' and I deeply resented that. I am planning on a career change in a few years and have an opportunity now to get my learn on with a little college book learning which I do not believe that a kid would be expedient to our situation. Possibly, in a few years when I have settled down and have a career going we may consider adoption.

There are literally millions of kids out there that could use caring, stable homes and we feel no need to add to that. Maybe at some point we might find ourselves in a situation where we would be able to offer a child a better chance than we could now. But that time is not now.

As for the morality of abortion, I saw the little zygote and I paid to have it destroyed. I have also directly contributed to the violent deaths of full grown humans that have real emotions, dreams, aspirations, feelings and families that mourned their loss who, biologically speaking, were little different than myself. There is a substantial difference.

 

[Bill Thompson]

We have good friends who had an abortion with their first pregnancy. She got pregnant shortly afterwards and they kept the second pregnancy and now their little girl is about 14 years old.

After their abortion I never talked to them about it.

And yet every time we see them... every single time. They bring it up. She constantly and relentlessly says that she believes the soul of the first one leapt into the body of the second pregnancy.

Why would she do this if abortion is OK? Why would she be motivated to try to convince herself constantly year after year perhaps day after day of this nonsense?

Oddly enough, beforehand I considered her to be a pretty level-headed rational person.

I have other pro-choice friends who tell me stories of their sister or cousin who often wonder what it would be like if they kept their kid and are haunted by what it would be like "she would be 8 years old today" and when they cross the street they wonder what it would be like to hold that hand.

I am pro choice. All I am saying is that it does not seem to be a cut and dry issue.

Follow up posts might be educational and enlightening. Let us know if you become self-tormented with gut wrenching remorse, regret and guilt. That might nullify all the posts of support given you here. I am not saying you will. But I am saying that, so far, everyone I know who has had and abortion personally has.

 

[RandFan]

Why would she do this if abortion is OK?

It's a problematic question but I'll try to address by making some assumptions about your intent.

Assuming that abortion is "ok" (whatever that means) then perhaps she is fighting religious induced guilt. Perhaps she is neurotic given the contradictory nature of religious indoctrination. She worries that she might have committed a grievous error or she suspects that people like you are judging her, condemning her even if you act as if you are not.

Why would she be motivated to try to convince herself constantly year after year perhaps day after day of this nonsense?

The same reason a Hindu might obsessively rationalize eating a hamburger or a Muslim woman might obsessively rationalize not wearing her Burqa and sneaking out of the house one day. Why many Mormons obsessively rationalize drinking a coke with friends after a dance at the local hang out.

Religion is a mind ****. It creates neurosis. Your example is perfect for why I think religion is so harmful.

Oddly enough, beforehand I considered her to be a pretty level-headed rational person.

I have a family member who is very intelligent and a very good critical thinker. She has always been down to earth but very faithful in the Mormon Church. She now works for the Mormon Church and she constantly rationalizes her old behaviors and justifies the Church's ridiculous stand on caffeine. Like you I find the behavior troubling.

I have other pro-choice friends who tell me stories of their sister or cousin who often wonder what it would be like if they kept their kid and are haunted by what it would be like "she would be 8 years old today" and when they cross the street they wonder what it would be like to hold that hand.

Evolution is powerful. We evolved to value our children more than our lives. Once a woman is pregnant there are chemical changes in her mind that work to ensure the survival of the child. For some it's stronger than others and it does cause problems. There is no question about it.

I am pro choice. All I am saying is that it does not seem to be a cut and dry issue.

I will agree with you on that, so long as we keep abortion safe and legal.

 

[Paul2]

I am pro choice. All I am saying is that it does not seem to be a cut and dry issue.

Most pro-choice people, I suspect, don't think it's cut and dry either. Which is why the emphasis should be on the word choice. Abortion is a complex and difficult issue, so it's best left to an individual's conscience.

 

[Number Six]

I have to say that although I can see how enduring what was related in the OP could be difficult, my initial reaction when reading it was envy.

 

[Toke]

Nasty decision foxhole, and I see no sane reason why it is made more difficult by not having working hospitals/clinics within reasonable range.

 

[Minoosh]

My point was the hurdles faced by those: 1. without reliable transportation, 2. Those broke, 3. Rural folks, 3. Any combination of the above are unnecessary and will not serve any purpose other than to make the process difficult.

Yes making it more difficult does seem to be the intent. As someone pointed out, a Legislature can add one rule and it might seem OK, then pile on more in a sneaky bid to subvert reproductive freedom.

As for your statement about the morning after pill, my wife and I were practicing safe sex. We have no idea what day she may have conceived. If you're suggesting we get the Morning After pill after each session of coitus I would suggest that this is impractical since we're both crazy about each other.

OK, feel free to hate me for this: If she got pregnant, some bodily fluids were exchanged. There are degrees of safe sex. The morning-after pill comment wasn't directed at you. I want everyone to know about it. It works for 72 hours, and while taking it every 72 hours would be pretty hard on the body, it would probably prevent conception. It would cover a weekend pretty handily. Many times people do know when birth control has failed. For example, when the condom ends up wrapped around the woman's cervix, thus turning into a very efficient time-released semen-delivery system. This happened to me.

Not getting pregnant was a huge priority of mine for years and years. I erred on the side of paranoia. And if I had an inkling that my defenses had been breached, I used backup measures. Of course there were times when I could have been caught and wasn't.

If we ever cross posts again, it is never my intent to attack or chastise or scold. You put up your story and invited comment. Part of my comment was to make people on this board aware of the relatively recent OTC status of Plan B.

Having been witness to great gaping needs in the world, no, don't create ones you can't meet. I support abortion rights.

 

[FarmallMTA]

Killing a child is love, criticising that murder is hate?

I know the existence of ignorant hate-mongers doesn't make the harrowing decision you and your wife had to make any easier.

Interesting world liberal pro-abortionists live in. Not just one of twisted moral relevance, but one entirely amoral.

 

[AdinDraco]

Interesting world liberal pro-abortionists live in. Not just one of twisted moral relevance, but one entirely amoral.

I'm not liberal. I'm not pro-abortionist, but I am pro-choice. What amoral/immoral things are you talking about? Is it the child murder in the title of your post? What child was murdered because I must have missed it....