Legal abortion saves lives.

One final note on the abortion front.  This should hopefully bring clarity to those who may need it as to why banning abortion is such an unpopular idea.

“While there is very little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety.”

Much like drugs, banning abortion doesn’t stop abortion.  It does make it less safe for those who choose it.

I know it’s supposedly not contextually sound Biblically, but time after time I find that it rings true:  “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is constructive. ~ 1 Corinthians 10:23 NIV

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abortion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Legal abortion saves lives.

  1. Derek says:

    I think this goes back to a moral issue (unsurprisingly). If abortion is wrong, why should we condone it just for the sake of health concerns? Murder is wrong, yet it still happens. Should we make it legal to keep people from getting killed collaterally? Of course not! You can’t justify a wrong even if there are benefits in the justification of it. I know abortion is a very tricky issue, but I would say that we must value life.

    • jasonjshaw says:

      The trouble is that we simply demonize those who commit such acts, when the focus should be on connecting and helping them become better integrated within humanity rather than locking them away and making it difficult for them to ever re-integrate. It comes back to bringing loving connection to those who need it as a more effective way of reducing the problem in the first place.

    • @Derek

      You can’t justify a wrong even if there are benefits in the justification of it.

      Only in the swirly ether of absolute moral judgments could this statement exist.

      War is wrong and therefore unjustifiable by your standards.
      Murder via self defence is wrong therefore unjustifiable by your standards.
      Buying extraneous goods while others starve to death is wrong and therefore unjustifiable by your standards.

      Black and white analysis of complex situations is never helpful when it comes to dealing with complex ethical problems.

      but I would say that we must value life.

      Excellent choice. Let’s start with the sentient member of society that we grant full personhood and rights – the mother.

      • Derek says:

        “War is wrong and therefore unjustifiable by your standards.”

        Who said it’s wrong? I didn’t! There are certainly negative aspects of war to say the least. Why is murder in self-defense wrong? Once again, I never said that. Your last one I almost entirely agree with; I would simply say that selfishness is wrong. I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. Just because making something illegal means certain good things will be compromised, doesn’t mean that something should be legal. It pains me to think about “back alley” abortions and all of the ills that making abortion illegal will bring, but that doesn’t change the fact that abortion is still wrong. What law has ever been made that abruptly ended any behavior?

        Who’s defining sentient? I would say that life starts in the womb. And I would grant rights to the sentient party whose rights are being marginalized. Everyone has a right to life. Let me be clear that the greater issue is this: we need to do a better job as a society when it comes to helping these mothers and their children.

  2. @Derek

    Who said it’s wrong? I didn’t! There are certainly negative aspects of war to say the least. Why is murder in self-defense wrong? Once again, I never said that.

    I said those things in an effort to demonstrate that seemingly straight forward solutions to complex moral problems are generally not very helpful in understanding moral issue in question.

    It pains me to think about “back alley” abortions and all of the ills that making abortion illegal will bring, but that doesn’t change the fact that abortion is still wrong.

    Women will seek and get abortions no matter what the legality of the issue happens to be. Criminalizing them, as you said, will push them into unregulated and “traditional methods” of terminating their pregnancies. Women will die as a direct result from these unsafe, unsanitary and unregulated procedures.

    It would seem that preserving life from your perspective has a very narrow definition.

    Who’s defining sentient?

    We do as a society, the possibility of sentience begins with measurable brain activity as defined by the medical and legal professions.

    And I would grant rights to the sentient party whose rights are being marginalized.

    So you are for women who being told what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Good on you. 🙂

    Everyone has a right to life.

    Arguable.

    we need to do a better job as a society when it comes to helping these mothers and their children.

    When I see the christian right wing campaigning for universal healthcare, paid maternity/paternity leave and subsidized day care/proper schooling I’ll believe you. Until then, politically speaking, the republicans are merely using abortion as a ploy to whip the religious into voting for them all the while chiseling away the very programs you mentioned that would actually help the situation.

    • Derek says:

      “I said those things in an effort to demonstrate that seemingly straight forward solutions to complex moral problems are generally not very helpful in understanding moral issue in question.”

      I don’t think morality can be summarized by tallying up the good things and the bad things and then deciding on the net totals if something is moral or not.

      “We do as a society, the possibility of sentience begins with measurable brain activity as defined by the medical and legal professions.”

      You’re right, but I don’t think our society has gotten it correct. If sentience begins with measurable brain activity are you insinuating that mentally disabled people should be exterminated as well? (I’m making a point here, as I hope you wouldn’t agree)

      “So you are for women who being told what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Good on you. :)”

      No, I’m not. I’m for protecting the life of unborn children. You can reduce them to clumps of cells, or insentient if you want, but we both know what they are and what they will be.

      “When I see the christian right wing campaigning for universal healthcare, paid maternity/paternity leave and subsidized day care/proper schooling I’ll believe you.”

      Christian and right wing are not synonymous, though that would be convenient for your argument. I can’t apologize for not advocating for things, that I do advocate for. I don’t know how I’ve been strapped with the weight of an entire political group I don’t agree with.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        I’m just going to jump in here on one point:

        “I don’t think morality can be summarized by tallying up the good things and the bad things and then deciding on the net totals if something is moral or not.”

        One clear example came straight to mind upon reading this – drinking and driving. The morality surrounding drinking and driving has come from tallying up incidences of harm, and continues to become more refined based on such information.

      • @Derek

        I don’t think morality can be summarized by tallying up the good things and the bad things and then deciding on the net totals if something is moral or not.

        Utilitarianism is not perfect, but eliminating it from your moral schema leaves you less options when it comes to evaluating moral problems. Reducing moral fidelity may not be a good way to arrive at reasonable moral conclusions.

        are you insinuating that mentally disabled people should be exterminated as well?

        Sentient /= Mentally Disabled. So no, I’m not.

        Christian and right wing are not synonymous,

        They are just the ones pushing though their agenda with the support of many christians in the US. So it may not be you, but much is being done using the same book you believe in to do horrendous things in society. It makes one wonder about the quality of the book, no?

        . You can reduce them to clumps of cells,

        You mean define them in scientific terms when it is applicable? I do. Also, acorns are not oak trees, nor should they be treated as such.

  3. Derek says:

    @ Arbourist People aren’t trees and likewise should not be treated as such. We differ on when life starts. Your definition is a moral justification, not scientific. If you want to go down the scientific road we can, but I’m willing to bet it will end with social Darwinism. I value life. We can muddle the issue with comparisons to trees and acorns, but at the end of the day people should be born without impediment.

    • @Derek

      If you want to go down the scientific road we can, but I’m willing to bet it will end with social Darwinism.

      The “scientific road”as you put it says nothing about the moral ramifications of assigning personhood to non sentient beings. As I may have referenced earlier the status of the fetus is irrelevant because we do not allow adult human beings to use our bodies for their benefit without our consent.

      I value fetallife.

      FIFY.

      We can muddle the issue…

      I am not the one claiming we should give non sentient beings the same rights as adult human beings. Nor am I the one advocating for a state of affairs that is harmful to existing autonomous human beings, namely, women.

      end of the day people should be born without impediment.

      Wow, way to gloss over the implications pregnancy has for women. At the end of the day, we should give women the rights and freedoms we give to all human beings – the right to choose how one’s body is used is first and foremost on fundamental human rights.

  4. Derek says:

    I alluded to this earlier, but I probably could have been more clear. You don’t think an unborn person is a person; I do. We’re not going to agree unless one of modifies their position on that issue (I’m not saying I expect you to either). I’m not trying to take away women’s rights unless you’re assuming terminating a pregnancy is a right. I don’t believe it is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s