I'm up late waiting

Barbara said:

Laws against things like murder and stealing have *far* more to do with
maintaining the stability of society than they have with "morality", though.
I'm not saying that most people don't think murder is immoral, but frankly,
people do it whether there are laws against it or not. The reason laws
against murder are effective, however, is that they provide a way to punish
offenders without getting into the sort of blood feud/vigilante situations
that you see in cultures that don't have an effective legal code and
independent judicial system.

Or limiting people to being married to only
one person at a time.

Again, that's less to do with morality in the strictest sense than it is to
do with preventing relationships in which there is inherent inequality that
would be difficult to handle judicially/legally. The bidirectional legal
rights we afford married couples in this culture are difficult to apply when
there are more than two people in the relationship. It's the whole question
of how you can make two wives and one husband (or two husbands and one wife,
for that matter) equal in the eyes of the law when it comes to the division
of property and rights of survivorship and all of that that makes polygamy
problematic.

Remember, too, that there are plenty of cultures in which polygamy is
considered entirely moral and even, in some cases, mandatory.

By and large, though, I don't believe legislative codes can or should flow
from "morality", but rather from the societal benefits of preventing certain
behaviors or from the practical issues that arise from allowing them.

I understand what you are saying. Could we make a case then that outlawing
abortion could benefit society by putting the consequence of a baby back into
play so that there would be less irresponsible sex and in time fewer unplanned
pregnancies?


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Ericka said:

Just because they do not couch their debate that way does
not mean their opinions are not based on their morality. If your
morals or ethics state that it is immoral/unethical to impose your
religious beliefs or morality on others, then you would couch your
arguments in other terms, no?

And that would be hypocritical, would it not?


Instead they say things like,
"You can't legislate morality." And then when I am talking about
morality in
relation to abortion, I am saying that the act itself is morally wrong, and
I
have heard the pro-choice side saying it doesn't matter if it's wrong, we
still
can't restrict it.

There ya go assuming that everyone agrees with the notion
that it's morally wrong ;-)

No, no, I'm not saying that everyone says that--just that I have heard people
(like John Kerry, for example) say that.

I think some pro-choice people believe
it is morally wrong, others don't, and probably most think that
there is a significant moral dimension to the issue but that
it is immoral/unethical to legislate that morality.

Am I making any sense here, Ericka? I'm not exactly in the
best frame of mind to be arguing difficult moral issues ATM. :-)

No, you're making sense, even if I don't agree with
all your assertions ;-)

:-)


This notion that there is only one morality (and that
it's aligned with fundamentalist Christian doctrine, and that
it's acceptable/reasonable/desirable to legislate morality) is a
scary thing for our country.

Well, we DO legislate morality. It's all about whose is being legislated
at
any particular time is all. Some things we just all happen to agree with,
like
that murdering born humans is wrong.

Actually, apparently we don't all agree on that, as capital
punishment is legal in most of the US. Whoops, guess that depends
on one's definition of "murder" ;-)

For the record, that would be state-sanctioned murder, IMO.


It's still morality. Or limiting people
to being married to only one person at a time.

I think that there are a couple of key questions. One
is whether there is more objective evidence that something is
undesirable beyond the religious beliefs of some religious
groups. Beyond any religious or moral objections, polygamy
raises some serious legal issues (would employers who provide
health benefits for spouses be required to insure *all*
spouses? etc.). Another question is how universal a set of
beliefs is. One could imagine a group that didn't believe
murder to be immoral, but given the overwhelming consensus
in the immorality of murder among virtually all groups,
religious or not, that is a much less divisive position than
something where a country of well-meaning individuals
disagree so vehemently.

I think most polls I've seen DO show a majority of the populations believing
abortion to be wrong.


I can't say that I think making abortion illegal is a bad idea, for the
reasons
you stated above--that if I think it is murder of course I want it stopped
in
any way possible. But I think it would be PREFERABLE to make it
unnecessary
and unthinkable.

Yeah. I just wish we could focus more on that part.
I think it would ultimately be far more productive. Just
imagine if all the money and energy put into pro-life vs.
pro-choice could be put into making abortions unnecessary
and unwanted....

I can't disagree with that.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Barbara said:

Of course, that very much depends on whether you think the coming together
of sperm and egg is the most "meaningful" moment when it comes to starting
life or not. I think it's *one* meaningful moment--you certainly can't have
a pregnancy without that moment. But implantation is also a meaningful
moment, and it's clear that plenty of fertilized eggs fail to implant.
Ovulation and ejaculation are meaningful moments, as well. No babies are
ever created without some confluence of all of these events, as well as many
more.

So I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel you are "pro-life" and still
not believe that conception is the moment when a new "life" now recognizably
exists.

Right--I am strictly speaking of the Catholic definition of the beginning of
life. And there are lots of Catholics who use abortifacient forms of bc.




Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Barbara said:

I'm not particularly convinced that girls are all that easily coerced by
boys into having abortions. I suspect that for those girls who aren't
comfortable with the decision generally but have an abortion anyway, keeping
their parents from finding out that they were both having sex *and* got
pregnant is a stronger factor than what the boy wants, particularly if the
two are not involved in an ongoing romantic relationship.

The research I've done on the subject showed that coercion by the partner or
the parents was a very frequent reason for abortion. In David Reardon's post
abortion trauma studies, almost all the women would have preferred to have the
baby if they had felt supported.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Leslie wrote:
Barbara said:
I'm not particularly convinced that girls are all that easily
coerced by boys into having abortions. I suspect that for those
girls who aren't comfortable with the decision generally but have
an abortion anyway, keeping their parents from finding out that
they were both having sex *and* got pregnant is a stronger factor
than what the boy wants, particularly if the two are not involved
in an ongoing romantic relationship.

The research I've done on the subject showed that coercion by the
partner or the parents was a very frequent reason for abortion. In
David Reardon's post abortion trauma studies, almost all the women
would have preferred to have the baby if they had felt supported.

I won't argue that this isn't the case. I just suspect that in the
population we've been discussing (teenaged girls), the fear of being
discovered by parents and/or coercion by parents would be more likely to be
a factor than coercion by a partner, especially in the case where a girl
gets pregnant as the result of a more casual sexual encounter. IOW, I don't
think the guy a girl sleeps with in a "hook-up" (as Nikki called them) has
as much power as her steady boyfriend, simply because continuing the
relationship isn't nearly as important if there isn't any relationship to
speak of. I could be wrong about that, but it makes sense to me.

And, of course, vis-a-vis the post I was initially responding to in this
subthread, an abortion is a *lot* more expensive than a condom, so I still
say not using a condom is penny-wise and pound-foolish!
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Leslie wrote:
Barbara said:
By and large, though, I don't believe legislative codes can or
should flow from "morality", but rather from the societal benefits
of preventing certain behaviors or from the practical issues that
arise from allowing them.

I understand what you are saying. Could we make a case then that
outlawing abortion could benefit society by putting the consequence
of a baby back into play so that there would be less irresponsible
sex and in time fewer unplanned pregnancies?

Well, first of all, I think the consequence of a baby is *already* in play.
At least half of all teens (and possibly more--I don't know the precise
statistics) who get pregnant carry their pregnancies to term and relatively
few of them choose to give their babies up for adoption. And I'm far from
certain that making abortion unavailable would result either in less
irresponsible sex or in fewer unplanned pregnancies. There's just so little
stigma attached to having a child out-of-wedlock any more that I rather
suspect a lot of teens think it would be fun and cute to have a baby.
(They're usually disabused of that notion in fairly short order, but I don't
think we can deny the possiiblity that some teens are getting pregnant on
purpose.)

Perhaps more fundamentally, I have a problem with the idea that
pregnancy/babies should *ever* be seen as a negative consequence. I realize
that you are not saying that having a baby when you have irresponsible sex
is a punishment for your "misbehavior", but I have a hard time seeing how it
doesn't *feel* that way to the woman who is carrying an unwanted pregnancy
that she is being forced to carry to term.

My father always used to say that he wasn't particularly comfortable with
the idea of abortion, but he was even *less* comfortable with the
alternative. That's pretty much where I am. I'm with Ericka in wanting to
see the day when abortions are almost entirely unwanted and unneeded, but I
shudder when I imagine a world in which abortion isn't also safe and legal
in the rare cases where it *is* wanted/needed.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Leslie wrote:
Barbara said:
I realize that. But I can't remotely see how Catholics will ever
get all people in the culture to agree to eliminating both
abortion and all methods of birth control other than NFP. You want
to talk about a population explosion!

I don't think that's on the Catholic agenda, at least not that I've
heard. We'd just be happy if we could get our own members to
conform to the teaching.

LOL, I'm sure that's true.

I'd certainly like to see NFP in more
widespread use--I've found it really neat to see how many people on
this ng use it for non-religious reasons.

I will also say that one of the reasons the pro-life/pro-choice
debate is so bitter is this very fact. Certain elements of the
pro-life movement are not interested merely in preventing/stopping
abortions, but in preventing/stopping people from using other
forms of birth control. I frankly find that quite chilling.

Honestly, I don't know about that, other than Catholics wanting
other Catholics to conform to Church teaching. I don't care in the
least what kinds of bc non-Catholics use!

Well, I respect that, but you have to see that if the premise that a
fertilized egg is a person deserving the same legal protections as everyone
else is adopted (and that *is* the primary premise of the pro-life movement,
whether the people espousing it are Catholic or not), there's absolutely no
question that a large number of contraceptives would have to be outlawed on
the grounds that they kill people. It's just not as easy as Catholics only
wanting Catholics to believe what they do (or any other religious group, for
that matter). It's about the obvious downstream legal consequences of
providing the same legal protections to a blastocyst that we provide to a
born human being or even a late-term fetus and what that means to people's
ability to make the most personal of choices--whether or not to reproduce.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

On 09 Nov 2004 23:34:52 GMT, (Leslie) wrote:

I understand what you are saying. Could we make a case then that outlawing
abortion could benefit society by putting the consequence of a baby back into
play so that there would be less irresponsible sex and in time fewer unplanned
pregnancies?

First of all, outlawing abortions is not going to make them go away.
Rich people will still be able to get them, and a whole lot of middle
class and poor women will be injured, sterilized and/or killed as a
result of unsafe, back-alley-ish abortions.

Second, are foster care and adoption agencies prepared to handle higher
case loads? Are we as a society prepared to deal with increased needs
for governmental safety nets with additional mouths to feed that would
not have been brought into this world?

Moving toward every pregnancy being a planned pregnancy is the right
first step. Abortion is an end point, not a starting point; expanding
family planning, including better access to drugs to prevent conception,
is the starting point that will help reduce the number of unplanned
pregnancies, which will also reduce the number of abortions.
--
http://www.theocracywatch.org/

On 09 Nov 2004 23:41:11 GMT, (Leslie) wrote:

The research I've done on the subject showed that coercion by the partner or
the parents was a very frequent reason for abortion. In David Reardon's post
abortion trauma studies, almost all the women would have preferred to have the
baby if they had felt supported.

IIRC, his sample is limited to women who sought counseling, not to a
representative sample of women who've had abortions. I think it's
important to maintain that context for fear of overstating the
conclusions.
--
http://www.theocracywatch.org/

On 09 Nov 2004 23:05:17 GMT, (Leslie) wrote:

This conversation is giving me some different ideas . . . I can accept that
some of you here have reasons based in morality for pro-choice views, but it
has always been my impression in listening to the national argument that the
pro-choice side makes light of the morality argument. I can't recall ever
seeing it framed in that way.

Refusing to tell other women what to with their bodies is all about
respecting them to make the decisions that are correct for the totality
of their circumstances, and that's a morality argument.
--
http://www.theocracywatch.org/