Action vs talk - George Carlin on the anti-abortion movement

[Zoebird]

For me, the problem with the argument is that people get tied up in whether or not abortion is right/wrong or should be legal/illegal, rather than looking at what creates the prevalence of abortions.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that collects data around abortion rates and similar issues, the real lynchpin around this issue is the prevalence of unintended pregnancy, not whether or not abortion is legal.

So, the real action shouldn't be focused on whether or not abortion is legal -- that's secondary -- but on making certain that people have access to birth control, comprehensive sex education, and a culture that supports the use of birth control methods.

Most countries who have the lowest unintended pregnancy rates and therefore lowest abortion rates are countries whose national education systems provide comprehensive sex education as well as have national health care programs that provide free birth control to those who would seek it. As these two elements impact culture a great deal, a culture develops around utilizing these things and avoiding pregnancy, and thereby avoiding abortion.

Anyone who would want to prevent abortions would therefore want to educate the young populace about how to prevent unintended pregnancy. The problem is that they tend to focus on abstinence education, not wanting to discuss birth control, and so on. And in particular, not wanting to provide birth control.

Arguably, that needn't be done by "big gubment" (has anyone noticed that the government is about the same size regardless of whether the president is democrat or republican? i think if you *really* want small government, you're going to have to look at libertarians!), but part of the issue is that much of the anti-abortion-laws crowd is also focused on actively preventing birth control access and comprehensive sex education.

Which means, even if they succeed at making abortion illegal, the rates of abortion will be just as high (if not higher) than they currently are.

[Gregg]

Well done Zoebird. Education = +1. If the only time abortion was ever considered was during the rare times when a mother's life was at risk I suspect there would be very little polarization around the issue.

[rosebud]

This is:

I concede that was poorly phrased.

[creaker]

I mentioned governmental intervention because several of the other posters seem to believe that if I'm not for higher taxes I am lacking in compassion.

I agree that there should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices, but would add that once those choices result in another life, it too is deserving of consideration.

Again it comes back to when is it another life? And given that you're talking about choices, would that infer that you're ok with abortion in cases where the woman had no choice?

[JaneV2.0]

I mentioned governmental intervention because several of the other posters seem to believe that if I'm not for higher taxes I am lacking in compassion.

I agree that there should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices, but would add that once those choices result in another life, it too is deserving of consideration.

I absolutely agree that any potential for human life should be given full and careful consideration; I would like to think that women (and men) would be scrupulous about this before conception, but based on results...

[peggy]

Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?

It applies to EVERYONE who isn't a member of the woman's family.
This is largely a case of people trying to force their religious beliefs on the general public. Viability is actually pretty easy to determine, viability being capable of independent life. A one month zygote is not viable. A two month old fetus is not viable. A three or four month old fetus is not viable. There, we have taken care of the vast majority of abortions. A five month old fetus is not viable. Six and seven is getting into a grey area. Independently, they are not viable. With drastic intervention, maybe, but even then it's iffy, and there is quite often grave physical and mental damage. Despite the rabid anti-choice types, doctors and nurses are not delivering 8 month old babies and killing them. It's just not happening. That's called murder and someone would come forward.
I can appreciate someones religious beliefs. Personally I think religion is a bunch of bunk, but I won't picket outside your church and scream that you are being brainwashed. I won't demand the government ban religion even though I think religious zealots are one of the biggest threats to our way of life. If you don't believe in abortion then by all means don't have one.

To extend Jane's thought:


First they came for her tonsils, but they were not my tonsils, so I agreed.
Then they came for a pint of blood, but it wasn't my type, so I agreed.
Then they came for her womb, but since men can't get pregnant, I'm good.
Then they wanted me to pay for it, and I'm all like, Whoa! Wait!

[Zoebird]

I think the argument gets lost out of all of this is not about legality per se.

I believe these are the two primary arguments:

Moderate Pro-Lifers say "I don't want government in these health care decisions, but when the government acts, it should be doing things to promote/support life." The underlying assumption is that the person wants women to rarely have abortions (as in, only in extreme circumstances). Would this be a fair characterization? It was my experience when I was on that side.

Moderate Pro-choicers say "I don't want the government in these health care decisions, but I also don't want a lot of women having abortions." The underlying assumption is that having them legal is an important reproductive/health choice, but that the act itself is not wonderful and something that one should be cavalier about. This is my experience anyway.

Both groups have several things in common: 1. they don't want the government making decisions about women's reproductive and health rights, or over a family's reproductive and health rights; and 2. they don't want people to feel compelled to have abortions "willy-nilly" as a form of birth control.

From here, it's important to look at facts:

1. according to the research, the percentage of abortions is directly related to the number of unwanted pregnancies NOT related to whether or not the abortions are legal. In countries where it is illegal, and where unwanted pregnancy rates are high, abortion rates are just as high as those countries that have high unwanted pregnancy rates where abortion is legal. Thus, the legal element is not relevant to preventing abortions. Making it illegal (or overturning Roe v Wade) will not reduce the number of abortions. It would only increase criminality, increasing expenses in the justice system (and thereby increasing government), and possibly increasing the profits of privatized prison systems.

2. the laws as they come down in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey explicitly state that the government is saying out of a woman's right to choose what is appropriate for her self, her body, and her family. The effective first statement of both groups is supported via the current law, and therefore there is no reason to fight over this law.

3. research has demonstrated that the most effective ways to decrease the number of abortions is education and access to birth control.

Therefore, both groups should stop focusing on legalities and finger pointing about adoption and what not, and start focusing on policy that will allow this to take place.

And, I'm not suggesting any specific policy per se -- government or private. I just wish people would stop arguing over the law or over viability and other related beliefs, and look at -- you know -- solving the problem.

If you believe there are too many abortions, then you need to work to end abortions, not to fight against a law that doesn't impact whether or not abortions happen.

[bae]

My position (I'm male, but I'll dare to speak anyways) is as follows:

- I think a "fetus" at some point in its development is human in some important sense, and I won't *****foot around the fact that abortion is killing.
- I think that all beings deserve equal consideration of interests.
- I do not believe in using force against another except in case of self defense.
- I think the mother's right to control of her body outweighs the unborn human's right to occupy her body. If necessary, I would kill a man on the spot, quite legally in this state, to stop him from using force to coerce me into serving him against my will for a day, or an hour, or a minute. Forcing me to serve his interests against my will for 9 months seems even more troublesome.


So, in general:

- I am opposed to abortion personally. And so I take steps to avoid encountering the issue in my life. Though apparently nature finds a way, and my daughter arrived on the scene 2 years ahead of schedule. So be it.
- I would not presume to tell a mother what she should or should not decide about aborting her baby. I don't think her husband even has that "right". Or her doctor, or her priest.
- I would not presume to tell a doctor he had to perform abortions against his will.
- I find distinctions of "against abortion except in cases of rape or incest" to miss the fundamental ethical points - you are either killing, or you aren't, and if you are, you need to think through if the killing, the use of force, is acceptable. I find this use of force possible acceptable, and it's the mother's call.

[bae]

For those who think the religious right who opposes abortion all march around without doing any practical good, they need to actually inform themselves of all of the mother-support services provided by the--to cite one example--Catholics.

I believe I detailed the unintended consequences of this sort of support on the previous boards. I'll summarize.

My sister and her husband were criminals, engaged in a decade long life of crime on-the-road. They had two daughters, that they kept. They, three times that I've been able to determine, got pregnant on purpose, contacted a support service, told the service they were considering an abortion, and got the support service to provide them housing and food for the duration of the pregnancy and through the adoption. They used this time to live below-the-radar of the warrants out for them in about a dozen states. They were in essence breeding and selling babies to support their lifestyle.

If they couldn't land a program, they would abort the child. If they got arrested before they managed to get into hiding in a program, or under other circumstances, they'd abort the child. I know of 5 abortions.

As I said in another thread here today, yes, I think evil exists :-(

[Zoebird]

bae,

i fall quite similar to you. I also like how St Thomas Acquinas dealt with the issue in his treatise. He essentially says that the moral implications are between God and the individual woman. He assumed -- and asserted that it was only a guess -- that there would be more moral import *after* the quickening vs before, but that whatever the moral implications are -- those are between the woman and God.

Yes, it is killing. But there are a fair number of situations where killing is justified (as you bring forth in your statement) or allowable, even if it is still unsavory and distasteful to those who would feel forced to do so, as well as those who are observing.

I also can admit that having had my son, I am far less cavalier about the concept. Before having him, I said that if we weren't ready, we would go ahead and abort. But, once I did have him (and, we never were in that position, btw), I now feel that there's just no way that I could do it -- and that we would find a way if I were to become pregnant.

That being said, I am *ridiculously* educated about my body, and we are looking at using 3 forms of birth control just to be sure that we don't get into that situation. Sterilization is out for both of us, absolutely certain. But vigilance is no problem. Even hyper-vigilance.