What’s Wrong with the World

To be pro-choice, you have to either willingly blind yourself on some level, deny basic biological fact, trust the wrong folks, be among those who count some classes of human as non-persons, emote rather than think or be sadly ignorant.

Only the misplaced trust or the sadly ignorant angles allow for a decent chance of being shocked out; the emotive angle has some chance, and the rest are pretty low chance.

That it's tied up in sex-- and that there are a LOT of guys who used girls for sex, and a lot of girls who want to insist that there's nothing wrong with what they did, even though their emotions say there is-- means that defense mechanisms are going to be highly involved.

Not a good basis for purely philosophical support.

Every pregnancy is a banging gong that subconsciously reminds them that they are wrong. Nothing will cause a more profound defense of the preposterous than the denial of being wrong.

What you are both pointing to is what Jay Budziszewski talks about in his book _The Revenge of Conscience_. People become _more_ defensive and _more_ crazily committed when deep down they know they are wrong. (That's an extremely sloppy way of talking about what Jay Budz. talks about much better.) In fact, one even gets that kind of religious fervor for promoting abortion and dragging other people into it as a direct form of trying to reassure oneself that one's own action was not wrong.

Foxfier's statement here may well be correct:

Only the misplaced trust or the sadly ignorant angles allow for a decent chance of being shocked out; the emotive angle has some chance, and the rest are pretty low chance.

I do actually know someone who went from "pro-choice" to pro-adoption-- sadly, it was based on the notion of infants as a commodity. They saw newspaper ads begging to be allowed to adopt any infant. Rationally, they decided that this meant that no child is unwanted, because there's still a demand for the supply. >.

If the issue really was what the pro-lifers sometimes claim it is about, they'd be trying to prosecute women who get abortions for murder. They don't advocate that, of course, because even they don't really think it's murder. Rather, it's all about sex, as is often clear from the things the pro-lifers themselves say (thanks, Foxfier, for providing an example). And, indeed, one of the reasons I'm pro-choice is because I'm not shocked by sex. So, naturally, I'm pretty much unmoved by this story.

Aaron, I'm warning you about trolling on my thread. I think the silliness about pro-lifers not really believing what they say they believe is trolling. So be warned.

Second, if you were something other than an ideologue (one of the hard-core, as I call it in the main post), this chirpy, chipper talk about abortion should shock you even from the perspective of the well-being of pregnant minors themselves. This is an invasive surgical procedure that carries risks. The legislators of Massachusetts had understandable reason for requiring parental consent. And women often have emotional consequences afterwards. This web site is treating it as trivial and is positively encouraging young women to try to get around parental opposition, which completely undermines the entire point of a parental consent law. As I point out in the main post, the state of Massachusetts would not do this for something with even fewer potentially negative consequences--e.g., attending a music concert over parental objections or getting a tattoo. It is not simply that people like you are "not shocked by sex." It's that people like you have a _thing_ about sex, so that the connection of abortion with sex means that it has to be treated completely differently from the treatment that would normally be given to a surgical procedure and the issue of parental consent. It has to be promoted, children have to be encouraged to get around parental objection, it has to be talked about in a perky way, and even medically misleading information (the reference to the fetus as the "contents of the uterus") has to be used in the furtherance of The Cause. This belies the pro-abortion self-vision: That they are simply objective. That they are simply treating this as just another procedure, and the like. Not true. Instead, abortion receives something like "surgical affirmative action." It gets a boost. It's special to them. It has to be _sold_. Girls have to be taught by bandwagon arguments to think it's no biggie and encouraged to sneak around behind their parents' backs to get one.

If you were just an ordinary person who _happened_ to have picked up the pro-choice view somewhere and who did not share this warped and worshipful view (the hardcore view), this would strike you as strange. It doesn't, which tells us all that we need to know.

Oh, go troll somewhere else. We don't need any of your strawmen, your lies about what we've said, or your inability to respond to offered arguments.

If you were even slightly rational, you'd realize that "murder" is a legal category, and that under our legal system it would not only not allow those who procure an abortion to be charged with it, it wouldn't allow those who commit them to be charged with it.

You are committing the logical fallacy called "equivocation," among others.

"This really can be done and young women do this all the time here in Massachusetts."

Wait a minute. Isn't the new and improved brand of pro-choice about "reducing the need for abortion"?

But, Scott, those meanie Republicans haven't *done* that yet (agreed to enough social programs to "reduce the need"), so meanwhile, young women do this all the time in Massachusetts. Sigh. It's tough, but somebody has to do it. Thank goodness that it "really can be done." Yes, we can...kill unborn children.

Pro-lifers are "Shocked by sex". This is rolling-on-the-freaking-floor-laughing material. Have you ever seen footage of a pro-life rally, Aaron? Have you seen all the big families with lots of young kids? And young couples with multiple children? How do you think all those sex-o-phobic rightwingers got those kids, Aaron? I know the connection between sex and children is really hard for some of you on the left to figure out, but let's see if we can't put 2 and 2 together here.

Thank you for a wonderful post Lydia.

What's with all the enthusiasm for anything related to sex? What's with all the enthusiasm for abortion? And why the deceptive language, the definition of abortion as "when the contents of the womb (uterus) are removed"?

I know the connection between sex and children is really hard for some of you on the left to figure out, but let's see if we can't put 2 and 2 together here.

Children are decanted at the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. Decanting is totally unrelated to orgy-porgy.

I'm probably one of those moderates you're talking about, who seem to make up the majority of Americans. Your hopes might be reasonable, to a modest degree. From opinion surveys, it looks like most pro-choicers don't like abortion and think it should be illegal in a lot of cases and think it's immoral in a lot more cases. I think a lot of those people (including me) would be disgusted by that website. Your approach might move some people a bit more towards the pro-life side.

Most pro-choicers already don't think abortion is a light matter. They will be affected by this. Those who do think abortion is a light matter probably won't see anything wrong with that pro-abortion propaganda.

What does make people change their minds on this? That must be a pretty heavily-researched question. Motivations are obscure and all that, but it would be interesting to find out what approaches seem to work the best.

What does make people change their minds on this? That must be a pretty heavily-researched question. Motivations are obscure and all that, but it would be interesting to find out what approaches seem to work the best.

I know this may sound like a simple-minded answer, but really, no one changes their mind about abortion until they begin to really look beyond themselves. Some couples argue that they don't want to overpopulate the planet and think they are looking beyond themselves. Tommyrot. This is mere rationalization and a projection of their own whims onto society. Essentially, they have no trust that God knew what he was doing when he commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. Notice, he did not say, subdue man. Everything on earth is under control of man, except man. That control belongs to God.

Then again, many people who get abortions have long ago stopped believing in a God who might tell them to wait until marriage to have sex or who might tell them that every sacrament (for marriage is still a sacrament, when done right) involves dying to self. If they could only learn the meaning of that phrase, abortion would die out overnight.

Abortion is just another spelling for selfishness.

The Chicken

Well Aaron (not the other Aaron), that's good. If your fellow pro-choicers do something that strikes you as "going too far," that may influence you. It's an interesting terminological question, these days, whether a person who thinks abortion should be illegal in a lot of cases would usually call himself "pro-choice." My impression had been that a person who really wanted abortion to be _illegal_, particularly in many cases, would usually not do so. If such a person were a politician my guess is that he would try to claim the pro-life label and the votes that go with it. But perhaps I'm wrong on both counts.

I agree, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" probably don't fit most people. I wouldn't volunteer either label as a description of my views. I'd actually be equally (un)comfortable with either label, depending on the context. There seems to be no label for the large majority of us who are in the middle, which in itself says a lot about the quality of the discourse.

And also, in addition to the brand problems I mentioned earlier, the "they do it all the time" has that "No big deal" ring to it. Obama and the Clintons need to remind their followers to pretend that abortion is a painful and agonizing decision.

Obama and the Clintons need to remind their followers to pretend that abortion is a painful and agonizing decision.

Precisely. The frowny mask is slipping.

Aaron, you are right: the majority seem to hold the opinion that abortion SHOULD be legal for most first-trimester abortions, and that it SHOULD be illegal for most third-trimester abortions, and that in between there is a heck of a lot of gray area. That's where the largest single block of Americans sit. With a nod to the name for the far-out Birthers, and the fact that the large middle abortion group is partly in this camp and partly in that, perhaps the right word to describe them should be "Partial Birther Aborts. Oh, wait, that might not have such good connotations. Hmmm, well, back to the drawing board.

I've never seen folks who hesitate to say if they're pro-life or pro-"choice" in the flesh.

A lot of pro-choice think that "viability" is the cutoff, and (sadly) a lot of pro-lifers support eugenics and killing a child for their parents' wrongdoing. (birth defects, drug effects, incest, rape)

The uniting factor seems to be that pro-choice thinks that a woman should be able to kill her child at will up to X point, and pro-lifers think that nobody should be able to kill someone at-will.

Funny that I stumbled onto this post just now, seeing as how, just a few minutes ago, I encountered the following gem of a pro-choice (or, more accurately, "pro-murder") argument posted by one of my secular liberal acquaintances on Facebook:

"When rowe v wade was passed in the 1970's and abortion became nationally legal, there were less unwanted children being born in the US. Unfortunately, most of these unwanted children would have been raised in low income areas and probably would have turned to crime (statistically speaking). Since these children were not born, crime rates fell drastically in the 90's when these people would have been in there teens and 20s. There were other contributing factors, but the legalization of abortion was responsible for like half of the decrease in crime.

On the other hand, as a counterexample, take Romania. The leader of that country made abortion illegal, and the result was many children being born into poverty. Crime rates sky rocketed and the country was in chaos. Then, the leader of that country was thrown out of power and executed."

The idea here seems to be that, given current socioeconomic realities, abortion is currently necessary in that it serves as an irreplaceable bulwark against virulent criminal activity and societal chaos. It's the sort of consequentialist thinking brewed in Hell. Another young atheistic fellow chimed in in response:

"I think abortion is the most cost effective way of decreasing the number of people on welfare; or in prison. Moreover, I'm sorry but the world's overpopulated as is, there are so many underprivileged children as is, if a woman wants to make the responsible decision that she doesn't see herself fit to raise a child - i have no problem with that and neither should anyone else. And I think that because of actual, empirical, evidence, and the ability to reason."

A garden-variety sickly sweet, overly sentimental liberal girl concurred in a more "warm, welcoming" manner:

"But even if you think abortion is killing, you still have the wrong look at it. No one wants to get an abortion. Everyone tends to be unsure if it is killing or not. And even if they don't it is still a tough choice that affects the woman's and the man's entire life (assuming the man isn't a scum bag). To say "No' because of the moral problem you have with abortion is basically condemning a lot of people to sadness and overloading the foster care system. The reasons people abort is to save their actual life, the lifestyle they have set up for themselves, and/or the life of the baby, since some are born in incredible suffering only to die months later.

Religious pro-lifers shouldn't dismiss this choice as something so simple since they have no real clue what it is like to make one in an everyday, concrete reality.

And there is no way people will be so simplistic and think, 'Ok, let's have lots of unprotected sex, and if by chance we happen to get pregnant we'll have an abortion.' Chances are at least one person in the couple will have sense to not want to view it that way. In reality, it is an aid to people who got into a stupid predicament because they were too careless. And honestly, do we really want more and more teen mothers out there?

Pro-lifers need to think about these things before they jump to conclusions.

Besides, in desperation people will still get abortions by illegal means if they have to, resulting in even more casualties and suffering. The allowance of abortions does more good than bad."

--

And so on and on the consequentialist circus goes.

Like me, all three of these people are in the 19-23 age group, and each one attends a "Top 15" university. To put it mildly, the future looks very bleak, especially from where I and other religiously-minded youth are standing.

I'm sorry but the world's overpopulated as is

Why doesn't the author of that offer to have himself put down?

the future looks very bleak, especially from where I and other religiously-minded youth are standing.

Yes it does. But that there are people like you means that hope cannot be abandoned.

Hi,

I'm pro-choice, but I agree that having an abortion has moral relevance (unlike, say, piercing your ear or having a tattoo). I feel frustrated that there's public endorsement of a site which contains misleading information for young women. Someone said that in order to be pro-choice you must believe some humans are not persons. This sounds shocking and, depending on how we define the sortal 'person', suggests pro-choicers are alike Nazis. I just want to say that, defining person as a rational self-conscious being (standard philosophical definition since John Locke), of course there are some members of our species that are not persons, because there are some humans which are neither rational nor self-conscious. Yet this is just a matter of fact which no one can deny. Now we should discuss what's the morally relevant thing -being human or being a rational self-conscious creature. I'd argue the former has no moral relevance.

Like me, all three of these people are in the 19-23 age group, and each one attends a "Top 15" university. To put it mildly, the future looks very bleak, especially from where I and other religiously-minded youth are standing.

Don't lose heart; third party surveys show that young folks are becoming more and more prolife as time goes on-- I was the ONLY person in my age-group I knew that was openly pro-life when I was younger, and there's the simple way that religious folks aren't as willing to bring their views into unrelated situations, and are less willing to be hateful jerks.
(I'm looking at YOU, Planned Parenthood and your "get your girlfriend an abortion for mother's day" drives.)

(Good response to Jose is in spam filter; please don't think I resubmitted an edited form!)

Jose, if those aborted are "non-persons," it's difficult to see why the decision to kill them does have moral relevance.

(Trying again)

Jose-
I pointed out that it was one of the ways that one can justify abortion. You can be simply biologically ignorant, or flatly deny the basic science involved.

This sounds shocking and, depending on how we define the sortal 'person', suggests pro-choicers are alike Nazis.

Among others, like every tribal culture ever, and the Japanese before WWII, anyone The notion that all humans are persons is pretty unusual, historically.

Doesn't make it any less amusing to watch people try to wiggle around the simple fact that, if they support abortion on the basis that the fetal human is not a person, they are defining this class of humans as non-persons.

I just want to say that, defining person as a rational self-conscious being (standard philosophical definition since John Locke), of course there are some members of our species that are not persons, because there are some humans which are neither rational nor self-conscious.

As the bio-ethicist Singer does, when he justifies infanticide, eugenics and killing off those with mental disabilities due to age or injury. One thing I can give Singer credit for, he's very honest about taking his stances to their rational end.

It also runs into the issue of not being a person when you are asleep or otherwise unconscious; a really obvious side-effect would be that rape of a drugged person would not be rape, as rape is sex without consent of the other person and you just defined those without consciousness of self as non-persons.

Human experimentation on disabled persons is likewise justified by the proposed redefinition of person.

This is why your redefinition of person is not generally accepted, in spite of your appeal to authority that it is a "standard philosophical definition."
It's not even Locke's definition of person-- that's from his reasoning on personal identity while trying to separate it from physical being. ( http://www.philosophypages.com if anyone is curious; they're pretty easy to read, and they cite their sources.)
(Incidentally, the most widely accepted philosophical definition of person is "moral being," drawing from the historical line of philosophy in the Church that includes nonmaterial beings, and nonhuman intelligences. It is not "generally accepted" because one of the major philosophical branches is the classic "What measure is a man?" and associated questions.)

"What does make people change their minds on this? That must be a pretty heavily-researched question."

I changed my mind when I was thirteen (in what I honestly consider to be a genuinely divinely inspired epiphany) by confronting my previous stance with logic.

Up 'til then, I am ashamed to admit, I had been largely influenced by a comment in a favourite novel where one character says that "he had never bought the idiotic notion that a microscopic blastula was a human being." I'd gone from this into the stance shared by most pro-choicers, I think, where I had this mushy stage of fetal existence in mind where it "wasn't yet" a person; I would have been appalled at the notion of aborting something with arms and legs and a face, but could comfortably dehumanize something that was no more than a lump of unconscious cellular tissue.

But one day, I asked myself, "So at just what point does the embryo turn into a person? Well, three months, I guess; ninety days," at which point a quieter voice asked, "Why three months? Why not eighty-nine days?" And, like Matthew Harrison Brady in INHERIT THE WIND, I reluctantly admitted, "Well, no reason, I guess." And the Drummond-like voice in my head said, "Then why not eighty-eight days? If eighty-eight, why not eighty-seven? Eighty-six? Eighty? Sixty? Thirty? Fifteen? One?"

And it hit me: If you could move the dividing line that easily, then it couldn't refer to anything real. Either it was human all along, or the word "human" was meaningless all along. I still remember that moment like a tangible punch in my gut.

But earlier posts have hit on the problem. The difficulty is not in making people see the truth. The difficulty is in making people *admit* the truth, when it comes at such a high cost.

When rowe v wade was passed

First off, it's Roe, not Rowe, and second, it was never "passed". Passing is what legislatures do; it implies some form of representative government in our system. The SCOTUS "issues" opinions - it does not ask for yours, nor let you vote on it.

I just want to say that, defining person as a rational self-conscious being (standard philosophical definition since John Locke)

Wow, all the way back to Locke, huh? And it is "standard"? I bet ancient Greek philosophers would differ with that definition, as would many others. Frankly, I am not aware of a "standard" definition - you will have to make your case that your definition fits reason.

I can already see problems with your definition - what does it mean to be "rational" and "self conscious"? Must the rationality and self consciousness always be manifest (a human being under anesthesia manifests neither)? Is rationality/self-consciousness a sliding scale or an absolute quality? Does a human being who is otherwise functional (able to carry out the activities of daily living) but severely cognitively challenged possess enough rationality/selfconsciousness to be considered a person? Who decides these issues?

I think abortion is the most cost effective way of decreasing the number of people on welfare

No, the most cost effective way would be to simply do away with welfare. The next most cost effective way to be to kill recipients after a set period of time. Which is essentially what they are advocating, but only for the unborn welfare recipients of course.

((Thank you whoever pulled my comment out of moderation! And to C Matt, making many of the same points with greater savings on words.))

"Abortion is more common than you might think and safe and effective though some people may experience temporary discomfort."

Particularly to people such as the unborn fetuses. To be sure, that level of callousness is the malignant cancer of this country, and of the world.