Pro-choice and veg*n?
Hello VegWeb, it's been a while. I was reminded to log in the other day when I got into a debate with a friend about abortion. She challenged that as a veg*n I should also be pro-life by default, which led me into a pretty interesting examination of why I agree with these two philosophies.
I personally maintain that legalising abortion allows women to make important decisions regarding their bodies and futures, and brings the numbers of those seeking dangerous backstreet abortions down. In those countries which legalise abortion, such as my native England, I consider it a right of women in need, although never a method of birth control. Legal limits for abortion exist for a reason; if it isn't a viable foetus, I don't consider it murder.
As a veg*n, I neither support nor participate in the slaughter or torture of animals because I believe that compassion and right should not be extended only to those who have the ability to ask for them. I couldn't kill an animal (except in absolute, last-chance-to-survive emergency), and if I eat meat that's being done on my behalf.
Looking at the reasoning behind my support for legal abortion and veg*nism, I don't feel hypocritical for my decisions.
What about you, dear VegWebbers? Are you inherently conflicted? Which way does your allegiance lie on this tricky moral question?
You do indeed express yourself very well and respectfully. In that case, I'll respond.
Basically we're just going to have to disagree. The way I look at it, at any age the fetus is not "part of the mother's body". The utuerus, intestines, gall bladder, these are parts of her body. The fetus, regardless of it's age shouldn't be something considered part of her body that she can dispose of. Obviously a fetus is so incredibly close to being one with the mother, it's impossible for it not to be considered part of the women's body and in so many senses it is.
Even though I understand that for someone, given their life circumstance being pregnant isn't really a possibility and the stress of carrying the baby may harm the baby, I'm still steadfast in my belief that this is a human being that we shouldn't have to option to terminate.
I've held this opinion probably longer than most of you have been in the world so it's not really changing. I do appreciate being able to express myself, and am always open to be argued with, flamed with, but at the end of the day a friendly "agree to disagree" is where it's going to wind up.
I think what I find difficult is your line that there shouldn't be the option to terminate. As a young, fertile woman, that frightens me. The thought that I couldn't decide what happens in my body, that my choice should be legislated because of someone else's morals, is problematic for me.
A friend linked me to a very good article recently: have a read and see what you think: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
That really epitomises what is so hard about this discussion. Speaking from a female perspective, we always think we know which choice we'd make, but here people who are very vehemently anti-abortion are making the choice to have a pregnancy terminated because they believe it to be the best choice for them to make. It's such a loaded and emotional topic that I'm not sure that there can ever be a different conclusion than, as you said, "agree to disagree". I do, however, staunchly uphold the right of women to seek a safe, medical abortion. The alternatives, for me, are too frightening to contemplate.
All I can think about in this situation is, what if I were to accidentally get pregnant? Even though I use birth control very wisely? It happens. Having a child at this stage would literally ruin my life. I would have to cancel my career (due to the nature of the certification process), abandon the life I have begun here, and move back home. I would have no money and no health insurance, and my parents would have to consider helping me out, which they could not afford either. And of course the father of the baby would factor in somehow--what a mess. I just do not have the resources to support a baby. I barely have the resources to birth one to begin with. And I know I'm more well-off than many.
There are so many factors that contribute to pregnancies. One is lack of education of and access to birth control--for economic and social reasons. Another is chance. Unplanned pregnancies happen. Period. And they will always happen, even if we resolved all of the socio-economic disparities and health care problems in this country. Even with a comprehensive, universal sex ed program and free birth control for everyone, accidents happen. To say, "Oh well, deal with the consequences" is just atrocious to me, and borders on discriminatory.
Not every possible egg-sperm combination comes to be a human. Not every zygote comes to be a human. Every time sperm is spilled an unrealized life is killed. That's millions of potential human beings at every second of every day. I guess it goes along with what Catski said about realized lives vs. potential lives.
Also, I think the crux of the issue, like Catski said, is that I'll be damned if someone else's morals dictate what I do to my body. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. It's analogous to the gay marriage issue in this respect--if you think gay marriage is wrong, don't get one. Or like, if you think alcohol is wrong, don't drink it. Whether or not Jane Doe has an abortion has no effect on my life.
Plus, we all know what happens when women are denied safe medical abortions.
Having a child at this stage would literally ruin my life.
This. Five years of intensive study down the drain.
When 'my dot turned pink' 17 years ago, I was 20 and waiting tables, broke as could be... but emotionally able to grow up fast enough, and sure that I was willing to try. Never even considered the termination option, because underneath the stark terror (!) I was excited about the idea that I was growing a whole new living being, in there... But let me tell ya: had the issue come up again, as I was struggling to get through school while giving a child a stable happy one-parent home, juggling shut-off notices, working late shift to avoid missing my child's waking hours, sleeping like 3 hours in every 24, doing intensive (basically premed) undergrad work while my son was at preschool, so I could someday get to a point where I could build us a decent life... you betcha I would've been at the clinic the first day I was late! My first obligation would have been to my child that I already had-- I couldn't have kept more than the two of us from homelessness. (And yes, I was WAY OCD about birth control!)
In my opinion, there's just no way anyone else should have the power to decide this for me.
I do appreciate, though, the respectful and well spoken exchanges of ideas here; that's hard to find, on this issue.
Well, I'm pretty much entirely unlikely to become pregnant at any point - short of being raped while unconscious without knowing it has happened, within the next year or so, at the right point in my cycle, by someone with particularly determined spermatozoa, chances are slim to none. I mention this because the whole idea of having to undergo an abortion is, for me, entirely academic. I have trouble emotionally putting myself into that position and having true sympathy for the situation. Additionally, because of my gender/body issues, and the fact that having my body, against my will, perform a process which is so deeply female and completely out of my control would probably break my brain, so I may not even be thinking perfectly logically.
Okay, disclaimer over.
For myself, I don't think abortion is vegan. Do I think it is necessarily wrong? No. I think it's sad, and unfortunate, and hard for the woman. But I think that there are enough sets circumstances in which it does the LEAST harm. I would have to, if pushed, say that I think the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the child. And there are even instances where the woman's life does not literally hang in the balance, but where the physical, emotional, and social effects could make both her life and that of a child pretty miserable.
It's such a tangled issue, but because there is no easy answer and no clear-cut black-and-white right and wrong, I don't think any kind of outright ban should happen. The option should stay open. I think that rather than trying to outlaw abortion, society should work to lower demand instead of limiting supply. Education is important, as is a societal shift to make the world a more hospitable place for the sort of woman who would likely find herself having an abortion - it's never going to be easy to be, for instance, a single woman going through school, trying to secure employment, and support herself as well as a child on top of that, but it could be made easier.
Catski and KMK, you say that having a child would ruin your lives... maybe what needs to happen is, rather than child or no child being the issue, we need to find ways to make it so that having a child is -not- a life-ruiner.
Catski and KMK, you say that having a child would ruin your lives... maybe what needs to happen is, rather than child or no child being the issue, we need to find ways to make it so that having a child is -not- a life-ruiner.
I agree, there need to be some serious, serious reforms about the rights and benefits of single mothers. Nonetheless, I want the option regardless of whether it would devastate me or not. I have a right to choose whether or not I reproduce. And regardless of benefits, a baby is a baby and inevitably changes your life in certain ways, regardless of how many benefits the mother gets.
Catski and KMK, you say that having a child would ruin your lives... maybe what needs to happen is, rather than child or no child being the issue, we need to find ways to make it so that having a child is -not- a life-ruiner.
I agree, there need to be some serious, serious reforms about the rights and benefits of single mothers. Nonetheless, I want the option regardless of whether it would devastate me or not. I have a right to choose whether or not I reproduce. And regardless of benefits, a baby is a baby and inevitably changes your life in certain ways, regardless of how many benefits the mother gets.
Oh, of course. I do not intend to suggest that benefits would mean everyone should go ahead and reproduce - just that it could be helpful for those who would find themselves in an 'impossible' situation... they wouldn't only have 'abortion' and 'ruined life' as their options.
I think what I find difficult is your line that there shouldn't be the option to terminate. As a young, fertile woman, that frightens me. The thought that I couldn't decide what happens in my body, that my choice should be legislated because of someone else's morals, is problematic for me.
For me it's not difficult or frightening at all because we have laws against harming living things, such as abusing children, animals and murder and to me anti-abortion laws fall in line with these. My anti-abortion opinion is not a religious or so much a moral one, but that it just makes sence to me biologoically and I'm a scientific type of thinker.
I do however become extremely frightened with a certain segment of society, i.e. Christians, forcing their morals on the rest of us, so I get what you're saying.
I understand my stance is harsh on someone for whom a pregnancy would be a disaster. It's easy for me as a gay male to decide about abortion, but it does affect me in some ways. My niece is a struggling mother of two girls aged 3 and 1 and was pregnant at age 16, and is now waiting tables struggling to try to get into technical school to make a life easier for herself. In the meantime she depends on family, mainly grandparents and her mom. The father is a no good loser. How much better her life might have been had she aborted the baby when she was 16 and not dropped out of high school. My sister had an abortion of convenience during a time when she was dealing with issues of addiction and a baby would have been a disaster. I see all sides and life is hard sometimes.
The website is interesting. It's a no-brainer that some anti-choice females are going to make the choice to abort because that choice is currently an option.
In the end, I'm o.k. with how things are because it's not an issue I care much about. I have many other causes and issues that I speak up against and abortion isn't one of them. So if it stays legal, I'll continue to say it's wrong and go about my business.
For me it's not difficult or frightening at all because we have laws against harming living things, such as abusing children, animals and murder and to me anti-abortion laws fall in line with these. My anti-abortion opinion is not a religious or so much a moral one, but that it just makes sence to me biologoically and I'm a scientific type of thinker.
But then you get into the issue of whether it's closer to murder or euthanasia. I am in full support of the latter, but naturally not the former. The trouble is that an abortion terminates future possibilities which is a lot less concrete and a lot harder to encapsulate than, say, ending a life of suffering for a cystic fibrosis patient whose kidneys are failing, or the obvious wrong of a gas station attendant being shot in a robbery.
"Primum, non nocere. First do no harm. Sounds sooo much classier in Latin...most things do, including Non Iligitimi Vincit...Don't Let the Bastards Win."
VV: I LOVE ur posts! Nice wordage!
I'm in agreement with most posts above-- there are times when abortion is the least-harm option, especially before the embryo's central nervous system is hooked up & running. History well-documents the harm to women & children that comes from no legal access to that medical service... & I don't think anyone that hasn't had to walk that road of desperate choices has the right to judge others who have. I also believe that no one has the right to mandate that kind of decision for anyone else. This has nothing to do with ethical food choices, except that it's important to figure out where you stand on both, in order to live a life that's true to your own best self.
That's a difficult definition, because what does "central nervous system is hooked up and running" mean?
Neurulation and the beginning of the formation of the definitive nervous system happens during weeks 3 and 4 after fertilization. However, nervous system development continues even after birth with synaptic pruning. I don't mean to be combative, but you've included a gray-zone of ~1 year that includes post-birth abortion.
I'm Pro-choice, My own mind feels there's a time limit to it.. Like I don't agree with partial-birth abortions, in a sense that if it can survive as a premature infant, it shouldn't be aborted..
I've done a lot of research on both sides and it is a scary thing to decide. But I also feel that if one isn't ready for the child, they have to decide for themselves... and if its too late there is also adoption.
I too think one should be able to love a child that is not "theirs" I personally don't want children because of my own mental issues (maybe my age right now) but I absolutely love my nieces and some of my friends children, etc.
I don't really agree with the 4 or 5 children thing... but that might be because my mom had 4 kids and everyone in my family is so into kids that it seems so traditional... and its my younger age rebelling against some norm... haha.
But everyone is different in what they can do.
I think that people should take into consideration what they can provide for their child, love coming first.. but I more so feel that if society itself could be changed into a more loving and communal environment that money itself wouldn't be an issue.
I just really don't like today's nonexistent forms of 'community'.
Sorry, none of that made sense.
Just wanted to comment on "survival factor." There are plenty of babies who can survive after remarkable and heroic efforts. Do you mean survive with no outside support? Or do you mean survive after high dose corticosteroids, administration of surfactant, and possibly multiple open heart procedures, etc.? :)
Prior to the invention of the Norwood procedure, there was no therapy for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. 100% of those babies died. Now? High volume centers can get the perioperative mortality down to 16%.
"Primum, non nocere. First do no harm. Sounds sooo much classier in Latin...most things do, including Non Iligitimi Vincit...Don't Let the Bastards Win."
VV: I LOVE ur posts! Nice wordage!
I'm in agreement with most posts above-- there are times when abortion is the least-harm option, especially before the embryo's central nervous system is hooked up & running. History well-documents the harm to women & children that comes from no legal access to that medical service... & I don't think anyone that hasn't had to walk that road of desperate choices has the right to judge others who have. I also believe that no one has the right to mandate that kind of decision for anyone else. This has nothing to do with ethical food choices, except that it's important to figure out where you stand on both, in order to live a life that's true to your own best self.
That's a difficult definition, because what does "central nervous system is hooked up and running" mean?
Neurulation and the beginning of the formation of the definitive nervous system happens during weeks 3 and 4 after fertilization. However, nervous system development continues even after birth with synaptic pruning. I don't mean to be combative, but you've included a gray-zone of ~1 year that includes post-birth abortion.
Again: to me, for me personally, the line dividing 'sentient creature' from 'not' would be where there's a rudimentary system of nerves interacting with a rudimentary brain. I didn't say 'fully mature' nervous system, which would take us into the child's early twenties! The initial clump of rapidly dividing cells does not have spinal nerves, hippocampus, cortex, etc., which in my personal world view appear to precede human sentience.
Again: it's beside the point. What we're talking about, when we talk about 'pro-choice' or not, is the issue of who gets to decide what the 'least harm' option IS. I'm not saying that my definition of when it's morally ok to terminate a pregnancy is the only one, or even the best one; I'm just saying that mine is the definition that matters, if I find myself facing an unwanted pregnancy.
I feel no obligation/duty to a clump of cells, and I'm not really ashamed of that. The same way I don't feel an obligation to every sperm cell. I'm not like, "Oh no, all those poor sperm could have joined with my egg and formed these wonderful babies!" But I don't really find anything miraculous about the process of fertilization--it's just random DNA combining. I DO feel an obligation to a fetus that is beyond a certain stage of development. Of course, for legal purposes, there needs to be a line there. That line will never be in the perfect spot, but it is necessary. That's why I always pay very close attention to my cycle, etc, because I don't want to risk carrying a baby longer than I have to, should I become pregnant.
My response to any male (or female) who thinks abortion is wrong would be, "OK, you first! Here, have this baby! And you have to devote your life to taking care of it!" Can you IMAGINE? Not to be sexist (though I think being anti-choice has elements of sexism), but imagine the shit show that would commence if men were in the same predicament. You can bet Glenn Beck would be shitting himself. No way he would go through with it.
I also think serious reforms for what happens to children put up for adoption are required. Bringing a baby to term and giving him or her up for adoption is likely to just fill up the foster care system. Who can justify that? But it happens all the time.
Just wanted to comment on "survival factor." There are plenty of babies who can survive after remarkable and heroic efforts. Do you mean survive with no outside support? Or do you mean survive after high dose corticosteroids, administration of surfactant, and possibly multiple open heart procedures, etc.? :)
Prior to the invention of the Norwood procedure, there was no therapy for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. 100% of those babies died. Now? High volume centers can get the perioperative mortality down to 16%.
I did add the caviet that things are changing in the premmie medical world. I do hear "nonviable" fetus when I'm discussing a transfer from another facility to our high risk ob. If the fetus is "nonviable" they won't take the patient because there's no treatment different than any ob unit can provide. If the mom is indeed high risk and the fetus is "viable" we take the patient. The #of weeks a fetus is viable has been lowered over the years due to technoligical advances.
My response to any male (or female) who thinks abortion is wrong would be, "OK, you first! Here, have this baby! And you have to devote your life to taking care of it!" Can you IMAGINE? Not to be sexist (though I think being anti-choice has elements of sexism), but imagine the shit show that would commence if men were in the same predicament. You can bet Glenn Beck would be shitting himself. No way he would go through with it.
It would indeed be a different world if men got pregnant, or even menstrated. There probably would be a week off a month as men "bled for their country".
I'm sure you're aware though that as many women as men are on the pro-choice side.
Just wanted to comment on "survival factor." There are plenty of babies who can survive after remarkable and heroic efforts. Do you mean survive with no outside support? Or do you mean survive after high dose corticosteroids, administration of surfactant, and possibly multiple open heart procedures, etc.? :)
Prior to the invention of the Norwood procedure, there was no therapy for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. 100% of those babies died. Now? High volume centers can get the perioperative mortality down to 16%.
I did add the caviet that things are changing in the premmie medical world. I do hear "nonviable" fetus when I'm discussing a transfer from another facility to our high risk ob. If the fetus is "nonviable" they won't take the patient because there's no treatment different than any ob unit can provide. If the mom is indeed high risk and the fetus is "viable" we take the patient. The #of weeks a fetus is viable has been lowered over the years due to technoligical advances.
Absolutely, and that's why survival factor may not be a good cutoff.
My point was that there are other factors that heavily influence survival aside from being pre-term. Would it be acceptable to terminate in the 38th week if it was discovered that the patient had hypoplastic left heart syndrome... or pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum? Survival outside of heroic measures would be essentially 0.
The implementation of ideals is very complex, because there's a spectrum of "survivability" if you will.
Using more liberal criteria will result in more false positives. Using more conservative criteria will result in more false negatives. There's an entire body of literature regarding receiver operating characteristic curves and the establishment of thresholds that mostly has to do with radiology and epidemiology but has applicability to this situation.
"Primum, non nocere. First do no harm. Sounds sooo much classier in Latin...most things do, including Non Iligitimi Vincit...Don't Let the Bastards Win."
VV: I LOVE ur posts! Nice wordage!
I'm in agreement with most posts above-- there are times when abortion is the least-harm option, especially before the embryo's central nervous system is hooked up & running. History well-documents the harm to women & children that comes from no legal access to that medical service... & I don't think anyone that hasn't had to walk that road of desperate choices has the right to judge others who have. I also believe that no one has the right to mandate that kind of decision for anyone else. This has nothing to do with ethical food choices, except that it's important to figure out where you stand on both, in order to live a life that's true to your own best self.
That's a difficult definition, because what does "central nervous system is hooked up and running" mean?
Neurulation and the beginning of the formation of the definitive nervous system happens during weeks 3 and 4 after fertilization. However, nervous system development continues even after birth with synaptic pruning. I don't mean to be combative, but you've included a gray-zone of ~1 year that includes post-birth abortion.
Again: to me, for me personally, the line dividing 'sentient creature' from 'not' would be where there's a rudimentary system of nerves interacting with a rudimentary brain. I didn't say 'fully mature' nervous system, which would take us into the child's early twenties! The initial clump of rapidly dividing cells does not have spinal nerves, hippocampus, cortex, etc., which in my personal world view appear to precede human sentience.
Again: it's beside the point. What we're talking about, when we talk about 'pro-choice' or not, is the issue of who gets to decide what the 'least harm' option IS. I'm not saying that my definition of when it's morally ok to terminate a pregnancy is the only one, or even the best one; I'm just saying that mine is the definition that matters, if I find myself facing an unwanted pregnancy.
Fair enough.
A lot of things are legislated, though. People can't take heroin. People can't abandon children. Someone rolls into the Emergency Department with a potassium of 7, the ED has to get the guy on dialysis independent of ability to pay (EMTALA). Similarly, in the UK, if the cost per quality adjusted life year is too great, then you can't get a treatment.
I got behind in my replies, but I still wonder how to weigh the inconvenience/trauma of carrying a fetus one doesn't want (no one said the woman has to keep the baby once it is born) vs death. Is carrying an unwanted baby a fate worse than her own death to the woman? Would she kill herself before she would be willing to carry a pregnancy to term? If not, why is the death of the baby less important than the trauma/inconvenience to the woman?
Very early abortions may indeed be an entirely different matter. But it certainly is a gnarly issue all the way around.
My response to any male (or female) who thinks abortion is wrong would be, "OK, you first! Here, have this baby! And you have to devote your life to taking care of it!" Can you IMAGINE? Not to be sexist (though I think being anti-choice has elements of sexism), but imagine the shit show that would commence if men were in the same predicament. You can bet Glenn Beck would be shitting himself. No way he would go through with it.
It would indeed be a different world if men got pregnant, or even menstrated. There probably would be a week off a month as men "bled for their country".
I'm sure you're aware though that as many women as men are on the pro-choice side.
LMAO. "Bleed for their country." I would like that to happen for just one month.
I realize that it's split between men and women--that's just my response to the males (and females) who think abortion is wrong.
LMAO. "Bleed for their country." I would like that to happen for just one month.
I realize that it's split between men and women--that's just my response to the males (and females) who think abortion is wrong.
Well, there are a lot of topics that are gender dominated. Right now women's health is very hot - in part to make up for the lack of attention in previous years. Breast cancer, human papilloma virus/cervical cancer, and women's heart disease is a huge focus right now. However, lung cancer, the number one killer of all cancers, doesn't get as much press.
Gonna play devil's advocate for a second. Don't get too angry! :)
One might argue "there's no Men's specific health," and men are much less likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric illness than women, etc. On top of that, women are not eligible for the draft and don't fight on the front line. In order to vote, men have to be registered with selective services.
However, one might also argue that medicine until the 80's has been essentially Men's health. ;)
There is disparity no matter where you look and how you cut it. Even the rich get screwed in some cases: VIP's often get subpar care. There are hospitals that have VIP areas (the extra cost/profit goes to offsetting the cost of money-losing areas, e.g. emergency department, medical genetics, etc.), but they're far from a lot of the important areas of the hospital, and nobody's willing to touch the VIPs. Nobody wants to be known as "the guy who killed X."
P.S. Looked at a few of your responses in the immunization thread... :)>>>
Pages