RE: GAP is back

[Tyler Davis]

Dear FreeThinkers,

 

(Skip down passed the numbered points to read just what I have to say about the GAP)

 

I ended up having a debate with a girl in my class who is a friend of the GAP people. One thing I noticed was it was almost as though, she thought that the fact I’m pro choice, that I’m somehow pro abortion?  I don’t think I’ve meet anyone who was pro Abortion(though I imagine some exist), in a perfect world people would only get pregnant when they want too and only in good situations. Not that all pro life people think this of pro choice people, but I get a feeling that it’s a little too wide spread. Now Saying that, the reason why I’m pro choice is  for three major reasons.

 

1. Abortions are going to happen regardless of an abortions legality, why make things worse by putting women who feel they need an abortion, also put themselves in mortal danger as well? By making abortion illegal, it’s almost like sentencing any woman to her own death, capital punishment. I think the option should always remain.
2.  I cannot in good judgement value the life of a fetus, over that of a mother, in biological sense, it make more sense to have an abortion if the pregnancy seriously threatens the mother life, Far more energy and time inputs have been put into a woman having the child, and when it’s likely she can have another child in the future? Why risk her life, and the unborn child, when you can save the mother with certainty. And think of the family that could lose a daughter or a mother, is the life of the fetus really comparable to its mother?
3. 3.      I imagine there’s a number of circumstances where a woman isn’t in the emotional state, or in some other circumstance where she can’t handle having a child, is it morality correct to force she to have that child? This is a context based question, but again I believe there are honest circumstances where a mother can’t handle having a child. (If anyone knows of a story, maybe a link, they’re willing to share I know I could use it to help back up my ideals, and others as well, again only if your comfortable doing so.)  

 

Back to the GAP,

 

               My problem isn’t that they’re pro life, I feel there not being responsible to our community. Their methods of protest is not only offensive, but aggressively so, little more than a shock tactic. The few supporters I’ve talked too try to defend them all tell me that it isn’t a protest, and/or it is just “informative.” They are not taking responsibility for the harm they cause to people, sometimes going so far to blame those hurt by the images. Now I feel there is still a debate left to be had on abortion, and compromises to be made, BUT regardless of who you are, or what you stand for you must remember your actions have consequences, unintended and intended alike, and you must accept those consequences and deal with them accordingly.

 

The fact they don’t take the community into consideration (or they may, and just choose to be harmful) and deny they have harmful impacts on some.

 

I’d like to hear what other’s have to say on the matter, and any critique anyone has on what I’ve just typed.

 

Tyler Davis

[Lexie Black]

Okay, I’m going to weigh in on this topic.

 

My pro choice stance doesn’t have a great deal to do with my atheism, rather I am pro choice because I see that as the feminist position on the topic. Personally, the idea of becoming pregnant at a time when I haven’t chosen to is a horrifying and scary thing and would essentially destroy my life as I know it and change all my plans for the next ten years.

 

This next part is in no way meant to be a sexist comment, or a comment on men in general, but due to the nature of pregnancy and it taking place in female bodies, men can walk away from it much easier (especially when they don’t even know about it). The injustice of the idea that women don’t get to control what happens in their bodies - and there is no comparable situation where the same happens to men - upsets me greatly, and I see abortion as a way to right this injustice (please don’t take that off the cuff – there are appropriate and inappropriate situations for abortion to take place). Abortion should never be used as a birth control, but it is a way for women to reclaim control over their bodies and lives, in a way that men, due to physiology and society, will never have to face.

 

Additionally, I also see pro choice as the libertarian stance. If the GAP people don’t like abortions, great, then don’t get one. Nothing gives them a right to discourage others from making that decision, or furthermore make people feel guilty for having made it. That choice involves the “mother” and the “father”, I don’t think anyone elses opinion should come into it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "University of Calgary Freethinkers Club" group.
To post to this group, send email to freethin...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to freethinkers-c...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club?hl=en.

--
Lexie

[yppo...@ucalgary.ca]

The argument "Women are going to do it anyway in unsafe conditions, so why
bother making it illegal?" is a bad one.

If it's established that abortion is morally wrong, then committing
abortion is a crime. The fact that it's dangerous for the criminal does
not make it less of a crime, otherwise you could apply the same logic to a
variety of other crimes.

So to argue in favour of the legality of abortion, we have to establish
that it's morally permissible under certain circumstances and underline
what those circumnstances are.

For instance, in Canada I believe it is

1. If there is risk that the mother will die, or both the mother and the
fetus will die, if there is not an abortion.
2. Before the third trimester, where we rationalise that the fetus is not
developped enough to be fully human.

Which I happen to agree with.

There is of course a "clearly not human" stage, and a "clearly human"
stage, but placing the line is arbitrary. We set ours for our own
convenience (second trimester), and they set theirs for their convenience
(fertilization).

Then there are a few legal hypocrisies. For instance, if we deny a 5-month
fetus the status of humanhood for the purpose of abortion, then we
shoudn't charge someone who accidently causes the death of the fetus with
manslaughter. What does it count as then?

-Yannick

> mother?3.����� I

[Eric Mathison]

Hello all,

I think the strongest non-religious argument for prohibiting abortion is a paper by Don Marquis called "Why Abortion is Immoral." Here's the link. Some of the people in GAP are aware of it (because Scagwald and I have told them about it) although I haven't heard any of them use Marquis's arguments. Also, Yannick mentions the case where both the mother and the fetus will die unless you kill the fetus. In the debate I did with Cam from GAP last semester he conceded that in such cases it is sometimes morally permissible to kill the fetus. He was acting on behalf of their group, so more people should press them on that point.

Best,

Eric

[Patrick King]

One last comment on this issue as it relates to the club! Members of the Freethinkers, including its executives, tend to have views that are distinct from one another, sometimes wildly so. The result is that we have never been the sort of organization to publish a single official stance on any particular topic.

I believe that this is a very good thing, since the energy and variety of an internet conversation seems like a much more productive use of our time than a bureaucratic slog to nail down the precise detail of a position that we might all half agree on. The other good news is that this keeps the group more open and true to its 'anything goes' freethinker moniker, with no potentially contentious mission statements to drive people away.

But there's bad news too: the lack of an official line to toe can create tension when it comes to issues of contention, the GAP being only one example. What do we do? What can we say? The price of openness is that we lose out on the focus and discipline that activism requires.

In the place of an official club position, the direction of the club is determined in practice by the priorities of the members willing to organize and promote events (the executives, mostly). This is just fine, so long as we remember that no one speaks for the whole group. So, whatever you believe about abortion, I hope you won't feel put out by a call to counterprotest at the GAP displays. Join up if you agree, talk about it here of you don't!

Patrick

P.S. If by chance you feel that the direction of the club has become problematic, your ultimate recourse is to run for the executive yourself!

[Ricky Hon]

You bring up a valid and salient point here Yannick but be careful not to conflate the legality of something with it's moral rightness/wrongness. To be sure, the law should indeed try to reflect what we've taken to be the "correct" moral norms however, when it comes to LEGAL issues, different factors come into play - things like prudential and cautionary considerations. The argument "Women are going to do it anyway in unsafe conditions, so why bother making it illegal?" - this DOES matter as a matter of law because the law must taken into account RESULTS. Not only is it a matter of law, though, I think there is a very real sense in which Tyler's point here has MORAL ramifications. It does in this way: there is a sense in which at a certain POINT, the number of women engaging in unsafe abortions which risk their life and the the life of the fetus, is so high that it demands or invokes MORAL consideration - this is a consequentialist line of thinking but I think it is valid. The law, after all, must, once again, look at results.
 
I'm not contesting your point about how acts on the part of INDIVIDUALS can change the moral status of something like abortion, but I think there is more to Tyler's point and I just wanted to flesh out an additional dimension of this exchange.
 
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:28:14 -0600
> Subject: RE: GAP is back
> From: yppo...@ucalgary.ca
> To: freethin...@googlegroups.com

[Zane Beauchamp]

I was actually one of the folks who went out there and held a sign for a few hours on Wed. We had some people come and talk to us and I even had a couple reasonable discussions with some of the Pro-Life folks. One girl who was out there when I arrived had apparently been dating the vice president of the campus pro-life group at some point in the past and had gotten pregnant. She was saying that he had actually asked her to get an abortion. So she was out there to expose his hypocrisy. Many times I had folks ask me if I was with the FreeThinkers (because from the way I was talking it seemed like I would be a member), and while I never denied my membership, the important thing that was always made clear by myself and the others who came out while I was there, was that while we are with the FreeThinkers, we were not there on behalf of the group and were only there because of our own accord.

As for my own views on the issue, I feel that there is a lot of room for us to discuss the morality of the issue and for lack of a better defined threshold I define the fetus as its own entity when it is capable of surviving on its own (a threshold medical science constantly pushes back further and further) and I consider arguments for considering the state before that as good grounds for discussion but the decision lies with the woman whose womb is involved, and while I feel that if she is in a relationship with someone when the unplanned pregnancy occurs, she should talk with the father to get his opinion, if she decides to go through with the pregnancy or terminate it, then that is what happens and the father/friends/family should do what they can to support her in that decision.

Zane

---

From: patrick...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 22:52:15 -0600
Subject: Re: GAP is back
To: freethin...@googlegroups.com

[Ricky Hon]

Good points, Patrick. Although I have to take your word on the diversity of opinions thing since I haven't engaged in a lot of the topics and discussions - have just been too busy this year.  I have to admit, when I first joined this group I thought I was joining a bunch of militant atheists, lol, and so there was certainly a bit of trepidation but after having read some of what y'all have had to say over the year, there is definitely a lot of substance, depth, and above all, REASONABLENESS here. All of that I appreciate a great deal. In short - y'all are alright lol.
 
Good luck with final papers, exams, etc. - hopefully these threads of discussion continue over the summer.

---

From: patrick...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 22:52:15 -0600
Subject: Re: GAP is back
To: freethin...@googlegroups.com