Well, from what I can tell from my "vast" 2 day experience reading these boards, it seems that people are vegetarian for different reasons, with the main ones seeming to be for health reasons, or for philosophical reasons related to taking life. I suppose there are also those who simply don't like meat, all of which are valid reasons of course. My question to those who feel that the taking of the life of an animal is immoral is, what is your political position with respect to abortion? I'm willing to bet that at least SOME of you good folks vote pro-choice and, if so, how can you reconcile this with yourself? Inquiring minds wanna know . . . . ;)

Bank

That's easy. We're against abortion, but we don't believe that making it against the law is an effective way of preventing it. It is not awfully difficult to learn how to abort the fetus one is carrying, oneself, before anyone else realizes you are pregnant. If all that was stopping someone from having an abortion, was a law against it, abortions, in the age of super-information sharing, could go on unabated by such a law. The only way to prevent abortion is for people to have it in their hearts, that they don't want to do it. There is no simplistic solution (like a law is) for effecting this scenario. The only way to prevent abortion is for people to care about each other enough so that the idea of abortion wouldn't sound like something that would be of any value to them. We are far from arriving at this state; but it is the only way.

That said, I think there may be some situations where abortion of a fetus is preferable to allowing it to continue. There are certain situations where this is relentlessly obvious, and others where it may be a matter of opinion.

Obvious: mother has illness that would have a strong chance of killing her and the fetus, if mother carries fetus to term. By killing the fetus early, before birth, at least one life can be spared.

Abortion is violence. Violence is justifiable where it is truly intended to prevent a larger violence.

It is violent to cut off someone's arm. If their arm is traumatized and has little chance of healing, this conclusion being arrived at as a result of having access to compiled knowledge of similar situations in the past where arms were similarly injured, with a record kept of which arms lived and which became gangrenous and killed the attached whole person -- it is still violent to cut off their arm. but it is justifiable if one beleives it will save the life of the rest of their body and cuts off their arm for that reason. But the existence of this reasoning previous to cutting off someone's arm the exact same way, doesn't make the act any less violent.

I am vegan and pro-choice, completely.

Soilman, very well said! Your position is one that transcends political party ideology and is very well reasoned. The fact that I just so happen to completely agree with it also utterly corroborates its legitimacy :D :D (That was a joke, btw, for those who can't see it)

Respectfully,

Bank

I am pro-choice, and I am not vegetarian bc I am anti-killing so much as anti-suffering and anti-slavery. As far as killing is concerned, the more the being has a sense of self and identity, the more wrong it is. I don't believe this is an issue with abortion. However, I am interested in researching the degree to which pain is an issue, and would then hope that it could be addressed, and if I were to have an abortion, if it were at a point in which the fetus may feel pain, I would see if there was a way that could be prevented.

I thought you made some very good points, Thalia.

I also do not view killing as necessarily worse than other forms of violence and maltreatment that cause suffering. I am vegan for reasons similar to those you state that drive you to be vegetarian. I think perhaps many forms of animal husbandry may be a lot worse than simply hunting down an animal and killing it.

I know I'm going to be on my own here but I'm pretty much against it except for certain instances such as rape, potential harm to the mother, etc. I think pro-choice means you can decide whether or not to have sex, whether or not to use birth control, etc. I don't believe abortion should be used as a method of birth control, to erase "mistakes", etc. Lots of etc.'s here huh?

By the way, I'm not necessarily against it because I feel it's morally wrong, I think the fetus feels pain, blah blah (getting tired of using "etc."). I'm sick of people using it to make up for their laziness, irresponsibility, blah blah. I think it's sick and I often think it's one-sided. Either the man wants the woman to have it and she doesn't or vice-versa. That seems like something that should be thought about beforehand.

I mean, if I get a woman pregnant (I should only be so lucky) and she doesn't want to have the child but I do then what choice do I have? None as far as I know. Sure you could argue it's her body, her choice... But if she has the child and I don't want it then I should somehow feel obligated to help pay for it? What happened to her body, her choice? Now all of a sudden it's my fault, my responsibility. You see, it's not really fair in my eyes.

All of this is assuming people are mature enough to figure these things out beforehand, it's not really practical. I don't lose sleep over it one way or the other, it's not something I feel very strongly about.

I am a vegetarian and pro-choice.

I do not agree with abortion as a means of birth control though. If you are irresponsible, you should have to face the consequences. But there are circumstances where abortion is necessary/understandable, ie. medical reasons or rape.

I always find it amusing when anti-abortionists get in my face and tell me that since I am pro-animal rights, I am a hypocrite for being pro-choice. But really, I think they are the hypocrites. They will fight for the rights of a group of cells that have the potential to be alive, but they won't fight for the rights of already living creatures.

I see Thalia is quoting a post and think she's about to rip me a new one ;) so again, I'll admit my thoughts are not practical. There are so many people that should not be having children and on top of that if they do not want children or can not adequately provide for them then abortion quite possibly could be (and maybe should be) the answer. It's not as easy as making someone "face the consequences". I wish it were. People should not see children as a burden or mistake. It's unfortunate when a parent takes out their frustrations over being incapable or irresponsible on the child. The child has done nothing to deserve it.

I guess my issue is with things like... you can't watch a rated R movie until you're 18 but you can have a child at 14. You have to have a license to fish but not to be a parent. It just makes no sense. I think there are bigger issues here that need to be addressed and abortion should not be an acceptable default solution for anyone, whether you're for or against it.

Originally posted by Michael

I mean, if I get a woman pregnant (I should only be so lucky) and she doesn't want to have the child but I do then what choice do I have? None as far as I know. Sure you could argue it's her body, her choice... But if she has the child and I don't want it then I should somehow feel obligated to help pay for it? What happened to her body, her choice? Now all of a sudden it's my fault, my responsibility. You see, it's not really fair in my eyes

To me, part of why it is fair is because in general (obviously there are exceptions), a woman is the default caretaker. Women give birth in the hospital all the time and the father never even shows up or leaves town, but how often do women give birth (which is no trivial act) and then just casually leave the hospital without her baby? Yes, there are cases of women who leave babies in trash cans, etc., but no where near the number of men who just vanish when the woman says she's pregnant. And yes, the man may have to pay if the woman is able to get the money from him, but it takes more than money to raise a child. It means disrupting one's career and education, taking up all your time and emotional energy, etc.

Even in marraiges, women usually bear more of the brunt of child raising. If your child is sick at school, who do they call to interrupt their work day and take the kid home? Who takes off work to breast feed and recover from pregnancy? What if the woman just walks out of the house to talk to the girls at the bar without even asking if the man if he wants to babysit? Men walk out their homes all of the time without asking their wife for the favor of babysitting while they are gone. If the woman is in the house, why do they need to make arrangement? But women ask before going out. Of course men and women very greatly, but these examples are very common, I believe.

Because it is sooooo much easier for the man to ditch the baby (socially and logistically), I feel it is a small price for the man to not have an equal say in the decision. This imbalance of the reality of who ends up taking the ultimate responsiblity for the child is also reflected in who (man or woman) in general is more knowledgeable and careful about birth control. Most men I know who are fairly educated, know far, far less about contraceptive devices than the women I know. I think this is reflective of the fact that the women feel more pressure not to get pregnant than the man, bc they realize that it will impact them far more.

Thalia, those are good points but I think there's a significant amount of stereotyping going on there. What you present may be the case 90% of the time but my feelings are based on my situation and what I would do. If I got someone pregnant and they didn't want the child then I would raise it. I can't even fathom giving it up like that. But she's not going to give birth to a child she doesn't want anything to do with. So regardless of how you feel about abortion in general hopefully you can understand my views on it as they would apply to my situation.

Like I said, I'm not so passionate about this topic that I would tell anyone else what to do. Honestly, I couldn't care less. But I do feel very strongly about how I would want to handle it and what rights I would have if the situation were to happen to me. And I do realize that as a woman you have an entirely different view and that carrying a child is something I could never understand. It would just kill me though knowing that someone were carrying my child and they wanted to have an abortion.

Well on an individual level, that makes sense, but I was talking more on a societal level.

Originally posted by SilverC
I am a vegetarian and pro-choice.

I do not agree with abortion as a means of birth control though. If you are irresponsible, you should have to face the consequences. But there are circumstances where abortion is necessary/understandable, ie. medical reasons or rape.

Do you not agree with it as a means of preventing a pregnancy coming to term bc it is unethical to kill the fetus? If not, then why? If you do find it unethical to kill the fetus, why is it ethical if it was concieved in rape? That child could be given up for adoption.

I am definitly against abortion in most cases. But what is there that I can do if a woman wants to have an abortion, and I don't want her to have an abortion because I think it is wrong? I can try to use reason to persuade her to not abort the baby. But if she wants to abort it anyway, the question becomes: should I use force to prevent her from having an abortion.. Or should the state use force?

I think the problems that michael brings up need to be considered. But I don't think the solution is using police force to prevent an abortion, or prosecuting a woman for an illegal act and making her go to jail or pay a fine, if she has an abortion.

Now what if Michael gets a woman pregnant and she wants to abort but Michael wants the child. I would feel the same way. That's my baby (just as much as it is the mother's baby, and certainly more than it is a professional abortionist's baby.) The question becomes is Michael or me or the state allowed to prevent her from having an abortion, by force, if reason doesn't work, or should the state be allowed to charge her with a crime and punish her, if she has an abortion? This way of being anti-abortion -- does it do any good? Should a woman ever be forced to carry a child to term, be locked up and watched and restrained if necessary, to prevent her from using drugs or mechanical devices to cause an abortion? Would this solve Michael's problem? Perhaps if men can get a restraining order to prevent an abortion? Or should this be the procedure in general, where every woman who wants a convenience abortion, may be prevented from having it, using force, should the state have any suspician that she may try to cause an abortion?

It doesn't seem practical to prevent every intended or contemplated abortion. And it doesn't seem quite right if those babies who have fathers who get restraining orders, get to live, and those whose fathers don't, die. But I think there may be some value to this restraining order idea, and I cannot say that I am against it.

Or should Michael be able to sue her for the loss of the child, and potential adult, which occurs, if she has an abortion? Or defies a restraining order? Would this solve Michael's problem?

Until men can bear children, it should remain a woman's right to choose, and rightfully so.

I just wanted to throw in a fact I just found. Forty-three (43) percent of women will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
Women of various ages, ethnicities, and income levels choose abortion, one of the most common surgical procedures. -AGI, Facts in Brief: Induced Abortion (Feb. 2000).
Almost half (49%) of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, including more than 30 percent within marriage. -Stanley K. Henshaw, Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 30 FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 26-27 (1998).

found at
http://www.naral.org/actnow/10_facts_ab.html#back8[/url]

Just so we are careful not to make any assumptions regarding the circumstances under which unwanted pregnancy or abortion occurs or the character of those getting them (for convenience, or they are irresponsible.) Seems to me from the figures, we are surrounded by people who've had them, people we love and respect, and don't even know it.

The foremost problem I see with being able to sue over an aborted fetus is the computation of the plaintiff's damages. The best cause of action would likely be some sort of infliction of emotional distress, and those damages are often very difficult to establish with any degree of certainty. At least in my state one usually has to link the emotional distress to some sort of physical problem with tangible financial loss.

If one attempts to establish a cause of action based on monetary loss you get into a litany of problems. Was the plaintiff anticipating monetary benefit from the child? Is the child's very existence speculative, as it could very well have died at any time prior to reaching majority? Should any recovery be reduced by the actual cost of raising the child (which is formidable, I speak from experience) ? Would the child be under any sort of obligation to provide fiscal support to the parent (usually not) and, if so, how do you compute the amount of any future support? Is the interrupted but anticipated consortium between the plaintiff and the child an actionable loss? If so how is it computed? Such factors as the child's emotional contribution to the parent is at best speculative; how could we tell whether the child will be a Beta Club member or a parentally troubling and strife inflicting drug dealer?

These are the sorts of issues that keep appellate courts in business . . . . ;)

And I know with embryos, they are considered legally somewhere between property and persons, and for a 12 week fetus, in many states it may be considered similarly. This may complicate things

I have to say that this is the most thoughtfully this topic has ever been treated on these boards (and it seems to come up every other month or so).

I do resent the original question, though. I would echo SilverC's comment that asking why the majority of Pro-Lifers choose to eat meat would be a much better question (probable answer: because they value human life more than animal life--a subjective response--less ethical). I think that the question (How can an ethical vegetarian be pro-choice?) assumes that pro-choice is the same thing as pro-abortion. Someone who is pro-choice might be horrified by the idea of abortion, but willing to admit that real life situations are incredibly complex and that the right of individuals to choose is the best thing we can come up with and should not be legislated away. I do not see how this is at all out of step with veganism.

yes, I don't know of many (or any) vegans who want to make it against the law to eat a hamburger. I think most would prefer that the populations feelings on the issue evolve to the point where killing animals for food was generally morally unacceptable.

Originally posted by Thalia
Do you not agree with it as a means of preventing a pregnancy coming to term bc it is unethical to kill the fetus? If not, then why? If you do find it unethical to kill the fetus, why is it ethical if it was concieved in rape? That child could be given up for adoption.
Like I said, I find it unethical for women to use abortion for birth control. I view it kind of like "You do the crime, you do the time" (and no, I don't view sex as a crime). The woman knows the risks, and yet for whatever reason, chooses not to protect herself against unwanted pregnacy. She made a choice, she should live up to that responsibility.

With rape, it is a completely different matter. The woman was violated, it was not her choice. To keep the baby to term would cause more emotional distress, and scar her even more for the rest of her life. Having to carry the baby for nine months, give birth to it, then give it up would only make things harder for a woman who already has to deal with the trauma of being raped.

EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I am pro-choice. I may not agree with some women using abortion as a birth control, but it is their bodies and their lives, and their choice.

Originally posted by SilverC
Like I said, I find it unethical for women to use abortion for birth control. I view it kind of like "You do the crime, you do the time" (and no, I don't view sex as a crime). The woman knows the risks, and yet for whatever reason, chooses not to protect herself against unwanted pregnacy. She made a choice, she should live up to that responsibility.



Do you not also find it unethical for men to use abortion as birth control? The man knows the risks, and yet for whatever reason, chooses not to protect himself against unwanted pregnancy? He made the choice, he should live up to that responsibility?

This is the big problem and the reason why it's not fair to make such a statement. Men are not held as accountable as women and women stand to suffer the largest burden in the case of unwanted pregnancy.

So long as this is the case, it is not so easy to argue that women should not use abortion as a form of birth control.

Yes I do think that men should have to live up to their responsibilities. They should also make sure they are protected. That's just plain common sense. And if he happens to get a woman pregnant, he should support the child. I know that that doesn't always happen in reality, but there are legal ways in place to force a man to live up to his responsibility.

Yes women stand to lose more if they have an unwanted pregnancy. That's why I made damned sure I was protected. If I had become pregnant, I would have kept the baby, and suffered through the consequences.

This of course, is all my opinion. I would never force my ideas on anyone else. I just feel like people need to be more accountable for their actions, both men and women.

I am vegan and pro-life.

I refuse to choose between a woman and a child. If a woman feels the need to kill her own child, something is seriously wrong with society.

In the case of rape, an act of violence has already been done. The woman's aborting her child will not heal those wounds. It is using one form of violence to avenge another form. The woman and her baby are both innocent and should be treated as such. If anyone should die, it is the rapist - and let me make perfectly clear that I am against the death penalty.

Even if there were such a thing as an "unwanted" child, since when does the value of a life depend on whether or not someone else considers it valuable?

Peace,
Maggie

Good points Bankruptor. Not being a lawyer, the details and complications surrounding what to award plaintiffs with, for loss of a fetus, weren't on the tip of my tongue, but I was hoping someone would bring them up. Using civil "remedies" to prevent abortions could be more than a bit complicated, especially the early cases.