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?
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.
I'm still really bothered by your use of the word "inconvenience". Pretty sure an unwanted pregnancy is better described as "traumatic" than "inconvenient".
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.
I'm still really bothered by your use of the word "inconvenience". Pretty sure an unwanted pregnancy is better described as "traumatic" than "inconvenient".
I don't want to put words in isaytomatoes' mouth, but I think the comparison is to the "ultimate trauma" of being dead?
Just a thought.
With regards to death vs compromised life: Anyone know what the legal precedent is for someone who murders their kidnapper? Is it considered self-defence, or does that only apply when one's physical life/safety are in danger? In a way, even if having a child wouldn't kill the parent, it still has the possibility - the probability - of ending the life that person knew. Whether for nine months or eighteen years or the rest of their natural life.
I guess I'm looking at pregnancy more as inconvenience because I bore two children and found that my life didn't stop because I was pregnant. I still worked, I still did things I wanted to do. Yes, there were discomforts and such, but overall, it was not like my life was over. Now, ok--I did not have the psychological trauma of not wanting to be pregnant, agreed. But pregnancy is a relatively short period in a person's life, and no one says a woman who does not want to keep her baby has to keep it and raise it. There are plenty of people looking to adopt newborns in this country, so the issue of raising a child should not even be a part of this debate, imo.
Even if an unplanned pregnancy is a "trauma", it is still not as traumatic as a violent death. If the two people (mother and fetus) are both sentient beings, don't they have the same "value" as living creatures/human beings? How do you weigh "traumatic inconvenience" for nine months against violent death?
ist, if I were to get pregnant right now, I would not be able to return to my current career after leaving. I would have to go to my home state. The reason for this is because I am a teacher and am in the middle of the certification process, long story. Then, I would not have viable credentials needed to apply for jobs even though I've worked my ass off for years to get them. It would change my life for way more than nine months. It would also wreck my finances--I would no longer have health insurance after a certain period. I would not even have money to move back out after giving birth. I would not be able to pay for my car or my student loans. At this point in my career there is no going on maternity, it's called having to abandon everything. Having a baby would change the course of my entire life.
That's just an example, but it's awful presumptuous to say that giving birth is just a jolly little 9 month "inconvenience." Or even a traumatic one, at that. Also, a small enough embryo isn't a sentient being.
Kate your job and benefits suck. Which is odd because being a teacher is a female-dominated, mostly unionized, field and teachers have been mothers with excellent pregnancy benefits forever, guess things have changed. I know it's a long story though and I believe you, no need to defend.
But I hear what you're saying. The "inconvenience" goes long beyond the nine months, as my niece can tell you.......as any mother will tell you....it's a lifetime and beyond....
It's easy for someone to say something about their own life and how easy it was, but it's not fair to put that on another person. But I do understand what isat is saying, it's not always necessarily the disaster one projects to be, one's fears are always worse than the reality.
...one's fears are always worse than the reality.
Nope- not always. There are times when your fears don't even come close. And let me tell you, if you're doing it properly, parenting changes your life forever- NOT just for 40 weeks of gestation.
Saying that 'you could give it up for adoption' doesn't cut it with me either; sometimes that's feasible, sometimes not. If you already have kids that you're working 2 jobs to support, don't think for a minute that pregnancy's not gonna effect your ability to continue to do that; or that your preschool kids aren't gonna be emotionally damaged by seeing their mom "give a child away"... If you already have a child and are struggling to battle cancer or AIDS, a pregnancy is the last thing your body needs to have to deal with, and losing you is the last thing your child needs to have to deal with... whether or not you take on the parenting of a new child, the negative outcomes are still there. There are tons of scenarios where having another child could land your current kids in foster care-- if you've never lived close to the poverty edge while trying to raise a family, maybe you don't realize how easy it is to go over it! I think a family's obligations are always to the existing kids first, not the hypothetical ones. Pregnancy takes a huge toll on the mother, physically, emotionally, & financially; I think its naive to say that because pregnancy was an 'inconvenience' to you, that's all it's going to be to anyone else who ever conceives.
I teach on a temporary certificate, which is time dependent. I'm not a certified teacher. I teach in a shortage area on a 2-year license, they don't have a long term obligation to me beyond that point. I don't HAVE to get my certificate. Many people don't manage to. If my temp license expires and I can't renew it, oh well! It's not their problem. Their only obligation to me is until August 2009. After that, not their problem. That's why. But the pregnancy benefits in our school are good to my knowledge.
Seriously, I'm not ruining my career and throwing thousands and thousands of dollars of education away because a sperm accidentally bumped into one of my eggs which it never should have bumped into in the first place. Not when, if I had sex five minutes later, the same accident might not have happened. I don't see a tragedy in an unrealized life.
Don't get me wrong, I hope that never ever happens, but if it did, the choice would not be difficult. Unless I was already several months along. Then I definitely wouldn't. I'm talking like, plan B or a very, very early termination. (And yes I realize Plan B prevents implantation, but I know some people consider that abortion so I lumped it in).
Also, a small enough embryo isn't a sentient being.
What is the definition of life, though? This discussion relies on a definition that might not be best determined by laypeople.
Because of the complexities of death, lay people aren't allowed to declare death. EMTs are also not allowed to declare death unless it's something pretty obvious (e.g. decapitation). Death has to be pronounced by a board certified physician. This can prove quite problematic in terms of organ transplantation (yeargh... donation after cardiac death), but that's another conversation! :)
Not all death is created equal. There's cardiac death. There's brain death. On top of that there's a gray zone where a person is DNR/DNI but certain interventions might save the person. These people are dying but could be saved. Then there are the truly heroic interventions that keep people alive beyond even the wildest imagination. Are those people really alive...?
I posit that it's not for the lay public to determine who is and is not alive. After all, there's a medicolegal definition of death.
I posit that it's not for the lay public to determine who is and is not alive. After all, there's a medicolegal definition of death.
I posit that it's not for the lay public (i.e. anyone NOT carrying my fetus) to determine what goes on inside my uterus.
If & when the possibility of taking the embryo OUT of my body to gestate elswhere becomes an option, then it may be appropriate to revisit this topic-- not before.
As Tweety said earlier, there's a point where I guess we just have to agree to disagree... Most people have strong convictions about this issue, which aren't subject to change. I respect anyone who is trying to make the most ethical decisions possible; but kicking & screaming will I be dragged back to the point where society offers only back-alley coathanger jobs to women who DO see termination as their least-harm option.
... kicking & screaming will I be dragged back to the point where society offers only back-alley coathanger jobs to women who DO see termination as their least-harm option.
That's what it boils down to for me as well. There are people who would love to see abortion made illegal on ethical grounds, but don't seem to understand the number of women who will contract infections, be seriously hurt or die from seeking unsafe terminations.
... kicking & screaming will I be dragged back to the point where society offers only back-alley coathanger jobs to women who DO see termination as their least-harm option.
That's what it boils down to for me as well. There are people who would love to see abortion made illegal on ethical grounds, but don't seem to understand the number of women who will contract infections, be seriously hurt or die from seeking unsafe terminations.
It's a little more complicated than that.
That's also secondary to the acceptance of abortion as an option. Similarly, the use of marijuana - in spite of its illegality - has increased mirroring the public acceptance of it as a "safe" drug.
A lot of people want to do a lot of things that are illegal... does it always mean the government should make it safe for them to do so?
Should heroin be legalized? Because the spread of hepatitis B and C by intravenous drug use is well documented. Furthermore, the incidence of talc granulomas is significant, and IV-drug use related sepsis is costly.
...one's fears are always worse than the reality.
Nope- not always.
Forgive me for generalizing "always". Of course you're right. I certainly didn't mean to say times were easy.. To further clarify,we all have tough times, and we get through them. Even my niece whom struggles daily is getting over it and has moments of pure joy with her childen. She's risen to the occasion and is an adult, rather than wallowing in a lifetime of misery and she's actually a pretty good mother. It was the worst mistake of her life (because she wasn't on protection/prevention and she knew better) but she has to live with it. Yes, I know she might be the exception that there are plenty of crack addict momma's abusing their kids when an abortion would seem better.
For every situation there is going to be an expection, or many exceptions, a counter agruement and a "yeah but..." and "what about....", "not necessarily so.......". So we just have to decide where we stand. I won't belabor my position anymore.
That's what it boils down to for me as well. There are people who would love to see abortion made illegal on ethical grounds, but don't seem to understand the number of women who will contract infections, be seriously hurt or die from seeking unsafe terminations.
I've heard that argument for decades. Yeah, there's always going to be the girl who uses a coat hanger and the evil illegal abortion guy that really isn't a doctor but just wanting money, but that sounds so Hollywood to me.
People die from endocarditis, sepsis and AIDS from shooting up drugs too...........again, for every situation, statemtn, there's a counter.
I posit that it's not for the lay public to determine who is and is not alive. After all, there's a medicolegal definition of death.
I posit that it's not for the lay public (i.e. anyone NOT carrying my fetus) to determine what goes on inside my uterus.
If & when the possibility of taking the embryo OUT of my body to gestate elswhere becomes an option, then it may be appropriate to revisit this topic-- not before.
As Tweety said earlier, there's a point where I guess we just have to agree to disagree... Most people have strong convictions about this issue, which aren't subject to change. I respect anyone who is trying to make the most ethical decisions possible; but kicking & screaming will I be dragged back to the point where society offers only back-alley coathanger jobs to women who DO see termination as their least-harm option.
Well, the point I was getting at was that physicians should come up with a medicolegal definition.
Perhaps we will in fact have to agree to disagree.
Don't get me wrong, I hope that never ever happens, but if it did, the choice would not be difficult. Unless I was already several months along. Then I definitely wouldn't. I'm talking like, plan B or a very, very early termination. (And yes I realize Plan B prevents implantation, but I know some people consider that abortion so I lumped it in).
You didn't have to explain, I believe you that a pregnancy would be a disaster.
To me the tragedy is an ended LIFE, not the one that is unrealized, because it's taking a life to me. I hope you urine test frequently then because catching it when it's just a clump of cells isn't common. Most people are several weeks along, and there's a recognizable being that's aborted, rather than a clump of cells.
Hopefully, this is my last post on this subject. Carry on folks. Great and civil discussion.
That's what it boils down to for me as well. There are people who would love to see abortion made illegal on ethical grounds, but don't seem to understand the number of women who will contract infections, be seriously hurt or die from seeking unsafe terminations.
Any stats on that? I've heard that argument for decades. Yeah, there's always going to be the girl who uses a coat hanger and the evil illegal abortion guy, but that sounds so Hollywood to me.
Specific stats? Who knows. Even the stats that exist must be questioned, because there are different assumptions that have to be made about the elasticity of demand. The stat may assume that there's perfectly inelastic demand suggesting that there would be no drop in abortion-seekers. However, if demand is very elastic, then the hypothetical price would include the cost of law-breaking, finding a back-alley abortion performer, etc. Making it illegal would almost eliminate it. The truth is that it's probably somewhere in the middle.
You might compare it to smoking: increase in cigarette costs decreases tobacco utilization.
Similarly, people might change their behavioral patterns if abortion becomes more difficult to obtain: increased use of contraceptives (birth control/condoms), decreased engagement in high-risk behavior...
At least hypothetically...
... kicking & screaming will I be dragged back to the point where society offers only back-alley coathanger jobs to women who DO see termination as their least-harm option.
That's what it boils down to for me as well. There are people who would love to see abortion made illegal on ethical grounds, but don't seem to understand the number of women who will contract infections, be seriously hurt or die from seeking unsafe terminations.
It's a little more complicated than that.
That's also secondary to the acceptance of abortion as an option. Similarly, the use of marijuana - in spite of its illegality - has increased mirroring the public acceptance of it as a "safe" drug.
A lot of people want to do a lot of things that are illegal... does it always mean the government should make it safe for them to do so?
Should heroin be legalized? Because the spread of hepatitis B and C by intravenous drug use is well documented. Furthermore, the incidence of talc granulomas is significant, and IV-drug use related sepsis is costly.
Safe injection sites.
They will never prevent people from becoming addicted to heroin, nor will they break the addictions of those who already have them. That's not their purpose. Their purpose is to prevent people from harming themselves even MORE. I think this is a relevant parallel. Safe injection sites are obviously not the answer - ideally, those who are addicted could all find ways to break their drug habits, and those who aren't addicted never would be. But until that perfect world is realised, we have to make compromises and settle for less harmful, rather than harmless. It doesn't do anyone much good if someone dies from bloodborne pathogens from shooting up with a dirty needle. It's bad enough if that person's heading towards death by overdose or exposure on the streets... Dying of hepatitis is no better.
To me the tragedy is an ended LIFE, not the one that is unrealized, because it's taking a life to me. I hope you urine test frequently then because catching it when it's just a clump of cells isn't common. Most people are several weeks along, and there's a recognizable being that's aborted, rather than a clump of cells.
Hopefully, this is my last post on this subject. Carry on folks. Great and civil discussion.
Just one final point (I think!): unless you have very irregular cycles, then on the first day of a missed period it'd be unusual to be more than about 2 weeks along; the menstrual cycle runs about 23 days between periods for most women, and your body needs at least a week or so to 'set up the nursery,' so to speak, & get the uterus ready for implantation after previous menstruation... so I think it's very possible to identify the pregnancy in time to consider all options, well before the embryo (in my opinion) can reasonably be considered a sentient being.
Like Tweety, I'm gonna try to bow out of this discussion, because I think we're at the 'agree to disagree' point; I love that everyone has presented their views respectfully, as well as in a thoughtful and well-spoken way. That speaks highly of the folks using this forum; I've enjoyed the (rare!) opportunity to engage in civil debate, on this sensitive & emotionally charged issue.
Yeah I'm not talking like, the day after implantation, but it's reasonable to detect a pregnancy within a month or so. But if a woman uses condoms every time, and there are no breakages, and you check the condom afterwards for holes, etc (which I do), then it's reasonable to say that a pregnancy would be pretty easy to detect. So again, a lot of this is an education issue. If there were a problem I would need to figure out if I were pregnant asap. I mean, it's pretty reliable if you stay on top of it, in most cases.
Pages