Pro-Life Veganism

February 13, 2005 10:53 AM

This comment got me thinking about the pro-life/pro-vegan movement. I first encountered these folks at my local food co-op when I noticed some interesting bumper stickers. I was already somewhat aware of the "Consistent Life Ethic" movement, but they don't seem to talk about animals much. Is being pro-choice philosophically inconsistent with veganism? Some claim a resounding "yes", for others it comes down to when a fetus can experience pain, and still others take a hardline. I have to admit that I respect some of these people, if only because they're obviously not in it to make friends. To paraphrase something Steve Colbert said about Jews for Jesus, can you put a price on annoying two extremist groups at once?
posted by brevator (109 comments total)

They have a certain elegant consistency to their position - life, either animal or human, should not be taken. I can respect that even though I enjoy a steak every now and then.
posted by caddis at 11:00 AM on February 13, 2005

(I am vegan and "pro-choice")

As has been pointed out over and over and over, being pro-choice does NOT mean being "for abortion", nor does it mean you would have one yourself if you were in that position. Being pro-choice generally means that you (a) recognize that sometimes abortion is a decision that results in the least harm being done, and (b) that ultimately it is someone's right to make that decision, at least up until a point.

Also, most vegans are "pro-choice" when it comes to eating meat. They just choose not to do it themselves, and quite possibly inform others as to why. It's only a tiny percentage of vegans who believe eating meat should be illegal.
posted by glider at 11:03 AM on February 13, 2005

I noticed that comment too. I think that being pro-life is entirely consistant with veganism. These are people (some of them) who don't eat honey or use silk because *insects* are harmed making these products. It seems consistant to me that if you're concerned about insects you might be concerned about fetuses as well.

That said, all vegans have to negotiate their beliefs on a continuum of harm to life. There is no line that you can draw where on one side you are not harming any living thing and on the other side you are. Thus, it is not inconsistant to be a vegan and be pro-choice either.

On preview: what gilder said. My parents and many of my friends are vegan, and they are all willing to talk about their choices, but they are all personal choices. They aren't trying to force others to conform to their beliefs.
posted by carmen at 11:12 AM on February 13, 2005

Depending on your personal beliefs, it's entirel consistent to be pro-life and eat meat (you see a fetus as a human, and animal meat as being less than human) or vegan and only see a fetus as a mass of cells, or the right of someone to make up their own mind on the issue.
posted by drezdn at 11:13 AM on February 13, 2005

Yeah, I was coming in here to make the point about choice also. I often use vegetarianism as an example of "pro-choice" morality because almost everyone is pro-choice about it, or at least, the argument tends to be couched in 'pro-choice' terms, ie, what is your opinion, not 'what should the law be?'.
posted by mdn at 11:14 AM on February 13, 2005

How is a dietary choice "extremist"?
posted by cmonkey at 11:15 AM on February 13, 2005

cmonkey - I think people tend to strike out at vegans because there's an implied statement of "I'm making the right decision and you're not" (and a great deal of vegans really do act that way at first). The justifications for veganism when it comes to stuff like water use issues are fairly clear, and strike at the heart of many of the problems of Western over-consumption.

... that and the funny name of course.
posted by glider at 11:21 AM on February 13, 2005

Note: your tag for this post is "vegansim", not "veganism." You might want to change that (I'd add "ethics" too).
posted by painquale at 11:22 AM on February 13, 2005

cmonkey, I would call veganism extremist because it's on the "extreme" of the animal product ingestion chart. You cannot have less animal products in your diet than 0. Sorry if you felt it was a loaded term.

on preview: thanks painquale, seems I did that twice, and I have no idea how to fix it.
posted by brevator at 11:25 AM on February 13, 2005

Dennis Kucinich is a vegan who took that stance before running for President; but after beginning his campaign, changed his tune. He now feels that he could be anti-abortion, but shouldn't make that choice for others.

I don't know a single vegan who feels that everyone HAS to be vegan...
posted by Chris Brummel at 11:27 AM on February 13, 2005

I don't know a single vegan who feels that everyone HAS to be vegan...

no, but I do know many vegans who feel that they must be philosophically consistent.
posted by brevator at 11:31 AM on February 13, 2005

I don't know a single vegan who feels that everyone HAS to be vegan...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the self-styled "militant vegan," ALF/ELF types believe?

(disclaimer: pro-choice (but personally undecided on the "rightness" of abortion)/meat eater, but who agrees with mdn's "pro-choice across the board" policy.)
posted by jonmc at 11:33 AM on February 13, 2005

How is a dietary choice "extremist"?

When the people supporting the choice advocate simulating sex in public and juxtaposing pictures of animals in cages with pictures of Holocaust victims.
posted by whoshotwho at 11:34 AM on February 13, 2005

The problem with "pro-choice across the board" is that it needs to be accompanied by "as long as no one gets hurt."
posted by brevator at 11:37 AM on February 13, 2005

What about the ones who are vegans because they HATE plants and love to see them die?
posted by Balisong at 11:41 AM on February 13, 2005

Peter Singer's approach seems a bit more consistent, where the emphasis is put on not causing suffering, rather than something as nebulous as life. It's rather doubtful, to me, that a sufficiently young fetus or an insert can experience pain, but it's quite clear that our mechanized farming causes a great deal to some very sensitive and aware creatures.
posted by cytherea at 11:44 AM on February 13, 2005

I'm probiotic but I truly appeciate antibiotics also.
I probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them.
posted by alteredcarbon at 11:44 AM on February 13, 2005

When the people supporting the choice advocate simulating sex in public and juxtaposing pictures of animals in cages with pictures of Holocaust victims.

Saying that PETA's actions make veganism extremist is silly. Not all vegans belong to PETA, nor are all PETA members and supporters vegans. You might as well say that every pro-life supporter is extremist because of Operation Rescue and Paul Hill.

That said, having visited slaughterhouses and Nazi death camps, I was struck by how similar they felt. I'm not trying to make any statements about moral equivalency here, but I came away with the same feelings from both.

On the general topic, Colman McCarthy is a well-known pacifist who is pro-life and pro-animal rights.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:47 AM on February 13, 2005

I'm probiotic but I truly appeciate antibiotics also.
I probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them.

we'll see how long that lasts...
posted by brevator at 11:49 AM on February 13, 2005

A question about veganism and abortion was asked in Ask Metafilter once, and it was deleted.
posted by four panels at 11:51 AM on February 13, 2005

"I'm making the right decision and you're not"

It's amazing how sensitive people are to that.
posted by weston at 11:53 AM on February 13, 2005

I think you all are using the term "pro-choice" in a different way than many people understand it. For instance:

...being pro-choice does NOT mean being "for abortion", nor does it mean you would have one yourself if you were in that position. Being pro-choice generally means that you (a) recognize that sometimes abortion is a decision that results in the least harm being done, and (b) that ultimately it is someone's right to make that decision, at least up until a point.

This seemed odd to me, if you consider what a pro-life person's position is. He considers abortion murder, so from his point of view you are saying, "I may not want to commit murder myself, but other people should be able to choose to commit murder." So yes, "pro-choice" does mean "for abortion" in the sense that you believe that the act itself should be allowable.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:55 AM on February 13, 2005

I know plenty of people who advocate simulating sex in public. What does that have to do with eating animals?
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:57 AM on February 13, 2005

But that's exactly the position of most vegans, Sangermaine - "I don't want to kill animals, but others are free to under the law" - and very few would call us "for meat" for that reason. How you frame an issue affects how you think about things.
posted by kyrademon at 12:01 PM on February 13, 2005

Interesting post.

I'm also a pro-choice vegan, and this is a question I've thought about, but I still feel confident that it's a morally consistent position, even if I'm not a vegan for moral reasons so much as just being grossed out by animal-foods).

It really does just come down to supporting everyone's right to make his or her own ethical decisions: classic liberalism.
posted by ITheCosmos at 12:06 PM on February 13, 2005

i'm vegetarian and had never considered how it makes a nice analogy to explaining a pro-choice stance. i'm not vegetarian because i'm particularly fond of animals, nor because i hate plants (though i do say that sometimes when i get tired of being asked to explain my diet by people who inevitably become defensive about their own). i just don't like meat. i find PETA almost as annoying as pro-any-possibility-of-life organizations. a chicken is not the moral equivalent of a person and neither is an amorphous clump of embryonic cells, in my opinion. maybe i'll get a bumper sticker that says something like "i neither eat meat nor have abortions, but support your right to do either."
posted by scottreynen at 12:06 PM on February 13, 2005

There is also the added complication that it is very difficult to not be polarized on this issue. There does not seem to be a possible middle ground between "life starts at conception" and "choice until birth."

I'm not a big fan of abortion, but I'm also not a big fan of bans on abortion starting at conception.

whoshotwho: The conclusion of "the makeout tour" video is "go vegetarian." And as far as simulated sex acts in public, don't you think that clothed people necking on a matress is pretty tame?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:07 PM on February 13, 2005

this is off topic, but lately i've been thinking, how do pro-lifers reconsile themselves with the death penalty? is it just my assumption that most pro-lifers are most likely pro-death penalty?
posted by cusack at 12:13 PM on February 13, 2005

cusack: I think they use the rationalization that there is a wide moral gulf between killing innocent life and guilty individuals. Of course, there are a large number of pro-life individuals against the death penalty. The catholic church, for example.
posted by Doug at 12:16 PM on February 13, 2005

There does not seem to be a possible middle ground between "life starts at conception" and "choice until birth."

The problem when it comes to holding an opinion: life and death are not switched on instantaneously like a lightbulb. There is only a middle ground, yet to stake out a position - especially legally - one has to draw a line somewhere. Expanding moral circle and all that.

It's a pain.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:22 PM on February 13, 2005

Sangermaine - I believe that torturing and killing animals for our own amusement (ie. eating meat put into objective terms) is fundamentally wrong. The fact that I'm not fighting for laws to enforce that belief doesn't mean I encourage other people to do it. The fact that I believe in a free press and support someone's right to distribute Mein Kampf doesn't mean that I'm a Neo-nazi. You can support someone else's right to do something without agreeing with it.
posted by glider at 12:25 PM on February 13, 2005

cusack: I think they use the rationalization that there is a wide moral gulf between killing innocent life and guilty individuals.

That's about right, I think. From a legal standpoint, our whole system is based on the idea that you are responsible for the actions you choose to take, assuming competency. Thus an individual who has chosen to commit an act terrible enough to warrant death has chosen to make himself a risk to society, whereas a fetus is essentially being punished for no reason. It has done nothing except exist, and is killed for it.

glider
You can support someone else's right to do something without agreeing with it.
I don't think this is true in this case. If you disagree with abortion on the grounds that it is murder, then no, I don't see how you can support someone else's right to do it. You don't support rape, but I seriously doubt you support the right of others to rape. For someone who is pro-life, it is that serious.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:33 PM on February 13, 2005

Is being pro-choice philosophically inconsistent with vegansim?

Of course not. I'd think that even the most strident vegan would consider it legitimate to kill an animal that poses a direct threat to your life and limb, and that can't be relocated or otherwise dealt with except by killing it.

Well, fetuses pose a threat to their mothers. There's a near-certainty of suffering serious injury, near to a 50/50 shot at a life-threatening wound (ie, a c-section), and an entirely nontrivial risk of plain old fashioned death. And you can't, as yet, eliminate that threat without killing the fetus.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:38 PM on February 13, 2005

sangermaine, you're incorrectly assuming that people who support abortion rights and oppose abortion view it as murder (as you apparently do). if they did, you'd be right that it wouldn't make any sense to support someone's right to murder. but even if you ignore the variety of opinions or uncertainty of when life actually begins, giving birth to a baby is a serious medical risk to women, so a closer analogy would be killing in self-defense. on preview, what ROU said.
posted by scottreynen at 1:19 PM on February 13, 2005

Pro-lifers, please riddle me this: by what edict do you claim the right to commandeer a woman's body for a period of time to carry the fetus to term? Are you not trampling on a human's basic rights to do this? Further, is it not true that, while we we can argue about when a fetus becomes a human, there is no argument whatsoever that a pregnant woman is most definitely a human--and that her rights are therefore paramount? I don't know what any of this has do with eating steak?
posted by a_day_late at 1:34 PM on February 13, 2005

I sort of echo scottyreynen says.

I don't eat meat because I feel hell of a lot better/healthier as a vegetarian. I don't see how this ties into abortion, really.
posted by Hands of Manos at 1:49 PM on February 13, 2005

For what it's worth, I'm a long-time vegetarian and I believe that abortion should be mandatory for every fetus after the second (miscarriages and other technicalities excepted).
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:52 PM on February 13, 2005

I don't know a single vegan who feels that everyone HAS to be vegan...

no, but I do know many vegans who feel that they must be philosophically consistent.
posted by brevator

If your friends are vegan because they feel that meat=murder, then, to be consistent, they would have to take the stance that everyone should be vegan. It follows that if animals such as chickens and fish are to be given ethical consideration then the fetus should also be so considered.

OTOH, they (Peter Singer, the guru of animal rights and militant vegans) say that all animals that are sentient are deserving of ethical consideration. If it was found that a fetus is not sentient (a stupid point of view IMO) then it would not merit ethical consideration.
posted by recurve at 2:20 PM on February 13, 2005

I'm sorry. Really I am. And it's probably highly inappropriate. But this whole thread somehow made this pop into my mind. If anyone's after some light relief.
posted by Jimbob at 2:20 PM on February 13, 2005

"people (some of them) who don't eat honey or use silk because *insects* are harmed making these products."

Boll weevils and other pests are routinely harmed in the making of cotton. And let's not forget the bugs and larvae that are harmed in the production of lettuce and sprouts.

And don't forget that bacteria and protozoa are organisms too! How does one know they don't feel pain? Shouldn't one be on the moral safe side and not harm any spirochetes?

And for what it's worth, I'm a long-time omnivore who believes that sterilization after the second live birth should be mandatory, thus obviating Curley's suggestion.

But of course I'm also pro-abortion. (As the bumper sticker says, "If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.") And so, naturally, yes to what a_day_late said.
posted by davy at 2:22 PM on February 13, 2005

How is a dietary choice "extremist"?

I would consider cannibalism an extreme dietary choice, for example...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:25 PM on February 13, 2005

As Bill Bailey once said...
I'm a post-modern vegan.
I eat meat and drink milk but I only do it "Ironically"

*bdump-tish*
posted by seanyboy at 2:33 PM on February 13, 2005

Statistics for the dangers (or lack thereof) of birth are in order.
posted by Captaintripps at 2:36 PM on February 13, 2005

It is perfectly morally consistent to be anti-suffering and pro-choice. Most vegans don't have an ethical problem with the act of eating an egg. They are opposed to the suffering inflicted on the chickens.
posted by team lowkey at 2:44 PM on February 13, 2005

Yes, being pro-choice is philosophically inconsistent with vegansim. Excuse me. I have to stuff my fetus roast with cheese and slather the whole thing with butter and get it in the oven.

What is wrong with you?
posted by fleener at 2:45 PM on February 13, 2005

Most vegans don't have an ethical problem with the act of eating an egg. They are opposed to the suffering inflicted on the chickens.

Right, and pro-lifers are opposed to the suffering inflicted on the fetus.
posted by brevator at 2:52 PM on February 13, 2005

Yes, being pro-choice is philosophically inconsistent with vegansim.

glad to see someone else has the same problem w/ spelling. you prolly just cut and pasted it.
posted by brevator at 2:54 PM on February 13, 2005

I'm a semi-pro-choice vegan.

I believe that it's okay at the point where the fetus is just a bundle of cells, as it's not a whole lot different from wearing a condom - you're just cutting off a potential.

Once the fetus gets a nervous system and brain activity, you're actually harming an individual if you abort.

If you let it get to that point, you're taking on a responsibility, and should see it through.

(Of course, health concerns for the mother make this somewhat less clear-cut.)
posted by Vulpyne at 2:58 PM on February 13, 2005

I don't eat meat because I feel hell of a lot better/healthier as a vegetarian. I don't see how this ties into abortion, really.
posted by Hands of Manos at 1:49 PM PST on February 13

I think it ties into the "it's wrong to kill life" vegans.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 3:09 PM on February 13, 2005

I think it ties into the "it's wrong to kill life" vegans.

Exactly. There is a difference between people who are vegans because they choose not to eat meat, for health, religious or other reasons, and people who are philosophically driven to believe all animal life has the same sanctity as human life. "Meat is Murder". You could call both groups vegans, but probably only the later are relevant in this case.
posted by Jimbob at 3:15 PM on February 13, 2005

What kills me is every anti abortion person I've ever met has been anti welfare/social services which, to me, is a terrible inconsistency.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 3:29 PM on February 13, 2005

I think my position is similar to Vulpyne. I don't buy the life begins at conception concept. I see no problem with aborting embryos for example. But on the other hand, I don't buy the claim that the health and welfare of a fetus is irrelevant until it takes it's first breath of air.

Meanwhile politically one of the things that puts me in the pro-choice camp is that "pro-life" is bundled with a whole heck of a lot of attacks on the kinds of birth control, family planning and welfare initiatives that would practically make abortion less necessary.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:48 PM on February 13, 2005

Yes, being pro-choice is philosophically inconsistent with vegansim.

If, as I stated, the vegan is a vegan because they don't want to encourage suffering (which is the stance of all the vegans I know), there is nothing inconsistent about abortion. They don't take a right to life stance. They take a cause no suffering stance, and killing an animal, or using them for human needs is causing them suffering.

Right, and pro-lifers are opposed to the suffering inflicted on the fetus.

Yes they are. And that is the crux of the debate. A pro-choice vegan would say that the bundle of cells would not suffer, whereas the mother would suffer were the child born. The debate is no different whether the pro-choicer is a vegan or not. It's still comes to down to the question of whether the fetus is a sentient being or a bunch of cells.
posted by team lowkey at 4:11 PM on February 13, 2005

If meat is murder, then yoghurt is home invasion.
posted by bangalla at 4:37 PM on February 13, 2005

team lowkey- If all the vegans you know are in it to reduce suffering that's great. However, one could reduce suffering by buying organic, free range animal products. There's a tougher line to much veganism, which is that life should not be taken. Hence the debate.
posted by brevator at 4:42 PM on February 13, 2005

As I said earlier, I'm a vegan, but I was also raised on an organic farm... so I'll add to what brevator said and mention that when you support organic and free range farming, you're shifting money from large factory farms which are destructive to the environment and to the economy (to say nothing of the excess of cruelty they contain) into the hands of small, independent, family farms.
posted by glider at 4:51 PM on February 13, 2005

Once again, illustrating the need for a word to define "morally pro-life, politically pro-choice". Any suggestions?
posted by Coherence Panda at 5:01 PM on February 13, 2005

Nothing should die! Ever! Let's make death illegal!
posted by Luke Pski at 5:05 PM on February 13, 2005

There was a PETA person outside Charlie's on the Lake last night. He was wearin' a fish suit.

Mind you, we were in Cadillac, Michigan, where a significant portion of the calorie intake comes from venison. I guess he was doing some kind of "Fish have feelings" tour. He also had a sign that said, "Eating fish is eating poison!"

I saw some of the local boys getting ready to pitch him in the back of a pickup so I went over to talk to him.

I told him that even though the restaurant is on a lake they don't serve very much fish. "Still, fish can feel pain." That they can, I replied. "And," he added, "Fish have 10 times the FDA recommended dosage of mercury." Now, here I had to disagree a bit. First of all, I seriously doubt that the FDA recommends any amount of mercury in your diet. Secondly, that only applies to predatory fish like Pike, Musky and Large Mouth. Most of the salmon we catch in the Great Lakes isn't even a year old yet, so hasn't had time to accumulate the toxins that make your hair fall out. Like mercury.

I really appreciate people standing up for animal rights. I think that some of my neighbors who've got 20 dogs in the sideyard and a fleabitten horse in the back deserve to be hit with a shovel. However, it is antithetical to the goals of animal lovers everywhere when PETA veers waaay off it's stated goal and starts making random scare-tactic statements about eating meat. "Eat fish and you die!" "Meat makes yer pecker break!" Come on.

He got in the newspaper.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 5:06 PM on February 13, 2005

Statistics for the dangers (or lack thereof) of birth are in order.

Okay. In the US, there are an average of 11.8 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births (source). For disadvantaged populations the risk increases significantly; for every 100,000 live births, black women in the US suffer 29.6 pregnancy-related deaths, and women in Afghanistan suffer 593. (more country-by-country maternal mortality data)

There are only 0.5 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions.

As to whether a 0.01% risk of death is "trivial" or not, I dunno. This is approximately the level of risk that the EPA uses as a minimum standard for regulating environmental carcinogens (source), so it's not terribly far out of line with risks we ask people to accept in exchange for things like coal-burning power plants. On the other hand, if I were the one in ten thousand to die after being denied an abortion, I'd be quite upset.

And of course, this is only considering the risk of death, not the risk of non-lethal debilitation (chronic pain, infertility, incontinence due to obstetric fistulae - these are huge problems in the developing world, but I can't find good statistics for maternal disability in first world countries), or temporary quality of life issues like post-partum depression or a month of constant puking. Even a healthy pregnancy is not a walk in the park.

I've never asked any vegans if they'd kill an animal that would otherwise make them puke for a month. Sounds like a great way to make new friends...
posted by yami_mcmoots at 5:20 PM on February 13, 2005

Once again, illustrating the need for a word to define "morally pro-life, politically pro-choice". Any suggestions?

mo-life or po-choice. mo-choice?
posted by [insert clever name here] at 5:28 PM on February 13, 2005

Make that 100,000.5 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions.
posted by caddis at 6:07 PM on February 13, 2005

Thanks yami_mcmoots. Coupled with what this site says is a rate of c-section only approaching 25%, I can't see childbirth as a major medical "condition."
posted by Captaintripps at 6:43 PM on February 13, 2005

As I said earlier, I'm a vegan, but I was also raised on an organic farm... so I'll add to what brevator said and mention that when you support organic and free range farming, you're shifting money from large factory farms which are destructive to the environment and to the economy (to say nothing of the excess of cruelty they contain) into the hands of small, independent, family farms.

Glider, do you have a Blog or anything about your life growing up on an organic farm? That's fascinating
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:11 PM on February 13, 2005

Glider, do you have a Blog or anything about your life growing up on an organic farm? That's fascinating


HOM - Look in his profile.
posted by brevator at 7:21 PM on February 13, 2005

Having vegan friends is really annoying. They are so high-maintenance.
posted by willc at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2005

Cap'n,

A one in ten thousand chance of death per incident is not trivial, it is gravely serious. If you had a one in ten thousand chance of dying every time you boarded a plane, there would be more than half a million dead every year from US domestic crashes alone. If you had a one in ten thousand chance of dying in every car trip, it's doubtful you'd last more than a few years. What saves mothers is that every year, only a small proportion of women carry a fetus to term, and the vast majority of women go through the trauma less than four times. What saves mothers is the rarity of childbirth, not its safety.

A 25% chance of having a c-section is a 25% chance of having multiple layers of your abdomen sliced open and your internal organs laid on your stomach for examination, followed by an extensive period of recovery. It is a one in four chance of having an immediately life-threatening injury inflicted on you in a hospital setting. If you don't think that's major, go do it for fun.

It's worth pointing out that the relatively low risk of death from pregnancy and childbirth is misleading. There's a huge amount of medical care that goes into monitoring a pregnancy, and almost all childbirths happen in a hospital or other setting with emergency medical care immediately available. Risks that would not be noticed for other kinds of conditions are routinely caught for pregnancies. A hemorrhage or other bleeding that would, for another kind of accident or condition, kill you before the ambulance got to you will be relatively solvable in childbirth because everything is right the hell there, because they know from bitter experience that it bloody well ought to be.

Even when everything goes normally, you're still laid up for days or weeks with internal injuries. Let's imagine someone does something to you with a stick so that you're laid up with internal injuries for a couple weeks, and have to be kept in the hospital for observation for a few days. I suspect you'd think that something "major" had happened to you.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:29 PM on February 13, 2005

ROU: You have as much chance of dying getting in your car, if not more, than you do getting pregnant to delivery. You can refuse a c-section. Pregnancy is not a "major medical condition," nor is it as dangerous as you seem to want it to be.
posted by Captaintripps at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2005

If you were in an accident and the ER nurse asked if you had any "major medical conditions" you'd prolly tell 'em if you were pregnant.
posted by brevator at 8:03 PM on February 13, 2005

especially if you were a man
(rimshot)

I'm here all night.
posted by brevator at 8:05 PM on February 13, 2005

I have been a longtime lurker on MeFi but this thread has convinced me to finally register.

Not all vegans have the same philosophical priorities. There a wide variety of justifications for veganism, which in turn affect the moral & philosophical ramifications of choosing a vegan diet. Many vegans support animal rights, or seek to manifest a "life ethic." But many others simply have overriding practical concerns about resource consumption. Vegans who eat low on the food chain primarily out of concerns with land, water, and fossil fuel usage may not see any relationship between their diet and the abortion rights debate. Ditto for those who choose to eat vegan simply because they believe it is healthier.

Brevator and glider have both alluded to the resource issue, but I wanted to make it clear that veganism does not necessarily have anything to do with the desire to reduce suffering.
posted by collectallfour at 8:13 PM on February 13, 2005

* there ARE a wide variety of justifications* ...sorry
posted by collectallfour at 8:14 PM on February 13, 2005

I better see a piece of that five bucks collectallfour shelled out to join.
posted by brevator at 8:47 PM on February 13, 2005

I'm glad people are raising the point that people become vegans for many reasons. I am coming at it from the ethical end, however. To oversimplify a great deal, I believe that killing anything with a nervous system developed beyond a certain point, for pretty much nothing more than my own pleasure, is wrong.

I'm also pro-choice. I don't see a contradiction here because 1) not enough nervous system development to bother me, 2) generally not done just for pleasure.

Incidentally, willc, if by "high maintenance" you're talking about the trial of group trips to restaurants - you may not be, I don't know - there's nothing I hate more than people who have to make a big fuss about the fact that I'm vegan everytime we go out. I don't, and I don't see why other people need to. I'd be much happier if everyone would just let it go.
posted by kyrademon at 8:55 PM on February 13, 2005

The statistic I'm interested in is the percentage of abortions carried out due to a real medical risk versus total abortions. To some of us (ie: me), it may be the one justifiable mitigation.
posted by MotorNeuron at 9:00 PM on February 13, 2005

You can refuse a c-section.

Sure. But you might die of eclampsia if you do; your choice is to have a C-section or let your gestational hypertension kill you while you seize intractably and suffer acute renal failure. I'm not being melodramatic here--eclampsia is a life-threatening emergency that nothing but the immediate delivery of the fetus will cure, and until we figured that out, women routinely died from it.

And you could refuse a C-section even if nothing is wrong with you but something is wrong with your baby. But when a baby's heart rate drops to half its normal rate and stays down, nothing short of an emergency C-section is going to save that baby's life. And when I say "emergency C-section," I mean going from the labor room to the OR and having the baby out in, quite literally, five minutes. For people who want their baby to live, refusing a C-section in those circumstances is not an option.

Maybe it's because I work on a labor and delivery unit at a busy urban hospital that I see more of the emergencies, but very few shifts go by without at least one emergency C-section or vigorous neonatal resuscitation after a vaginal delivery. The United States has a relatively low maternal mortality rate not because pregnancy and delivery are usually safe but rather because we have the expertise and the resources to keep the women who develop complications alive.
posted by jesourie at 9:10 PM on February 13, 2005

The numbers I would like to see are how old a fetus is before it can feel pain, and how many abortions occur after that period.
posted by brevator at 9:10 PM on February 13, 2005

"Yes, being pro-choice is philosophically inconsistent with vegansim. Excuse me. I have to stuff my fetus roast with cheese and slather the whole thing with butter and get it in the oven."

Fleener, you're not making me very hungry: everybody knows meat is better after it's been born.
posted by davy at 10:29 PM on February 13, 2005

You have as much chance of dying getting in your car, if not more, than you do getting pregnant to delivery

That's an awfully nice page you linked to, with lots of purty numbers. I may just be a country boy, but can you tell me where it provides a risk of death per passenger-trip? I can't find anything of the sort there that says anything remotely close to what you say it says.

The numbers really aren't hard to find. There were about 42,000 people killed in MVAs in 2000. Let's call it 50,000 for giggles. The number of passenger-trips isn't easily available as far as I can tell, but the number of passenger-miles (4.7 trillion in 2003) is, and the average trip length is 9 miles. That implies that there are about 450--500 billion passenger-trips.

Taken together, that implies a risk of death per car trip of about one in nine million. Which is, you'll notice, pretty fucking far from one in ten thousand, and an awful damn lot of the people who do die in car wrecks would be eminently salvageable if they had the good sense to already be in the hospital, like a mother in childbirth.

Pregnancy is not a "major medical condition," nor is it as dangerous as you seem to want it to be.

That will come as news to obstetricians, I suspect. I don't want it to be dangerous, and even if I did, I assure you that I lack the power to make it more or less dangerous. The danger is plain and evident. People die, are saved from death by medical intervention on a frequent basis, and emerge from it with major scars and extended periods of pain.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:35 PM on February 13, 2005

"I would consider cannibalism an extreme dietary choice, for example..."

Just realize that's "socially constructed". Rats eat each other all the time: I read in a book called "Rats" that somebody told the author/narrator that the rats you see in the alleys are the small weak ones who can run fast enough to get away. (Of course I can't vouch for the accuracy of that third-hand report, but it sounds plausible.)

ButI'm just pointing out that there's no hard-wired instinct against eating people; I'm not really defending cannibalism, it's not like I ever tried it myself. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it.)
posted by davy at 10:40 PM on February 13, 2005

I'll second what ROU_Xenophobe said: a lot of women in the U.S. used to die in childbirth before OB-GYN became a routinely hospital-using specialty in the middle of the 20th century, and a lot of "Third World" women without medical care still do. For those women pregnancy is a terminal disease.
posted by davy at 10:47 PM on February 13, 2005

I'm pro-abortion, pro-euthenasia, pro-suicide, pro-capital punishment, pro-food-murder, and pro-war-winning.
posted by HTuttle at 11:37 PM on February 13, 2005

team lowkey- If all the vegans you know are in it to reduce suffering that's great. However, one could reduce suffering by buying organic, free range animal products. There's a tougher line to much veganism, which is that life should not be taken.

Which is why I was careful to always qualify that anti-suffering veganism is morally consistent. People do what they do for lots of different reasons, so people crying out Hypocrite! should know what the reasoning is before saying it's not possible to be vegan and pro-choice. The 8-9 vegans I know are exactly that and for those reasons.

If someone does take a hard line that "No life shall be taken", they are going to have a hard time reconciling being alive at all. There's continual cellular warfare going on in our bodies. But I guess suicide is out as well. Quite a sticky wicket.
posted by team lowkey at 11:44 PM on February 13, 2005

I don't have anything philosophical to add to this discussion, I just wanted to point out that in the "food porn" thread linked in the post, I noticed a rather hilarious misspelling...

Someone wanted to say that they were against "wanton" abortion (as if people are really going out and saying "You know what I'd like today? AN ABORTION!" but anyway), and instead said "I'm against wonton abortion."

And all I could think of was all that poor aborted soup...

I'm against WONTON abortion! And I vote!
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:58 AM on February 14, 2005

For what it's worth, I'm a long-time vegetarian and I believe that abortion should be mandatory for every fetus after the second (miscarriages and other technicalities excepted).

Sorry if this is off-topic, or if my sarcasm meter is out of whack, but ... are you serious?!?
posted by pardonyou? at 6:34 AM on February 14, 2005

The arguments about whether birth is dangerous or not are a bit moot (although very interesting). Most women get abortions because they are unable to provide for the baby. When you already have two kids and you're struggling to feed them, a third baby is a threat to the entire family... not in a torn-apart bloody death sort of way, but nevertheless in a real, and if you are faced with these choices, terrifying way.
posted by carmen at 6:51 AM on February 14, 2005

As a meat eater I can safely and morally consistently state Abortion should be safe, legal, and manditory.
posted by tkchrist at 9:07 AM on February 14, 2005

I don't think the vegans who've taken the stand on this really get it. The abortion debate isn't about how much one respects "life" any more than it's about "choice."

The real trouble about the debate about abortion is that it centers on something that we don't know and that it would be very difficult to find out: when does life begin? Science will not resolve this; life is not scientifically quantifiable.

As a result, those who express strong opinions on the issue don't do so based on "respect for freedom/women's rights" or "respect for life," as they'd have us believe. The choice between "pro-choice" and "pro-life" is simply a choice between different assigned moments for the beginning of life. If they thought it was murder, those who are "pro-choice" would be against abortion in a minute; and, if "pro-lifers" thought that it wasn't murder, they'd immediately abandon their hard-line stance in order to make it easier for young mothers.

An abortion is hard on a woman in many ways, but I have a feeling the hardest thing will always be the possibility, lurking just under the surface, that abortion really is murder. This possibility will be there no matter what we do, and it will always terrify the women that have abortions, no matter how much they try to ignore it. Since abortion is sometimes necessary, what we must do is (a) try to limit abortion to cases where it really is necessary and helpful, and (b) do our very best to soothe the consciences of the young women who have abortions.

Both sides-- the people who scream about "life" and the people who scream about "choice"-- are doing a lot of damage at this point.
posted by koeselitz at 9:28 AM on February 14, 2005

As a result, those who express strong opinions on the issue don't do so based on "respect for freedom/women's rights" or "respect for life," as they'd have us believe.

I know it's anecdotal evidence, but your assumption is wrong in at least my case. My pro-choice stance purely rests on women's rights.
posted by agregoli at 10:12 AM on February 14, 2005

An abortion is hard on a woman in many ways
No. You are wrong. Strike that thought from your mind. Abortion can be and sometimes is hard on a woman. Not every woman struggles with the choice or has guilt about it afterward. Sometimes women make a choice because they know it's the best thing for their health, their family, their life. If a woman makes the choice that is right for her, and is surrounded by people that support her without judgement, then she might go through the experience as easily as someone gets an unwanted mole removed. There are people who will find that repugnant, but it's still true. Certainly there are women who have abortions and later regret it or are plagued by guilt, but this does not hold true for all women.

Anyone who tells women that they should have psychological trauma from having asked a doctor to perform this medical procedure is placing a value judgement. Not everyone has the same values, remember. If people stopped trying to force their morality on everyone else, stopped judging & shaming women, there would probably be fewer women emotionally damaged after making the decision to abort.

Since abortion is sometimes necessary, what we must do is (a) try to limit abortion to cases where it really is necessary and helpful, and (b) do our very best to soothe the consciences of the young women who have abortions

But most importantly:
c) Try to prevent women from getting to a situation where they must consider abortion at all. By preventing unwanted pregnancies through
- improving standard of living so no one considers abortion because they can't afford it
- providing education and easy affordable access to birth control
- ?

I'm sure there's more that can be done. Preventing unwanted / unplanned pregnancies is really the key. If the pregnancy hadn't happened in the first place, there would be no need to talk about abortion.
posted by raedyn at 10:30 AM on February 14, 2005

As a vegan I often talk about how using and consuming humans/human biproducts is allowed. This is due to the "Oral Sex" loophole.

If consuming a human biproduct is alright, then eating or wearing human flesh is also alright.
posted by smcbride at 10:46 AM on February 14, 2005

koeslitz: The real trouble about the debate about abortion is that it centers on something that we don't know and that it would be very difficult to find out: when does life begin? Science will not resolve this; life is not scientifically quantifiable.

I disagree. Life is scientifically quantifiable because all forms of life that we know about engage in some sort of energy metabolism. There is not much doubt about it. An embryo is alive: it engages in respiration, and secretes waste products of respiration.

What is impossible to quantify using science is what kinds of life should be given moral protection. One of the reasons why I'm ironically pro-choice is because given political-economic realities around the world, widespread availability of RU486 (which especially in the developing world, would be a major boon to family planning) is less problematic than infantcide.

And there are other medical realities beyond just the risks of medical disaster in the third trimester. Women with a history of depression are several times more likely to get hit by severe post-partum depression. From a personal perspective, that makes for some hard considerations regarding birth control failures and pregnancy scares.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:52 AM on February 14, 2005

smcbride, my philosophy of veganism only allows the consumption of human products that come from a volunteer. So I'm fine with cannibalism, but only if the person I'm eating was also fine with it.

Frankly, though, most humans don't taste very good. Oddly enough, vegans tend to taste significantly better.
posted by kyrademon at 11:57 AM on February 14, 2005

agregoli: "I know it's anecdotal evidence, but your assumption is wrong in at least my case. My pro-choice stance purely rests on women's rights."

So if abortion was murder, you'd still be in favor of it? Perhaps I'm being presumptuous in assuming that you wouldn't.

As I said, it seems to me that, if "pro-lifers" didn't think abortion were murder, they wouldn't care how many abortions happened, and would even encourage it; and that, if "pro-choicers" (like you) thought that abortion was murder, they wouldn't allow it. That's why I said that both positions rest solely on an assumption about when life begins; if we could just say when life starts, everyone would be agreed on abortion.

KirkJobSluder: "I disagree. Life is scientifically quantifiable because all forms of life that we know about engage in some sort of energy metabolism... What is impossible to quantify using science is what kinds of life should be given moral protection."

These amount to the same thing to me; life as we know it, and especially as pregnant young women know it, is defined by its moral dimensions, not by scientifically observable quantities.

But, in general, I suspect we agree. Because abortion is sometimes necessary, we must do all we can to make it easier on young women, and to make sure that they aren't hurt in the process.

raedyn: "Anyone who tells women that they should have psychological trauma from having asked a doctor to perform this medical procedure is placing a value judgement."

First, I didn't say that; and, I agree that would be a horrible thing to say to women. Note that I didn't say that they "should," only that they "would." Second, damn straight I'm making "value judgements." So is everybody. Life is about making "value judgements;" it's about determining right and wrong. To say that "you shouldn't push your morals on somebody else" is a "value judgement."

What I'm saying is this: every woman will "have psychological trauma from having asked a doctor to perform this medical procedure." Pretending that you know when life begins doesn't make it so; everyone knows this, especially women who've contemplated abortion. Because this difficulty is inevitable for all who have abortions, no matter how much they try to deny it, it is necessary for us to try to provide women who've had abortions with the care and support that they need to face it.

But, on a fundamental level, we agree. The first thing to do is to strive to prevent women from getting to a point where abortion might be necessary by increasing their political rights, their economic power, and their dignity in society.
posted by koeselitz at 11:58 AM on February 14, 2005

To me, whether abortion is considered murder is extremely besides the point of whether you can force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I don't believe that women should have to be subjected to the whims of others regarding their own bodies - that's why I'm pro-choice. Even if I thought abortion was murder, I would support the right of a woman to end her own pregnancy, which is why I strongly disagreed with your statement about my motives - respect for freedom/women's rights" is exactly what you should believe is my priority. No hidden agenda at all.
posted by agregoli at 12:14 PM on February 14, 2005

koeselitz, your assumptions, while reasonable, are for many people incorrect.

I actually have a great deal of respect for the pro-life position which believes abortion to be murder. It's a stance I understand, and I know many quite reasonable people who hold it. However, I also know a good many people who want abortion to be outlawed because they think women should be punished for having sex, for one example, and don't really care whether or not it's murder.

Similarly, your belief that pro-choicers would be against abortion if they considered it murder is not necessarily the case. For example, I would be in favor of legal infanticide in certain situations, too.

It's not a cut-and-dried issue, however much people on both sides would like to to be one.
posted by kyrademon at 12:33 PM on February 14, 2005

agregoli, I'm not saying you have a "hidden agenda." I'm only saying that your assumptions are fundamentally different from those of pro-lifers, and that those assumptions are what separate you. This is where it gets difficult for me:

"I don't believe that women should have to be subjected to the whims of others regarding their own bodies - that's why I'm pro-choice. Even if I thought abortion was murder, I would support the right of a woman to end her own pregnancy..."

If abortion is murder, then the fetus is a separate individual with its own rights, and not part of the mother's body. That's why it seems to me that the abortion argument only turns into a discussion of a woman's right to do with her body as she chooses when one assumes that abortion isn't murder; because that's the moment that the fetus becomes "her own body."

There is, now that I think about it, the possibility that the fetus is another person in actuality, but not under the law, and that

I understand, kyrademon, that a select few of those who support abortion do so under utilitarian considerations, and thus support infanticide in certain cases. However, I don't think the vast majority of those who support abortion are in that position. That's why they use the language of "rights" and speak of "a woman's right to do with her body as she chooses;" they do not believe that the fetus is the body of another.

I'd also like to point out that I think the mistake that society has made so far is in not protecting or respecting women enough. Far too many conservatives speak cruelly of moral obligation when it comes to abortion, when all that really exists is a necessity that society come together and help those in need. When a woman is pregnant uconveniently, the last thing she needs is a lecture; the first thing she needs help, help in deciding what to do, and also support in doing what she chooses, but most of all acceptance.
posted by koeselitz at 2:14 PM on February 14, 2005

agregoli, I'm not saying you have a "hidden agenda." I'm only saying that your assumptions are fundamentally different from those of pro-lifers, and that those assumptions are what separate you. This is where it gets difficult for me:

"I don't believe that women should have to be subjected to the whims of others regarding their own bodies - that's why I'm pro-choice. Even if I thought abortion was murder, I would support the right of a woman to end her own pregnancy..."

If abortion is murder, then the fetus is a separate individual with its own rights, and not part of the mother's body. That's why it seems to me that the abortion argument only turns into a discussion of a woman's right to do with her body as she chooses when one assumes that abortion isn't murder; because that's the moment that the fetus becomes "her own body."

I understand, kyrademon, that a select few of those who support abortion do so under utilitarian considerations, and thus support infanticide in certain cases. However, I don't think the vast majority of those who support abortion are in that position. That's why they use the language of "rights" and speak of "a woman's right to do with her body as she chooses;" they do not believe that the fetus is the body of another.

I'd also like to point out that I think the mistake that society has made so far is in not protecting or respecting women enough. Far too many conservatives speak cruelly of moral obligation when it comes to abortion, when all that really exists is a necessity that society come together and help those in need. When a woman is pregnant uconveniently, the last thing she needs is a lecture; the first thing she needs help, help in deciding what to do, and also support in doing what she chooses, but most of all acceptance.
posted by koeselitz at 2:14 PM on February 14, 2005

ech, sorry. post #2 is the one that I meant.
posted by koeselitz at 2:15 PM on February 14, 2005

What the pro-choice establishment claims and what many pro-choice women believe may not exactly line up. It's a political issue, so statements issued by Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, whatever are of course more likely to be centered on *rights*, on the legality of the issue. But that doesn't mean that most women don't also consider the ethics of it, or that there isn't a wide range of opinion among pro-choice women.

I can very easily say that abortion is killing a living being. I can still say that it should be legal, that I would of course consider getting one if I felt it necessary. That my rights triumph over the rights of a being that's *that* dependent on me for life.

I also recognize that others may not think of it as "killing" at all.

And I maintain that it's every parent's right to make their own decisions in this arena, hence, I'm pro-choice.

To throw out an example -- what about couples who choose to abort because of gross deformities? Do you not think they feel they're killing their baby? I would suppose that many of them do, and yet choose to abort anyway.

Or, as my boyfriend recently said, "Of course it's murder. But I have a much more tolerant view of murder than most other people." I think saying "Well, if we all called it murder and believed it to be murder, we'd all be pro-life" is fundamentally incorrect.
posted by occhiblu at 2:26 PM on February 14, 2005

As a result, those who express strong opinions on the issue don't do so based on "respect for freedom/women's rights" or "respect for life," as they'd have us believe.


I responded to this, which was very much implying that our motives are not what we say. I found that offensive, which is why I responded.

I understand what kind of base issues you're trying to get at, but that was poorly worded.

On preview, I agree with occhiblu.
posted by agregoli at 2:52 PM on February 14, 2005

What I'm saying is this: every woman will "have psychological trauma from having asked a doctor to perform this medical procedure."

That is just simply not true.*

And koeselitz, I think what people are saying is that you can find abortion to be murder, but acceptable murder as a fetus is, essentially, a parasite. I don't think there are vegans who are opposed to killing tapeworms. That this parasite will become human and that some women are willing to become a vessel for a life they want, does not make the interaction any less parasitic. (Before you flame me, I know that is not necessarily the best choice of words, but I can't figure a non-judgmental term for a life that is living off another and providing no benefit.)

* Link goes to Ms. because that was the best free round-up of the study I could find. If you refuse to believe it because the magazine is biased, you can get a free trial and read Science News Online's version.


posted by dame at 3:13 PM on February 14, 2005

To all, especially agregoli: sorry. I think I've really been wording things pretty offensively here; it's hard not to, but it should have been something I avoided.

Also, to dame, I think I should've made this more clear, too: a lot of pro-lifers out there make arguments that abortion causes irreparable harm to a woman's mental state. Often, these arguments descend into pretty horrific malice, and they're sometimes accompanied by "scientific studies." I hate with the deepest passion what some of these people want to do to a few women in order to "set an example;" they seem eager to find trauma and pain where one ought to be eager to alleviate it. I only mean to say that I don't think abortion is pleasant, least of all mentally pleasant; it might be killing, and even if one has reconciled oneself to killing another human being, it's still not pleasant or easy. We should try to keep the situations where women are forced to have abortions to a minimum.

Everyone here seems to be saying that abortion is killing, and that they're fine with that. I suppose I just haven't known enough pro-abortion people to know that this is a common position; I hope it's not weird if I say I find it a little shocking, though I'm willing to understand the position, I think. But if you take that position, doesn't it seem even less about women's rights? I mean, people have opposed that kind of utilitarianism for a long time, and I don't think you can fairly say that that opposition has to do with sexism. It really does have more to do with some belief that innocent life is sacred and inviolable; is it ethical for society to discard lives that aren't beneficial to it? You don't need to convince the "pro-lifers" to respect women's rights, you need to convince them that sometimes a sacrifice of life is necessary to the community.

Does this make sense? Maybe I'm way off the mark. This is certainly "about women's rights" in the sense that the decision of this issue will affect the welfare of women, and in the sense that a lot of people who've decided it already seem to have done so on the basis of pretty sexist notions. Perhaps that's what people mean; there's a big overlap between "pro-lifers" and people who haven't understood the need for egalitarian treatment of women in society.
posted by koeselitz at 6:02 PM on February 14, 2005

Another good resource about women who had abortions are feel fine with it.

You don't need to convince the "pro-lifers" to respect women's rights, you need to convince them that sometimes a sacrifice of life is necessary to the community.


That sounds reasonable but completely impossible to do, considering that the militant pro-lifers are usually coming from a religious standpoint, and that it's not right with GOD to kill a person.

All I can ever imagine if abortion were outlawed is some kind of nightmare scenario where women who are pregnant and wanting an abortion (even women who were raped) are strapped down in jail until they give birth...that might be extreme, but I can see that happening. Personally I feel that we should allow anyone to do anything they want to their own body - whether it's choosing to end a pregnancy or to ingest drugs, etc. It's their own body, not property of the state.

This conversation has gotten way off topic, I feel, so I'll stop now.
posted by agregoli at 8:13 AM on February 15, 2005

Note that I didn't say that they "should," [suffer mentally]only that they "would."

But this is not true. I personally have supported a handful of women who have had abortions. The young woman who got pregnant in high school as a result of a rape was an emotional mess, and 3 years later still felt guilty, but she said she wouldn't do anything differently. The woman who, less than a year after her first child was born, got pregnant because her birth control failed, was relieved to have it end. She wasn't ready to add another child to her family and her body wasn't ready to be pregnant again (her doctor said it would be a higher risk pregnancy because she hadn't fully recovered from the first birth). I've asked her if it ever bothers her, or if she ever looks at her kid and wonders about what could have been and she's said "No, my family is better off this way. I couldn't have handled two at once, so close together. I wasn't totally over post-partum yet! I was deeply depressed at the thought of putting myself through all that again. Especially when I had taken precautions."

So... no. You're wrong. Every woman will NOT have psychological trauma from having asked a doctor to perform this medical procedure. In the US, 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45. Obviously they aren't all damaged. (on preview, see agregoli's link, above)

it might be killing, and even if one has reconciled oneself to killing another human being, it's still not pleasant or easy.

See, not everyone thinks that abortion is killing a person. An abortion in the first 3 months, for instance. That emryo is a cluster of living, dividing cells, sure. But it could not exist outside of its host - the woman's uterus. If you think of the embryo (I called mine Eggbert until she was born & I met her) as a person, and aborting the pregnancy as killing, you are likely have emotional challenges. But if you think like I do - that it doesn't become a person until it's born - then you are less likely to have troubles. If you don't think of abortion as killing, there is nothing to come to terms with. And I, for one, don't consider abortion murder, even neccesary justifiable murder. It's not the same things as a person. You may feel differently and you're entitled to that, but not everyone thinks this way.

I think dame has a good analogy with the 'parasite' idea. I don't take offence to it, I love my daughter very much but I did kind of feel like being pregnant and breastfeeding was choosing to host a parasite for a defined period of time.

everyone knows this, especially women who've contemplated abortion. Because this difficulty is inevitable for all who have abortions

Ek. Saying "everyone knows this" does not make it so. The point I've tried to make is that it is NOT inevitable. There are women who struggle with it, yes. But this does not apply to everyone. Ask someone who has worked at a women's heath clinic. They wil tell you that some women have a hard time with it, but some women breeze through it and aren't bothered in the slightest.
posted by raedyn at 8:49 AM on February 15, 2005

"This conversation has gotten way off topic, I feel, so I'll stop now."

That's true. However, I want to apologize again if I was somewhat out of my bounds, and thank agregoli, raedyn, and all for indulging me in this conversation; it's always helpful for me to get more perspectives on this issue, as it's important, and I want to keep thinking about it. Cheers!
posted by koeselitz at 5:29 PM on February 15, 2005

>But if you take that position, doesn't it seem even less about women's rights? I mean, people have opposed that kind of utilitarianism for a long time, and I don't think you can fairly say that that opposition has to do with sexism.

I should probably just let this die, but I wanted to say that I found this question interesting.

I would respond, though, by saying that if 1.5 million women in the US are getting abortions each year, then I'm not sure we're really "opposing that kind of utilitarianism" as much as many would like to think we are. If so many women and families are choosing this, and so many in the US are saying they should have the right to choose this, then it seems that we, as a society, have to some extent decided that this is OK. Not ideal, but OK.

And as for the sexism... I think you may be right, that the pro-life movement's rhetoric has been so rife with sexism that it's hard to separate that from what *may* be the actual debate. I've long maintained that truly it's not just a woman's right to choose, it's the parents' right to choose, and I would love to see more inclusive language going mainstream. Right now it feels like "*You* go on the pill and take responsibility for contraception and *you* decide whether to keep the baby" which is all liberating and empowering, I know, but I think it gives men a free pass on both the decision-making and the larger debate.
posted by occhiblu at 8:51 AM on February 16, 2005

Sure - but many of the women choosing abortion don't have the man involved at all because he is long gone or doesn't care - the language is the way it is for a reason. And it still boils down to my body - if I want it and the guy doesn't, I still feel my feelings are a bit larger in the equation.
posted by agregoli at 9:13 AM on February 16, 2005

True, but if the father's not around then he has, in effect, made a choice. And I don't know that I could decide to abort if the father wanted the child enough to raise it. I wouldn't want to raise it, but I'd feel awfully weird about denying him that opportunity -- assuming he'd be taking the kid and raising it elsewhere -- even if I also have no desire to be pregnant. I feel really like it's hard to demand that men support kids they didn't want if we also say they have no say in the opposite direction, to take kids that *we* don't want. That keeps reproductive responsibility squarely on the shoulders of women, and I think that's part of the problem here (both with abortion debates and debates about women's rights in general).

It become a fight between self-identified feminists and self-identified "pro-life" folks while everyone else shakes their head about "those silly women."

I guess I'm just saying that I'd like to stop seeing so many of these issues dismissed as "women's concerns." And I'm not sure we can do that while insisting that men have no say in them.
posted by occhiblu at 12:52 PM on February 16, 2005