by publius
I just watched Juno and heartily recommend it to one and all. Ross Douthat has also seen it, and waxes abortionistic:
And while Juno may not be moved by thoughts of her embryo’s “hallowed rights,” exactly, she certainly seems to be moved by the unremitting grossness of the abortion clinic . . . and more importantly, by the declaration, from a pro-life Asian classmate keeping a lonely vigil outside the clinic, that her child-to-be “already has fingernails.” (Careful viewers will note that while Juno sits in the clinic, filling out paperwork, the camera zooms in on the fingernails of the other people in the waiting room.)
. . .None of this means that movie is a brief for overturning Roe v. Wade; far from it. But like Knocked Up, it’s decidedly a brief for not getting an abortion.
I agree – and it’s a powerful brief too. But I think Douthat has the wrong audience in mind. He thinks the audience who most needs to digest Juno’s complex themes is the pro-choice camp. Perhaps, but I think Juno has more to say to the pro-life camp. Specifically, it illustrates why the pro-life movement would enjoy far more success if it made its peace with Roe v. Wade. (To avoid spoilers, I’ll focus on the argument rather than the plot of the film, which you should go see right now).
The fundamental problem is that the Roe debate is only tangentially related to abortion. Instead, it’s about penalties. More precisely, it’s about whether (and what) penalties are appropriate for having an abortion. For this reason, the linguistic labels of the various camps – pro-life and pro-choice – don’t reflect the essence of the political debate very accurately. One can, for instance, oppose abortion personally, while simultaneously opposing efforts to ban or criminalize it. The Roe debate then, stripped to its essence, is about allocation of power. Does the individual get the final say? Or does the state?
My “pro-life” friends have often asked why Roe supporters appear so inflexible. Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue. One reason is that some people simply don’t think it’s a tough question – they disagree with the premise that the embryo is “life” in a morally or legally relevant sense.
But I suspect most Roe supporters privately concede that abortion is a tough question (that camp includes me). The reason, though, that they hesitate to acknowledge it is because – within the current penalty-focused Roe debate – acknowledging moral complexity gives political ammunition to a political movement that seeks to ban and criminalize abortion. The potential penalties are so abhorrent that they are unwilling to give ground.
This latter camp, however, would be far more receptive to pro-life arguments if the debate shifted away from allocation of decision-making power to the merits of individual abortion itself. In other words, if progressives were convinced that individuals would retain the freedom to make such complex and personal decisions themselves, they would be more open to the arguments of the “lonely vigil.” Once progressives are convinced that teenagers will not be coerced by threat of prosecution to give birth against their will, I think pro-life advocates would be surprised how dramatically progressive attitudes would shift.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m for keeping Roe (on reliance/stare decisis grounds, not because I think it was originally correct). And I’m certainly not saying that abortion is a universally bad act. It’s not. It’s an individual decision that turns on an infinite number of varying circumstances – and one that should be respected.
But that said, it’s a tough issue. As a new parent, it’s difficult to articulate the depths of affection that I’ve felt over the past two years. For the lack of a non-trite word, parenthood is a beautiful thing. And given the number of parents longing for a child, I wish that more people would opt for adoption, so that others can experience what I have. But that said, I recognize that this option is not possible or desirable for many others – and I completely respect that. I also recognize that my situation is considerably different from, say, a poor 15-year old who lacks family support.
But getting back to the point, the pro-life movement would be more effective – i.e., it would persuade those inclined to be hostile to it – by turning from the political arena and instead focusing on individuals. The challenge should be not to bully people through draconian laws, but to persuade people on an individual level – just like the “lonely vigil” did. Yes, the risk is that abortion would still be legal. But by persuading (rather than coercing) individuals, pro-lifers would increase the size of their “camp,” and make in-roads into a part of the public that (to be honest) loathes them for their coercive efforts.
And let’s face it. The political efforts have achieved very little. Seven Republican justices couldn’t end Roe, and all signs point Democratic in 2008 (especially if Romney or Huckabee get the nod). More importantly, the political efforts to seek a ban have tainted the social conservative movement in the eyes of many progressives, and mainstream America more generally. People just don’t support abortion bans. In fact, the very idea of them frightens people. That’s why Bush wouldn’t say openly what he thinks about Roe v. Wade, while John Kerry would. (Same deal for rabid anti-homosexuality – among progressives, the latter is one of those “deal-breaker” issues that ensures that they will never support, or even listen to, the social conservatives agenda).
People like their freedom. Rather than fearing it and attempting to eliminate it, maybe the pro-life camp should try embracing it for a change.
I think the reasons why your argument will likely fall on deaf ears varies from pro-lifer to pro-lifer. Many do really believe that abortion is murder; for those, a goal of persuading some people of this fact and thereby reducing (but by no means eliminating) the number of abortions would be a hollow victory. It would (from their perspective) be a bit like telling an abolitionist that they should use moral suasion to convince slaveholders to release ther slaves, rather than opposing the institution.
On the other hand, for many opponents of abortion, it really is all about controlling women and limiting their choices. Obviously for them convincing a few (or even a lot of) women to voluntarily forgo an abortion advances their agenda not at all.
Finally, I suspect that some Rebublicans probably believe that, given the current dynamics of the issue, the current anti Roe position of the Republican party is a net benefit electorily. And they are probably correct, though that might change if Roe was in fact repealed. Which means that pro business and low tax wings of the party need to walk a tightrope – advocate for Roe to be overturned, prevent it from really hapepning.
I think the reasons why your argument will likely fall on deaf ears varies from pro-lifer to pro-lifer. Many do really believe that abortion is murder; for those, a goal of persuading some people of this fact and thereby reducing (but by no means eliminating) the number of abortions would be a hollow victory. It would (from their perspective) be a bit like telling an abolitionist that they should use moral suasion to convince slaveholders to release ther slaves, rather than opposing the institution.
On the other hand, for many opponents of abortion, it really is all about controlling women and limiting their choices. Obviously for them convincing a few (or even a lot of) women to voluntarily forgo an abortion advances their agenda not at all.
Finally, I suspect that some Rebublicans probably believe that, given the current dynamics of the issue, the current anti Roe position of the Republican party is a net benefit electorily. And they are probably correct, though that might change if Roe was in fact repealed. Which means that pro business and low tax wings of the party need to walk a tightrope – advocate for Roe to be overturned, prevent it from really hapepning.
An excerpt from the review that Douthat quotes:
Here [Diablo] Cody’s politics (presumably pro-choice) are at odds with her plot needs (a birth)
This is the usual libel that “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion”, and Douthat’s column does nothing to question it.
An excerpt from the review that Douthat quotes:
Here [Diablo] Cody’s politics (presumably pro-choice) are at odds with her plot needs (a birth)
This is the usual libel that “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion”, and Douthat’s column does nothing to question it.
I know this is almost certainly a lack of personal empathy on my part, but I’ve never really understood things like this:
“My “pro-life” friends have often asked why Roe supporters appear so inflexible. Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue. One reason is that some people simply don’t think it’s a tough question – they disagree with the premise that the embryo is “life” in a morally or legally relevant sense.
But I suspect most Roe supporters privately concede that abortion is a tough question (that camp includes me). The reason, though, that they hesitate to acknowledge it is because – within the current penalty-focused Roe debate – acknowledging moral complexity gives political ammunition to a political movement that seeks to ban and criminalize abortion. The potential penalties are so abhorrent that they are unwilling to give ground.”
I totally get that some people don’t believe that the embryo is morally relevant life. I totally get that other people disagree on when it becomes morally relevant life. (Though I don’t get how anyone can think it isn’t morally relevant life at say 8 or 9 months). What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant. I’m not at all trying to be snarky. I really don’t get it. The only thing that resonates with me is that you think it isn’t morally relevant life at some stage or other, but *worry* that maybe it really is. But I’ve been repeatedly assured that isn’t it, so I’m really just very confused about it.
“Once progressives are convinced that teenagers will not be coerced by threat of prosecution to give birth against their will, I think pro-life advocates would be surprised how dramatically progressive attitudes would shift.”
I worry to ask questions about this, since I think my previous part is much more interesting. But what does this mean? If progressives ALREADY have reservations about abortions, what would a shift in attitudes (but absolutely definitely not shifting in law of course) mean on a practical level?
I know this is almost certainly a lack of personal empathy on my part, but I’ve never really understood things like this:
“My “pro-life” friends have often asked why Roe supporters appear so inflexible. Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue. One reason is that some people simply don’t think it’s a tough question – they disagree with the premise that the embryo is “life” in a morally or legally relevant sense.
But I suspect most Roe supporters privately concede that abortion is a tough question (that camp includes me). The reason, though, that they hesitate to acknowledge it is because – within the current penalty-focused Roe debate – acknowledging moral complexity gives political ammunition to a political movement that seeks to ban and criminalize abortion. The potential penalties are so abhorrent that they are unwilling to give ground.”
I totally get that some people don’t believe that the embryo is morally relevant life. I totally get that other people disagree on when it becomes morally relevant life. (Though I don’t get how anyone can think it isn’t morally relevant life at say 8 or 9 months). What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant. I’m not at all trying to be snarky. I really don’t get it. The only thing that resonates with me is that you think it isn’t morally relevant life at some stage or other, but *worry* that maybe it really is. But I’ve been repeatedly assured that isn’t it, so I’m really just very confused about it.
“Once progressives are convinced that teenagers will not be coerced by threat of prosecution to give birth against their will, I think pro-life advocates would be surprised how dramatically progressive attitudes would shift.”
I worry to ask questions about this, since I think my previous part is much more interesting. But what does this mean? If progressives ALREADY have reservations about abortions, what would a shift in attitudes (but absolutely definitely not shifting in law of course) mean on a practical level?
Great post, Publius. I think you’re spot on about the pro-choice camp being worried about giving political ammunition to the other side.
I’ve been thinking for a long time about how persuadable both sides are, and it’s hard not to be pessimistic, especially in light of the “abolitionist” analogy that LarryM mentions above. But there is cause for hope. As evidence, I’ll cite a comment I made on Redstate about the Roe issue. Notice who gave a “5” to my comment.
I’m interested to know, Publius, what you think of the Roe decision, reliance/stare decisis aside.
Great post, Publius. I think you’re spot on about the pro-choice camp being worried about giving political ammunition to the other side.
I’ve been thinking for a long time about how persuadable both sides are, and it’s hard not to be pessimistic, especially in light of the “abolitionist” analogy that LarryM mentions above. But there is cause for hope. As evidence, I’ll cite a comment I made on Redstate about the Roe issue. Notice who gave a “5” to my comment.
I’m interested to know, Publius, what you think of the Roe decision, reliance/stare decisis aside.
as for roe – i hesitate to derail the thread, but the nickel version goes something like this.
1 – Roe can’t be viewed in isolation. It’s part of a larger privacy right/substantive due process cluster of cases that includes Griswold (contraception) and even way back to Meyer and Pierce (private school rights).
2 – These cases rise or fall together. Thus, if you think Roe is wrong, you also think must necessarilly think that ALL these cases are wrong. Thus, states could prohibit contraception, ban private schools, etc.
3 – I think the right to privacy underlying this cluster of cases has no textual basis in the Constitution.
4 – I think that this right has been recognized long enough that society has come to rely on it. Thus, we should keep it, but stop expanding it in new areas (i disagree with lawrence, for instance).
But again – the key here is that Roe cannot be viewed in isolation. You can’t overturn it without overturning a century’s worth of other precedent.
I did a longer post at Legal Fiction on this if you want more detail.
as for roe – i hesitate to derail the thread, but the nickel version goes something like this.
1 – Roe can’t be viewed in isolation. It’s part of a larger privacy right/substantive due process cluster of cases that includes Griswold (contraception) and even way back to Meyer and Pierce (private school rights).
2 – These cases rise or fall together. Thus, if you think Roe is wrong, you also think must necessarilly think that ALL these cases are wrong. Thus, states could prohibit contraception, ban private schools, etc.
3 – I think the right to privacy underlying this cluster of cases has no textual basis in the Constitution.
4 – I think that this right has been recognized long enough that society has come to rely on it. Thus, we should keep it, but stop expanding it in new areas (i disagree with lawrence, for instance).
But again – the key here is that Roe cannot be viewed in isolation. You can’t overturn it without overturning a century’s worth of other precedent.
I did a longer post at Legal Fiction on this if you want more detail.
Wait… you disagree with the reasoning in Lawrence… do you disagree with the law being challenged or is it an acceptable law in your mind? If not, why would the law not be OK?
Wait… you disagree with the reasoning in Lawrence… do you disagree with the law being challenged or is it an acceptable law in your mind? If not, why would the law not be OK?
the law falls into the category of stupid, bad, detestable but constitutional.
well, let’s not go that far. it might well be unconstitutional on a narrower equal protection ground. but it’s the reasoning of lawrence that gives me pause. it’s so incredibly broad that it gives the federal judiciary the power to strike down anything. it’s just bland, limitless abstraction dressed up as legal reasoning.
the law falls into the category of stupid, bad, detestable but constitutional.
well, let’s not go that far. it might well be unconstitutional on a narrower equal protection ground. but it’s the reasoning of lawrence that gives me pause. it’s so incredibly broad that it gives the federal judiciary the power to strike down anything. it’s just bland, limitless abstraction dressed up as legal reasoning.
And let’s face it. The political efforts have achieved very little.
Not true–they’ve raised a crapload of money for Republican candidates and gotten a lot of people to vote against their economic self-interest for decades now. They’ve raised a lot of money for Democratic candidates as well, but this is an issue that most Democrats would rather just went away as opposed to re-fighting it every stinking year.
And let’s face it. The political efforts have achieved very little.
Not true–they’ve raised a crapload of money for Republican candidates and gotten a lot of people to vote against their economic self-interest for decades now. They’ve raised a lot of money for Democratic candidates as well, but this is an issue that most Democrats would rather just went away as opposed to re-fighting it every stinking year.
I surmise that one problem many abortion rights opponents have with focusing on the demand side–dissuading already pregnant women from aborting–rather than the supply side of the question–punishing abortion providers–is that, by the time the need for an individual decision on abortion occurs, the woman has in all likelihood already had sex.
As publius recognizes, the debate is more about personal autonomy than about a particular outcome.
I surmise that one problem many abortion rights opponents have with focusing on the demand side–dissuading already pregnant women from aborting–rather than the supply side of the question–punishing abortion providers–is that, by the time the need for an individual decision on abortion occurs, the woman has in all likelihood already had sex.
As publius recognizes, the debate is more about personal autonomy than about a particular outcome.
FWIW, the Austrian law regarding abortion was hashed out in the 70’s and has been more or less a non-issue over the last two decades.
It simply states that abortion is a crime, but penalties are waived during the first trimester. (later only for clear medical indications)
FWIW, the Austrian law regarding abortion was hashed out in the 70’s and has been more or less a non-issue over the last two decades.
It simply states that abortion is a crime, but penalties are waived during the first trimester. (later only for clear medical indications)
One tricky bit about the “Embryos are protected life with full legal rights”-stance is the natural frequency of accidental deaths of the fetus. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but I remember that it’s surprisingly high if you include anything after the first week.
So, *if* you take the hard-core stance that the a death of fetus has the same legal implications as a death of born child, then these deaths need
* death certificates
* investigations regarding the cause
* a trial if the parents are suspected of negligence (accidental manslaughter)
And don’t get me started with respect to passports, social security numbers, …
One tricky bit about the “Embryos are protected life with full legal rights”-stance is the natural frequency of accidental deaths of the fetus. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but I remember that it’s surprisingly high if you include anything after the first week.
So, *if* you take the hard-core stance that the a death of fetus has the same legal implications as a death of born child, then these deaths need
* death certificates
* investigations regarding the cause
* a trial if the parents are suspected of negligence (accidental manslaughter)
And don’t get me started with respect to passports, social security numbers, …
otmar,
I’m not sure whether you mean “after [fertilisation]” or “after [implantation]”: the latter can take place more than a week after the former.
Sorry to give you a wikipedia source, but this article does have citations and *might* be a starting point. “Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried by the sixth week [after the last menstrual period, ie appox four weeks after fertilisation and about three after implantation assuming a standard cycle]”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Viability_and_established_pregnancy
I’m an occasional reader of the infertility blogs. Some of the authors have miscarried multiple pregnancies, and therefore there has been a great deal of discussion of occasional attempts at US State levels to do just what you suggest (I know that you’re not suggesting it seriously, rather the reverse!): reporting all miscarriages (or more commonly all late miscarriages) to the police and having them investigated with a view to establishing whether the pregnant woman was responsible for it. Generally speaking these have been put forward by politicians who seemingly believe that late (here I mean after about eight weeks from the last period) miscarriages are a very rare event compared to abortions.
The Wikipedia article also points out that, if you want to insist that parents be as responsible for the life of an implanted (or possibly a fertilised) zygote as they would be for that of a newborn infant there’s a lot of stuff that women can’t do, up to, potentially, breastfeeding. I’ve seen mention elsewhere that since most women between 10 and 50 *could* be in the very early stages of pregnancy at any time it would be a rather effective way of corralling women’s behaviour: they could be commiting manslaughter in the post ovulation phase of every menstrual cycle if they don’t observe all pregnancy-related activity restrictions every single month.
otmar,
I’m not sure whether you mean “after [fertilisation]” or “after [implantation]”: the latter can take place more than a week after the former.
Sorry to give you a wikipedia source, but this article does have citations and *might* be a starting point. “Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried by the sixth week [after the last menstrual period, ie appox four weeks after fertilisation and about three after implantation assuming a standard cycle]”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Viability_and_established_pregnancy
I’m an occasional reader of the infertility blogs. Some of the authors have miscarried multiple pregnancies, and therefore there has been a great deal of discussion of occasional attempts at US State levels to do just what you suggest (I know that you’re not suggesting it seriously, rather the reverse!): reporting all miscarriages (or more commonly all late miscarriages) to the police and having them investigated with a view to establishing whether the pregnant woman was responsible for it. Generally speaking these have been put forward by politicians who seemingly believe that late (here I mean after about eight weeks from the last period) miscarriages are a very rare event compared to abortions.
The Wikipedia article also points out that, if you want to insist that parents be as responsible for the life of an implanted (or possibly a fertilised) zygote as they would be for that of a newborn infant there’s a lot of stuff that women can’t do, up to, potentially, breastfeeding. I’ve seen mention elsewhere that since most women between 10 and 50 *could* be in the very early stages of pregnancy at any time it would be a rather effective way of corralling women’s behaviour: they could be commiting manslaughter in the post ovulation phase of every menstrual cycle if they don’t observe all pregnancy-related activity restrictions every single month.
The figures I’d seen for miscarriages in books on pregnancy (sorry, don’t have any cites to hand) is about 20-30% of pregnancies miscarrying in the first trimester (e.g. within 13 weeks). That probably means that most women who try for a family will have a miscarriage at some point. With those kind of odds, I personally find it hard to maintain that a first-trimester fetus is sacred life. (Miscarriages later are a lot rarer, though again, I don’t have figures to hand).
The figures I’d seen for miscarriages in books on pregnancy (sorry, don’t have any cites to hand) is about 20-30% of pregnancies miscarrying in the first trimester (e.g. within 13 weeks). That probably means that most women who try for a family will have a miscarriage at some point. With those kind of odds, I personally find it hard to maintain that a first-trimester fetus is sacred life. (Miscarriages later are a lot rarer, though again, I don’t have figures to hand).
publius, you wrote: “And given the number of parents longing for a child, I wish that more people would opt for adoption, so that others can experience what I have.”
You do mean the couples who want children who are not opting to adopt? Because there are far more children in the US who need parents than there are people willing to adopt them. (You would not, I hope, be wishing to go back to the pre-Roe days where more women suffered lifelong because they had given up their babies for adoption.)
But getting back to the point, the pro-life movement would be more effective – i.e., it would persuade those inclined to be hostile to it – by turning from the political arena and instead focusing on individuals. The challenge should be not to bully people through draconian laws, but to persuade people on an individual level
That would require the pro-life movement to become pro-choice. I doubt that’s ever going to happen.
publius, you wrote: “And given the number of parents longing for a child, I wish that more people would opt for adoption, so that others can experience what I have.”
You do mean the couples who want children who are not opting to adopt? Because there are far more children in the US who need parents than there are people willing to adopt them. (You would not, I hope, be wishing to go back to the pre-Roe days where more women suffered lifelong because they had given up their babies for adoption.)
But getting back to the point, the pro-life movement would be more effective – i.e., it would persuade those inclined to be hostile to it – by turning from the political arena and instead focusing on individuals. The challenge should be not to bully people through draconian laws, but to persuade people on an individual level
That would require the pro-life movement to become pro-choice. I doubt that’s ever going to happen.
Sebastian: What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant. I’m not at all trying to be snarky. I really don’t get it.
It’s a matter of respect for women. Believing that women are human beings. If you believe that a pregnant woman has a right to make all medical decisions about her own body, then the pregnant woman is the only person who can get to decide on any issues about her fetus. Nothing can be done to or with her fetus without involving her, including, of course, forcing her to continue her pregnancy against her will.
The fear pro-lifers have whipped up of abortions at eight or nine months is frankly absurd. As I and others have noted to you every time we have this discussion, there is no evidence at all for any abortions at eight or nine months, no reason to suppose they are occurring, and are medically nonsense: at eight or nine months, the only way to get the fetus out would be c-sec or induced delivery, whether the fetus is alive or dead. Either way, if the fetus is alive, this wouldn’t be abortion: it would be termination of the pregnancy, yes, but it would be by early delivery, not abortion.
Perhaps if you considered the individual rights issue and looked at the plain facts of the matter you would find it easier to “get”?
Sebastian: What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant. I’m not at all trying to be snarky. I really don’t get it.
It’s a matter of respect for women. Believing that women are human beings. If you believe that a pregnant woman has a right to make all medical decisions about her own body, then the pregnant woman is the only person who can get to decide on any issues about her fetus. Nothing can be done to or with her fetus without involving her, including, of course, forcing her to continue her pregnancy against her will.
The fear pro-lifers have whipped up of abortions at eight or nine months is frankly absurd. As I and others have noted to you every time we have this discussion, there is no evidence at all for any abortions at eight or nine months, no reason to suppose they are occurring, and are medically nonsense: at eight or nine months, the only way to get the fetus out would be c-sec or induced delivery, whether the fetus is alive or dead. Either way, if the fetus is alive, this wouldn’t be abortion: it would be termination of the pregnancy, yes, but it would be by early delivery, not abortion.
Perhaps if you considered the individual rights issue and looked at the plain facts of the matter you would find it easier to “get”?
Adoption is a new can of worms to be opened.
Over here the “supply” is much lower than the “demand” and the hurdles are extremly high. Being an official candidate for sainthood seems to be the minimum requirement* (while on the other hand you could be the chosen mother of the Antichrist and not be denied to have a child of your own**). The result is a “grey import” of foreign children with all the possible negative side effects(see the current French/Chad scandal).
*Former Chancellor Schröder adopted a Russian child and now is regularly visited by the youth welfare office to check that she is treated well (as required by law, nobody assumes that the child is actually abused).
**And currently the papers are full of cases of parents abusing their own biological children.
Adoption is a new can of worms to be opened.
Over here the “supply” is much lower than the “demand” and the hurdles are extremly high. Being an official candidate for sainthood seems to be the minimum requirement* (while on the other hand you could be the chosen mother of the Antichrist and not be denied to have a child of your own**). The result is a “grey import” of foreign children with all the possible negative side effects(see the current French/Chad scandal).
*Former Chancellor Schröder adopted a Russian child and now is regularly visited by the youth welfare office to check that she is treated well (as required by law, nobody assumes that the child is actually abused).
**And currently the papers are full of cases of parents abusing their own biological children.
The debate about abortion is not about abortion. We live in an age of political theater, in which all discourse is couched in terms of allegories and the debate about X is never really about X. That kind of playing field is intrinsically tilted in favor of the less-honest side. We may not be able to level the field but we can at the very least point out the tilt. Substantive debate is unfortunately out of the question and attempting it merely shows that we do not understand our surroundings.
The debate about abortion is not about abortion. We live in an age of political theater, in which all discourse is couched in terms of allegories and the debate about X is never really about X. That kind of playing field is intrinsically tilted in favor of the less-honest side. We may not be able to level the field but we can at the very least point out the tilt. Substantive debate is unfortunately out of the question and attempting it merely shows that we do not understand our surroundings.
Lessons from Juno – Why Roe Could Help the Pro-Lif…
Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com!
Lessons from Juno – Why Roe Could Help the Pro-Lif…
Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com!
“Sebastian: What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant. I’m not at all trying to be snarky. I really don’t get it.
It’s a matter of respect for women. Believing that women are human beings. If you believe that a pregnant woman has a right to make all medical decisions about her own body, then the pregnant woman is the only person who can get to decide on any issues about her fetus. Nothing can be done to or with her fetus without involving her, including, of course, forcing her to continue her pregnancy against her will.”
That doesn’t answer my question about what is allegedly ‘tough’ about abortion if you don’t believe the fetus has any rights. You are saying why the issue should always be in the hands of women, not explaining what is supposed to be tough about it.
“As I and others have noted to you every time we have this discussion, there is no evidence at all for any abortions at eight or nine months, no reason to suppose they are occurring”
What? First, I’m shocked to hear you say that there are no abortions going on at 8 or 9 months. Second, I’m shocked to hear you say that you have repeatedly said that before. The first statement is wrong. The second one can be easily checked. Can you please provide me say two examples from two separate threads (though even one would be a shock). What are you talking about?
“Sebastian: What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant. I’m not at all trying to be snarky. I really don’t get it.
It’s a matter of respect for women. Believing that women are human beings. If you believe that a pregnant woman has a right to make all medical decisions about her own body, then the pregnant woman is the only person who can get to decide on any issues about her fetus. Nothing can be done to or with her fetus without involving her, including, of course, forcing her to continue her pregnancy against her will.”
That doesn’t answer my question about what is allegedly ‘tough’ about abortion if you don’t believe the fetus has any rights. You are saying why the issue should always be in the hands of women, not explaining what is supposed to be tough about it.
“As I and others have noted to you every time we have this discussion, there is no evidence at all for any abortions at eight or nine months, no reason to suppose they are occurring”
What? First, I’m shocked to hear you say that there are no abortions going on at 8 or 9 months. Second, I’m shocked to hear you say that you have repeatedly said that before. The first statement is wrong. The second one can be easily checked. Can you please provide me say two examples from two separate threads (though even one would be a shock). What are you talking about?
Discussions of adoption are complex because the type of children put up for adoption has changes so much, at least in the UK. Before abortion was allowed, there was a steady stream of ‘healthy white babies’, who were quite easy to place. Nowadays, with relatively easy abortion and the social services trying to keep birth families together, almost all the children offered for adoption will be ‘difficult’ in some way: potential adoptive parents need to belong to a specific ethnic group (there is a lot of wariness about transracial adoptions now, after bad results previously) or they will be asked to take on older children or children with physical or mental difficulties or several children who need to be kept together. All this makes the job of being an adopted parent more difficult and means (in my view rightly) that there is a lot more cautious inspection of potential adoptive parents.
In the US situation, meanwhile, if you encourage more pregnant women towards adoption rather than abortion, you are also likely to end up with more single mothers. If you encourage women to maintain an emotional commitment to a fetus for a number of months, many are then going to find it very hard to hand over their baby to someone else and may change their mind and keep the child themselves. Those who are really pro-life need to become a lot more supportive of single mothers if they’re going to win the argument.
Discussions of adoption are complex because the type of children put up for adoption has changes so much, at least in the UK. Before abortion was allowed, there was a steady stream of ‘healthy white babies’, who were quite easy to place. Nowadays, with relatively easy abortion and the social services trying to keep birth families together, almost all the children offered for adoption will be ‘difficult’ in some way: potential adoptive parents need to belong to a specific ethnic group (there is a lot of wariness about transracial adoptions now, after bad results previously) or they will be asked to take on older children or children with physical or mental difficulties or several children who need to be kept together. All this makes the job of being an adopted parent more difficult and means (in my view rightly) that there is a lot more cautious inspection of potential adoptive parents.
In the US situation, meanwhile, if you encourage more pregnant women towards adoption rather than abortion, you are also likely to end up with more single mothers. If you encourage women to maintain an emotional commitment to a fetus for a number of months, many are then going to find it very hard to hand over their baby to someone else and may change their mind and keep the child themselves. Those who are really pro-life need to become a lot more supportive of single mothers if they’re going to win the argument.
Sebastian:
Abortion is a tough decision once it’s moved into the area of an actual medical procedure, in the way that *all* life-determining medical procedures are tough. I do not believe that the decision to take Plan B should be a tough one, though it is certainly deliberately *made* tough by people who don’t want women to have that choice.
Eight and nine month “abortions” are a strawwoman.
I think publius’ suggestion is painfully, possibly willfully, naive. As Frank said, The debate about abortion is not about abortion. The organized “pro-life” side has made it very clear that their deepest concern is to punish women for having sex. They have categorically resisted policies that are known to reduce the abortion rate, because those policies (knowledge of and easy access to contraception, support for single mothers and poor families) increase women’s autonomy.
This is why those of us on the pro-choice side are so stubborn and mean, not giving an inch on our views: we realize, as publius apparently does not, that “pro-life” really is anti-choice. “Pro-lifers” *cannot* agree to give individual women more autonomy over our own bodies and our own actions (especially sexuality), because that is precisely the point — abortion itself is a stalking horse.
Sebastian:
Abortion is a tough decision once it’s moved into the area of an actual medical procedure, in the way that *all* life-determining medical procedures are tough. I do not believe that the decision to take Plan B should be a tough one, though it is certainly deliberately *made* tough by people who don’t want women to have that choice.
Eight and nine month “abortions” are a strawwoman.
I think publius’ suggestion is painfully, possibly willfully, naive. As Frank said, The debate about abortion is not about abortion. The organized “pro-life” side has made it very clear that their deepest concern is to punish women for having sex. They have categorically resisted policies that are known to reduce the abortion rate, because those policies (knowledge of and easy access to contraception, support for single mothers and poor families) increase women’s autonomy.
This is why those of us on the pro-choice side are so stubborn and mean, not giving an inch on our views: we realize, as publius apparently does not, that “pro-life” really is anti-choice. “Pro-lifers” *cannot* agree to give individual women more autonomy over our own bodies and our own actions (especially sexuality), because that is precisely the point — abortion itself is a stalking horse.
To which I can only say: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one, publius. You really had me going for a while. But asking me to believe that social cons give a rat’s ass about freedom? Next time you pull a prank, pick one that’s believeable.
To which I can only say: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one, publius. You really had me going for a while. But asking me to believe that social cons give a rat’s ass about freedom? Next time you pull a prank, pick one that’s believeable.
Interesting fact brought up on feministing: Money raised through Florida’s “Choose Life” plates can be used to help single mothers who decide against abortion … but only if they give the baby up for adoption.
Interesting fact brought up on feministing: Money raised through Florida’s “Choose Life” plates can be used to help single mothers who decide against abortion … but only if they give the baby up for adoption.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. However, I’m not very hopeful. From a pro-life frind, who offered his opinion of the movie:
Abortion is in part about saving a life. But an issue that goes just as deel for many pro-lifers is the idea of escaping consequences. Girls who make Bad Decisions(tm) shouldn’t be able to escape the consequences, or everyone would start making Bad Decisions(tm).
I couldn’t have said it better myself. However, I’m not very hopeful. From a pro-life frind, who offered his opinion of the movie:
Abortion is in part about saving a life. But an issue that goes just as deel for many pro-lifers is the idea of escaping consequences. Girls who make Bad Decisions(tm) shouldn’t be able to escape the consequences, or everyone would start making Bad Decisions(tm).
3 – I think the right to privacy underlying this cluster of cases has no textual basis in the Constitution.
Ditto for “Freedom of Association” (used to protect discrimination) and our current interpretation of the 1st Amendment generally (i.e. “no law” becomes “some laws”).
This list could go on. “Textual basis” arguments are like state’s rights and originalist arguments — people just use them when it is convenient, which is why they don’t really persuade me.
3 – I think the right to privacy underlying this cluster of cases has no textual basis in the Constitution.
Ditto for “Freedom of Association” (used to protect discrimination) and our current interpretation of the 1st Amendment generally (i.e. “no law” becomes “some laws”).
This list could go on. “Textual basis” arguments are like state’s rights and originalist arguments — people just use them when it is convenient, which is why they don’t really persuade me.
I always thought I was the only one who was pro-choice and thought Roe was wrongly decided…
But I think that you may be far too strict about the textual basis. I would be far more comfortable if the Supreme Court had been using the Ninth Amendment to acknowledge unenumerated rights – a woman’s right to medical self-determination (or something like that) for Roe – or the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual behavior in private in Lawrence.
But such declarations would be controversial – and would seem even more radical to the public, which is probably why the Court did what it did. But throwing all of these rights under “privacy” is completely untenable – when I read the Lawrence decision it seems the court has made it seem like any victimless crime (some sexual acts, drugs, etc.) would be allowable on private property. Which would be fine by me given my libertarian sympathies, but they are going to have to twist themselves in disingenious knots to make arguments to prevent that from happening in other circumstances.
Anyone want to bring a Lawrence-based defense case to court to absolve a pot smoker? It’s a dream of mine to help that happen.
I always thought I was the only one who was pro-choice and thought Roe was wrongly decided…
But I think that you may be far too strict about the textual basis. I would be far more comfortable if the Supreme Court had been using the Ninth Amendment to acknowledge unenumerated rights – a woman’s right to medical self-determination (or something like that) for Roe – or the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual behavior in private in Lawrence.
But such declarations would be controversial – and would seem even more radical to the public, which is probably why the Court did what it did. But throwing all of these rights under “privacy” is completely untenable – when I read the Lawrence decision it seems the court has made it seem like any victimless crime (some sexual acts, drugs, etc.) would be allowable on private property. Which would be fine by me given my libertarian sympathies, but they are going to have to twist themselves in disingenious knots to make arguments to prevent that from happening in other circumstances.
Anyone want to bring a Lawrence-based defense case to court to absolve a pot smoker? It’s a dream of mine to help that happen.
The debate is not about abortion. It’s about the sin of pride verse the virtue of humility. This is why it PISSES ME OFF when those who have the virtue of humility support the anit-choice peoplein their sin of pride by using theor self-aggrandizing product label.
The reason why the Republican party designed the “pro-life” label and marketed it is, as the poster authread noted, in order to get the votes of people who might otherwise vote Democratic or not vote at all. The appeal isn’t to people who have genuine moral qualms about abortion–nearly everyonne has those, even secular humanists without kids like me. The appeal is to peole who like the feeling of moral superiorty they get from calling themsleves “pro-life” (which means everyone else is pro-death or at least not as pro-life as they are). After all if a person was really pro-life they would be anti-death penalty, anti-torture, anti-Iraq war, pro [policies that would actually help families like the Democratic health care plans, concerned abouut global warming, concerned about cruelty to animals, concerned abouut the decline in the middle class and the increasing economic polarization in the US and between the First Worldand everyone else….but they aren’t. To so-called “pro-lifers”, being “pro-life” means nothing more than the ego thrill derived from the feeling of membership in a crusade based on the egotistical claim of moral superiority.
The other purpose of the term “prolife” is to distort the debate inot to warring camps. Most people are in the middle- more comfortable with abortion early in the pregnancy and less compfratable later on, more comfratable with banning abortions late , but not comfratable banning them early, comfratable with abortions for the very young or the victims of abuse, less confratable when abortion is just used as birthcontrol. “Pro-life” is a term that is designed to remove commonsense from the discussion, force everyone inot one camp or the other and demonize the other.
They should have been called on this shit decades ago. Especially since most “pro-lifers” turn out to be prochoice under a wide range of circumstances, as the elelction results in South Dakota proved.
The debate is not about abortion. It’s about the sin of pride verse the virtue of humility. This is why it PISSES ME OFF when those who have the virtue of humility support the anit-choice peoplein their sin of pride by using theor self-aggrandizing product label.
The reason why the Republican party designed the “pro-life” label and marketed it is, as the poster authread noted, in order to get the votes of people who might otherwise vote Democratic or not vote at all. The appeal isn’t to people who have genuine moral qualms about abortion–nearly everyonne has those, even secular humanists without kids like me. The appeal is to peole who like the feeling of moral superiorty they get from calling themsleves “pro-life” (which means everyone else is pro-death or at least not as pro-life as they are). After all if a person was really pro-life they would be anti-death penalty, anti-torture, anti-Iraq war, pro [policies that would actually help families like the Democratic health care plans, concerned abouut global warming, concerned about cruelty to animals, concerned abouut the decline in the middle class and the increasing economic polarization in the US and between the First Worldand everyone else….but they aren’t. To so-called “pro-lifers”, being “pro-life” means nothing more than the ego thrill derived from the feeling of membership in a crusade based on the egotistical claim of moral superiority.
The other purpose of the term “prolife” is to distort the debate inot to warring camps. Most people are in the middle- more comfortable with abortion early in the pregnancy and less compfratable later on, more comfratable with banning abortions late , but not comfratable banning them early, comfratable with abortions for the very young or the victims of abuse, less confratable when abortion is just used as birthcontrol. “Pro-life” is a term that is designed to remove commonsense from the discussion, force everyone inot one camp or the other and demonize the other.
They should have been called on this shit decades ago. Especially since most “pro-lifers” turn out to be prochoice under a wide range of circumstances, as the elelction results in South Dakota proved.
Not unlike the reaction of 2nd amendment advocates/gun nuts to any hint of registration, licensing, required training, control, etc.
The solution that springs to mind for both of these dilemmas is to require that pregnant women be heavily armed.
What could possibly go wrong?
Not unlike the reaction of 2nd amendment advocates/gun nuts to any hint of registration, licensing, required training, control, etc.
The solution that springs to mind for both of these dilemmas is to require that pregnant women be heavily armed.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sebastian: First, I’m shocked to hear you say that there are no abortions going on at 8 or 9 months. …. [This] statement is wrong.
You have claimed this before, have been repeatedly asked to prove it, and have as repeatedly failed to do so. Evidence of abortions taking place at 35+ weeks, or just quit trying to claim as fact what for you is evidently an article of faith.
Of course, you have also been repeatedly invited to quit claiming as fact what you merely have faith is so, and you have evidently no intention of doing so. Can I ask what you think you’re accomplishing, as a pro-lifer, in producing as an argument of fact what is merely a claim of faith?
Sebastian: First, I’m shocked to hear you say that there are no abortions going on at 8 or 9 months. …. [This] statement is wrong.
You have claimed this before, have been repeatedly asked to prove it, and have as repeatedly failed to do so. Evidence of abortions taking place at 35+ weeks, or just quit trying to claim as fact what for you is evidently an article of faith.
Of course, you have also been repeatedly invited to quit claiming as fact what you merely have faith is so, and you have evidently no intention of doing so. Can I ask what you think you’re accomplishing, as a pro-lifer, in producing as an argument of fact what is merely a claim of faith?
Fraser: Interesting fact brought up on feministing: Money raised through Florida’s “Choose Life” plates can be used to help single mothers who decide against abortion … but only if they give the baby up for adoption.
Figures. It’s not about giving a woman who’s pregnant and knows she can’t afford another a child a choice: it’s about trying to get low-income women to have babies for wealthier people to adopt.
Sincere pro-lifers, who really, really loathed the idea that a woman might have to abort, wouldn’t ever be conservatives politically: they’d have to support mandatory paid maternity leave, free health care for pregnant women, new mothers, and children: they’d have to support good work-life legislation, free day care. But in fact, being pro-life strongly correlates with political views opposing all of the above.
Fraser: Interesting fact brought up on feministing: Money raised through Florida’s “Choose Life” plates can be used to help single mothers who decide against abortion … but only if they give the baby up for adoption.
Figures. It’s not about giving a woman who’s pregnant and knows she can’t afford another a child a choice: it’s about trying to get low-income women to have babies for wealthier people to adopt.
Sincere pro-lifers, who really, really loathed the idea that a woman might have to abort, wouldn’t ever be conservatives politically: they’d have to support mandatory paid maternity leave, free health care for pregnant women, new mothers, and children: they’d have to support good work-life legislation, free day care. But in fact, being pro-life strongly correlates with political views opposing all of the above.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Roe v. Wade just isn’t that bad a piece of law. It is, yes, lumpy and unnecessarily convoluted in places, but so is a lot of constitutional law. That’s how it goes when matters of law, underlying principles, and application in light of existing social and technological conditions must be addressed. Its weaknesses are of a piece with weaknesses in rulings that are never attacked with anything like the same ferocity and its strengths are vastly neglected. The real problems with it have nothing to do with its actual text at all: anything other than a thorough ban on abortion would have been unacceptable to the anti-abortion activism scene, and any ruling other than such a ban would have been attacked and undercut in precisely the way Roe v. Wade has.
I’m sure some people are tired of me saying this :), but…this is something where the Bush years have changed my mind. Can you really imagine the people who gave us Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Justice Department’s handling of torture being fair, even-handed, or respectful to any ruling protecting access to abortion? Getting tied up in knots over defects in a particular ruling misses the point, because the text is not actually at issue. Power is.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Roe v. Wade just isn’t that bad a piece of law. It is, yes, lumpy and unnecessarily convoluted in places, but so is a lot of constitutional law. That’s how it goes when matters of law, underlying principles, and application in light of existing social and technological conditions must be addressed. Its weaknesses are of a piece with weaknesses in rulings that are never attacked with anything like the same ferocity and its strengths are vastly neglected. The real problems with it have nothing to do with its actual text at all: anything other than a thorough ban on abortion would have been unacceptable to the anti-abortion activism scene, and any ruling other than such a ban would have been attacked and undercut in precisely the way Roe v. Wade has.
I’m sure some people are tired of me saying this :), but…this is something where the Bush years have changed my mind. Can you really imagine the people who gave us Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Justice Department’s handling of torture being fair, even-handed, or respectful to any ruling protecting access to abortion? Getting tied up in knots over defects in a particular ruling misses the point, because the text is not actually at issue. Power is.
SH: “What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant. I’m not at all trying to be snarky. I really don’t get it. The only thing that resonates with me is that you think it isn’t morally relevant life at some stage or other, but *worry* that maybe it really is.”
I’m in the “abortion rights are fundamental and non-negotiable but ‘abortion is icky’ is a stupid slogan” crowd, which I think is the majority liberal position. Your “morally relevant” is doing too much. A 16-week-old fetus doesn’t from my perspective have rights that trump the mother’s right to autonomy, but that’s because of a balancing test. I’d say the fetus at that stage deserves more protection than an adult chimpanzee (consider e.g. a heart-transplant hypothetical), a grave standard.
Of course most reproductive-rights supporters have to deal with the usual sorites problem – or rather the opposite: when does a heap of cells become a person? But the viability threshold and increasing personhood with time seem pretty natural to me, much more so than the blastocyte=four-year-old position.
SH: “What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant. I’m not at all trying to be snarky. I really don’t get it. The only thing that resonates with me is that you think it isn’t morally relevant life at some stage or other, but *worry* that maybe it really is.”
I’m in the “abortion rights are fundamental and non-negotiable but ‘abortion is icky’ is a stupid slogan” crowd, which I think is the majority liberal position. Your “morally relevant” is doing too much. A 16-week-old fetus doesn’t from my perspective have rights that trump the mother’s right to autonomy, but that’s because of a balancing test. I’d say the fetus at that stage deserves more protection than an adult chimpanzee (consider e.g. a heart-transplant hypothetical), a grave standard.
Of course most reproductive-rights supporters have to deal with the usual sorites problem – or rather the opposite: when does a heap of cells become a person? But the viability threshold and increasing personhood with time seem pretty natural to me, much more so than the blastocyte=four-year-old position.
H’mmm. I must be an outlier indeed: I feel no moral quandry about abortion at all. A fetus is not a human being. Period.
I know there are people who sincerely believe otherwise. But depth and sincerity of emotion should not be allowed to trump medical and scientific fact: if it doesn’t have a fully-formed brain, it ain’t a human being. If it’s not viable, it ain’t a human being. Potential does not equal actual.
The issue of 3rd trimester abortions is a red herring. No woman who’s carried a fetus through 2 trimesters is suddenly going to decide to end the pregnancy on a whim, or because it’s convenient. 3rd trimester abortions happen when there’s compelling reason for them.
H’mmm. I must be an outlier indeed: I feel no moral quandry about abortion at all. A fetus is not a human being. Period.
I know there are people who sincerely believe otherwise. But depth and sincerity of emotion should not be allowed to trump medical and scientific fact: if it doesn’t have a fully-formed brain, it ain’t a human being. If it’s not viable, it ain’t a human being. Potential does not equal actual.
The issue of 3rd trimester abortions is a red herring. No woman who’s carried a fetus through 2 trimesters is suddenly going to decide to end the pregnancy on a whim, or because it’s convenient. 3rd trimester abortions happen when there’s compelling reason for them.
What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant.
I can’t speak for anyone else, and I certainly can’t speak for any woman other than my partner, who has shared her views with me. But I can offer at least this much. The “toughness” of abortion when you do not believe it amounts to taking a human life has at least two possible components, and probably more depending on the person.
One is that it is still (in most cases) an invasive medical procedure, and like all such procedures entails risks and should not be undertaken thoughtlessly. I know I would agonize over submitting to any invasive medical procedure even if I was told it was absolutely safe and medically necessary; I can’t imagine most women think less of their own bodies.
The other side to it is emotional. Even if you do not think what is currently inside of you is a distinct human being, that doesn’t stop you from potentially having an irrational emotional attachment to it. Hell, I get animistic about throwing away inanimate objects; you going to tell me that someone couldn’t get reasonably get emotional about a potential future baby growing inside of them? Regardless of what they intellectually believe its moral standing is? Furthermore, even if you don’t believe it’s a baby right now, if you have even the slightest inclination to have children at some point in the future it can still be a very weighty matter to decide whether or not to have this one, now that you’ve been given the opportunity. Pregnancy is unpredictable. Who can say that you will ever conceive again?
While it’s not my place to say whether or not all of these things go through the mind of a woman with the beliefs you describe, I think it’s safe to say they’re common enough.
I worry to ask questions about this, since I think my previous part is much more interesting. But what does this mean? If progressives ALREADY have reservations about abortions, what would a shift in attitudes (but absolutely definitely not shifting in law of course) mean on a practical level?
On a practical level, it would hopefully enable more cooperation between pro-life and pro-choice camps in taking practical, non-punitive measures to reduce abortions. Most pro-choice people I know (myself included) would like to reduce abortions–not because we necessarily think they are morally wrong, but because it is less risky, less emotionally trying, and less expensive for a woman to prevent a pregnancy from happening in the first place, or prevent conception/implantation, than to have an abortion. Many of us (though not me, for various reasons) believe that it is always better to give birth and offer it up for adoption than terminate the pregnancy. Frankly, both sides need to compromise more if the real goal is reducing abortions. I’m going to generalize here a bit, so if you don’t resemble these descriptions, don’t own them.
Pro-choicers need to give ground on acknowledging that there are actual risks involved with abortion (just like with any medical procedure), and on other measures which do not actually threaten a woman’s right to choose. Pro-choicers also need to back off on the denial and absolutism that causes them to oppose any attempts by pro-life groups to “educate” women about their alternatives, which they (sometimes rightly) view as back-door attempts to coerce, scare, indimidate, or outright lie to women.
Pro-life groups need to stop exaggerating about the risks of abortion, which only undermines their case. They need to stop rejecting science and medicine as authorities on what is ultimately a medical matter. It doesn’t matter how much they complain that it’s murder and not a medical decision–when they align themselves with the medieval anti-science crowd, they make themselves look like loons to an unassailable majority of the country, and completely delegitimize their argument to anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. They need to completely uncouple themselves from the hardcore social con opposition to birth control and sex education–the ready availability of both is the only proven way to reduce the rate of abortions, and when they say they want to reduce abortions out of one side of their mouth, and oppose birth control and sex ed out of the other, it demonstrates that their priority isn’t really stopping abortions, it’s controlling women and imposing their own narrow view of sexuality on others.
But frankly, pro-choicers are not going to compromise on these points until pro-lifers stop lying to and intimidating women, and until they have assurances that pro-lifers aren’t simply going to use any good-faith concession as a bad-faith wedge to criminalize abortion. And I doubt the pro-life movement as a whole is going to uncouple itself from the social conservative lunacy about birth control and sexuality anytime soon, or give one iota of ground on conceding that abortion isn’t going anywhere when a nontrivial number of them really do think that abortion in America is morally equivalent to the Holocaust.
What I don’t get is what is so ‘tough’ about abortion when it is at a stage that you don’t consider morally relevant.
I can’t speak for anyone else, and I certainly can’t speak for any woman other than my partner, who has shared her views with me. But I can offer at least this much. The “toughness” of abortion when you do not believe it amounts to taking a human life has at least two possible components, and probably more depending on the person.
One is that it is still (in most cases) an invasive medical procedure, and like all such procedures entails risks and should not be undertaken thoughtlessly. I know I would agonize over submitting to any invasive medical procedure even if I was told it was absolutely safe and medically necessary; I can’t imagine most women think less of their own bodies.
The other side to it is emotional. Even if you do not think what is currently inside of you is a distinct human being, that doesn’t stop you from potentially having an irrational emotional attachment to it. Hell, I get animistic about throwing away inanimate objects; you going to tell me that someone couldn’t get reasonably get emotional about a potential future baby growing inside of them? Regardless of what they intellectually believe its moral standing is? Furthermore, even if you don’t believe it’s a baby right now, if you have even the slightest inclination to have children at some point in the future it can still be a very weighty matter to decide whether or not to have this one, now that you’ve been given the opportunity. Pregnancy is unpredictable. Who can say that you will ever conceive again?
While it’s not my place to say whether or not all of these things go through the mind of a woman with the beliefs you describe, I think it’s safe to say they’re common enough.
I worry to ask questions about this, since I think my previous part is much more interesting. But what does this mean? If progressives ALREADY have reservations about abortions, what would a shift in attitudes (but absolutely definitely not shifting in law of course) mean on a practical level?
On a practical level, it would hopefully enable more cooperation between pro-life and pro-choice camps in taking practical, non-punitive measures to reduce abortions. Most pro-choice people I know (myself included) would like to reduce abortions–not because we necessarily think they are morally wrong, but because it is less risky, less emotionally trying, and less expensive for a woman to prevent a pregnancy from happening in the first place, or prevent conception/implantation, than to have an abortion. Many of us (though not me, for various reasons) believe that it is always better to give birth and offer it up for adoption than terminate the pregnancy. Frankly, both sides need to compromise more if the real goal is reducing abortions. I’m going to generalize here a bit, so if you don’t resemble these descriptions, don’t own them.
Pro-choicers need to give ground on acknowledging that there are actual risks involved with abortion (just like with any medical procedure), and on other measures which do not actually threaten a woman’s right to choose. Pro-choicers also need to back off on the denial and absolutism that causes them to oppose any attempts by pro-life groups to “educate” women about their alternatives, which they (sometimes rightly) view as back-door attempts to coerce, scare, indimidate, or outright lie to women.
Pro-life groups need to stop exaggerating about the risks of abortion, which only undermines their case. They need to stop rejecting science and medicine as authorities on what is ultimately a medical matter. It doesn’t matter how much they complain that it’s murder and not a medical decision–when they align themselves with the medieval anti-science crowd, they make themselves look like loons to an unassailable majority of the country, and completely delegitimize their argument to anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. They need to completely uncouple themselves from the hardcore social con opposition to birth control and sex education–the ready availability of both is the only proven way to reduce the rate of abortions, and when they say they want to reduce abortions out of one side of their mouth, and oppose birth control and sex ed out of the other, it demonstrates that their priority isn’t really stopping abortions, it’s controlling women and imposing their own narrow view of sexuality on others.
But frankly, pro-choicers are not going to compromise on these points until pro-lifers stop lying to and intimidating women, and until they have assurances that pro-lifers aren’t simply going to use any good-faith concession as a bad-faith wedge to criminalize abortion. And I doubt the pro-life movement as a whole is going to uncouple itself from the social conservative lunacy about birth control and sexuality anytime soon, or give one iota of ground on conceding that abortion isn’t going anywhere when a nontrivial number of them really do think that abortion in America is morally equivalent to the Holocaust.
Catsy, I agree with most of this, but:
Pro-choicers need to give ground on acknowledging that there are actual risks involved with abortion (just like with any medical procedure)
Why should we do this? The known risks of abortion are far less than the known risks of pregnancy. An early (first-trimester) abortion, carried out by a qualified medical practicioner, has virtually no known risks. Later abortions are medically more risky, but are still statistically safer than carrying a fetus to term and giving birth.
Pro-lifers are fond of talking up the health hazards of abortion, in general basing their arguments either on the statistics that show illegal abortion is less safe than legal abortion, or else on an invented post-abortion trauma syndrome, or are just outright lies. There is no reason to “give ground” when the pro-lifers are, as usual, lying their asses off trying to make abortion sound unsafe.
Pro-choicers also need to back off on the denial and absolutism that causes them to oppose any attempts by pro-life groups to “educate” women about their alternatives, which they (sometimes rightly) view as back-door attempts to coerce, scare, indimidate, or outright lie to women.
Given that pro-life groups are almost never in the business of providing actual alternatives to abortion (free supplies of Plan B, for example, or paid maternity leave) I think “sometimes” is rather accepting the pro-life claims about what their groups do at face value.
For example, a few years ago, a woman who was a teacher at a Catholic school got pregnant, and instead of having an abortion (she wasn’t married) she decided to have the baby. The school sacked her. How many pro-life groups condemned the school for encouraging the next unmarried teacher working for a Catholic school to have an early abortion rather than lose her job?
One. (The “feminists for life” group, very quietly. This group admits somewhere on its website that the reason it doesn’t advocate contraception as a means of preventing abortions is that some of its membership disagree: no other pro-life group even considers that this is an issue worth mentioning.) No other pro-life group thought that woman’s brave decision to stay pregnant and risk losing her job was worth celebrating: those that mentioned it, were supportive of the school’s decision.
Catsy, I agree with most of this, but:
Pro-choicers need to give ground on acknowledging that there are actual risks involved with abortion (just like with any medical procedure)
Why should we do this? The known risks of abortion are far less than the known risks of pregnancy. An early (first-trimester) abortion, carried out by a qualified medical practicioner, has virtually no known risks. Later abortions are medically more risky, but are still statistically safer than carrying a fetus to term and giving birth.
Pro-lifers are fond of talking up the health hazards of abortion, in general basing their arguments either on the statistics that show illegal abortion is less safe than legal abortion, or else on an invented post-abortion trauma syndrome, or are just outright lies. There is no reason to “give ground” when the pro-lifers are, as usual, lying their asses off trying to make abortion sound unsafe.
Pro-choicers also need to back off on the denial and absolutism that causes them to oppose any attempts by pro-life groups to “educate” women about their alternatives, which they (sometimes rightly) view as back-door attempts to coerce, scare, indimidate, or outright lie to women.
Given that pro-life groups are almost never in the business of providing actual alternatives to abortion (free supplies of Plan B, for example, or paid maternity leave) I think “sometimes” is rather accepting the pro-life claims about what their groups do at face value.
For example, a few years ago, a woman who was a teacher at a Catholic school got pregnant, and instead of having an abortion (she wasn’t married) she decided to have the baby. The school sacked her. How many pro-life groups condemned the school for encouraging the next unmarried teacher working for a Catholic school to have an early abortion rather than lose her job?
One. (The “feminists for life” group, very quietly. This group admits somewhere on its website that the reason it doesn’t advocate contraception as a means of preventing abortions is that some of its membership disagree: no other pro-life group even considers that this is an issue worth mentioning.) No other pro-life group thought that woman’s brave decision to stay pregnant and risk losing her job was worth celebrating: those that mentioned it, were supportive of the school’s decision.
The more I read these comments, the more I wonder what common ground the two camps can possibly have. It’s clear, based on the anti-choice movement’s hostility toward birth control and sex education (and I mean real sex ed, not abstinence only) that they’re not really interested in slowing the rate of abortions except as a side benefit to controlling female sexuality. When they’re ready to talk about reducing abortion numbers without making control of sexuality an inherent part if it, then pro-choice people will be more than willing to work with them, but not before. And that doesn’t make us unreasonable.
The more I read these comments, the more I wonder what common ground the two camps can possibly have. It’s clear, based on the anti-choice movement’s hostility toward birth control and sex education (and I mean real sex ed, not abstinence only) that they’re not really interested in slowing the rate of abortions except as a side benefit to controlling female sexuality. When they’re ready to talk about reducing abortion numbers without making control of sexuality an inherent part if it, then pro-choice people will be more than willing to work with them, but not before. And that doesn’t make us unreasonable.
Two brief comments.
To Catsy’s excellent post on why abortion is tough for pro-choicers, I’ll add this:
In every case involving anyone I’ve known, the decision to end a pregnancy occurred as part of a larger personal crisis. Poverty, failed relationships, abandonment by a partner. I’m sure it’s not universal, but I think it’s damned common.
I really don’t think anyone makes the decision lightly, regardless of their opinion on the choice / no choice issue.
Which brings me to this:
My “pro-life” friends have often asked why Roe supporters appear so inflexible. Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue.
This bears no resemblance to the world I live in. I can think of no person I know or have ever known who supported Roe who did not also recognize and openly acknowledge the complexity and difficulty of the question of abortion.
The only folks I know who find the topic simple are in the other camp, and there are damned few of those as well.
Anecdota, to be sure, but they’re my anecdota.
Thanks –
Two brief comments.
To Catsy’s excellent post on why abortion is tough for pro-choicers, I’ll add this:
In every case involving anyone I’ve known, the decision to end a pregnancy occurred as part of a larger personal crisis. Poverty, failed relationships, abandonment by a partner. I’m sure it’s not universal, but I think it’s damned common.
I really don’t think anyone makes the decision lightly, regardless of their opinion on the choice / no choice issue.
Which brings me to this:
My “pro-life” friends have often asked why Roe supporters appear so inflexible. Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue.
This bears no resemblance to the world I live in. I can think of no person I know or have ever known who supported Roe who did not also recognize and openly acknowledge the complexity and difficulty of the question of abortion.
The only folks I know who find the topic simple are in the other camp, and there are damned few of those as well.
Anecdota, to be sure, but they’re my anecdota.
Thanks –
1. I would not be surprised to discover that there has been, since the passage of Roe, the occurrence of at least one abortion that could legitimately be described as infanticide. But proving it is going to be a bitch.
2. Given that the woman has already carried the fetus for, say, 25 weeks, we as a society can be pretty comfortable that the fetus is wanted. We can also be pretty comfortable that developing legal solutions to prevent the “killing” of a viable fetus is hard. Personally, I don’t want any district attorney anywhere near the decision.
I could probably stomach legislation which requires that a ob/gyn unaffiliated with the ob/gyn who will be performing the procedure be required to give a second opinion on medical alternatives that would result in a live baby at the end.
3. Frankly, I think that those who claim to represent the interests of the minuscule number of post-viability aborted fetuses need to do a much better job of describing the world they want to live in, and what the secondary consequences would be of creating a legal structure that allows law enforcement to protect the rights of those few fetuses.
What rights should women have after 25 weeks? What level of state involvement in her personal autonomy is acceptable? No drinking? No travel to states or countries where late-term abortions are performed? Prosecution for extra-jurisdictional murder?
Absolutism is much easier because it draws such nice bright lines. It’s kinda funny to see conservatives who normally argue so vociferously against O’Connerian balancing tests to want the law to head in that direction.
1. I would not be surprised to discover that there has been, since the passage of Roe, the occurrence of at least one abortion that could legitimately be described as infanticide. But proving it is going to be a bitch.
2. Given that the woman has already carried the fetus for, say, 25 weeks, we as a society can be pretty comfortable that the fetus is wanted. We can also be pretty comfortable that developing legal solutions to prevent the “killing” of a viable fetus is hard. Personally, I don’t want any district attorney anywhere near the decision.
I could probably stomach legislation which requires that a ob/gyn unaffiliated with the ob/gyn who will be performing the procedure be required to give a second opinion on medical alternatives that would result in a live baby at the end.
3. Frankly, I think that those who claim to represent the interests of the minuscule number of post-viability aborted fetuses need to do a much better job of describing the world they want to live in, and what the secondary consequences would be of creating a legal structure that allows law enforcement to protect the rights of those few fetuses.
What rights should women have after 25 weeks? What level of state involvement in her personal autonomy is acceptable? No drinking? No travel to states or countries where late-term abortions are performed? Prosecution for extra-jurisdictional murder?
Absolutism is much easier because it draws such nice bright lines. It’s kinda funny to see conservatives who normally argue so vociferously against O’Connerian balancing tests to want the law to head in that direction.
2. Given that the woman has already carried the fetus for, say, 25 weeks, we as a society can be pretty comfortable that the fetus is wanted.
You can’t make that assumption, Francis, because there are plenty of scenarios where the woman carrying the fetus may not have been able to terminate it earlier–perhaps there were institutional obstacles (she’s a minor and a judge won’t waive the parental notification law) or the woman’s significant other or parents have physically restrained her from terminating the pregnancy. Those are the women who need the most protecting, and yet they’re the ones that are having those assumptions made about their desire to carry the pregnancy to term. It’s those women I’m most concerned about, and it’s those women who should have the greatest access to abortion.
2. Given that the woman has already carried the fetus for, say, 25 weeks, we as a society can be pretty comfortable that the fetus is wanted.
You can’t make that assumption, Francis, because there are plenty of scenarios where the woman carrying the fetus may not have been able to terminate it earlier–perhaps there were institutional obstacles (she’s a minor and a judge won’t waive the parental notification law) or the woman’s significant other or parents have physically restrained her from terminating the pregnancy. Those are the women who need the most protecting, and yet they’re the ones that are having those assumptions made about their desire to carry the pregnancy to term. It’s those women I’m most concerned about, and it’s those women who should have the greatest access to abortion.
Francis: Given that the woman has already carried the fetus for, say, 25 weeks, we as a society can be pretty comfortable that the fetus is wanted.
Only if the woman lived somewhere she had access to a hospital or clinic that would perform abortions on demand, either for free or at affordable fees. There are multiple states in the US where pro-lifers have ensured that women on a low income may end up having to travel to New York to get a late abortion performed – not because she initially wanted the baby and changed her mind, but because she had to first find the money for the abortion somewhere – and then had to find the money to travel out of state after she failed to get the sum needed before 15 weeks.
Plus, what Incertus says about coercion preventing an earlier termination.
Francis: Given that the woman has already carried the fetus for, say, 25 weeks, we as a society can be pretty comfortable that the fetus is wanted.
Only if the woman lived somewhere she had access to a hospital or clinic that would perform abortions on demand, either for free or at affordable fees. There are multiple states in the US where pro-lifers have ensured that women on a low income may end up having to travel to New York to get a late abortion performed – not because she initially wanted the baby and changed her mind, but because she had to first find the money for the abortion somewhere – and then had to find the money to travel out of state after she failed to get the sum needed before 15 weeks.
Plus, what Incertus says about coercion preventing an earlier termination.
Incertus: Fair enough. Your point, however, strengthens my desire to keep the local DA as far away as possible from the woman’s decision-making process.
Incertus: Fair enough. Your point, however, strengthens my desire to keep the local DA as far away as possible from the woman’s decision-making process.
Can I ask what you think you’re accomplishing, as a pro-lifer, in producing as an argument of fact what is merely a claim of faith?
Jesu, as you note, Sebastian’s Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory is an article of faith, a belief which is held on a deep emotional level, and for which there is no actual evidence. That being the case, Sebastian can no more resist raising this talking point than he can resist breathing.
In future, I think you should append a statement to your comments, along these lines: “I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.” and just leave it at that.
Can I ask what you think you’re accomplishing, as a pro-lifer, in producing as an argument of fact what is merely a claim of faith?
Jesu, as you note, Sebastian’s Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory is an article of faith, a belief which is held on a deep emotional level, and for which there is no actual evidence. That being the case, Sebastian can no more resist raising this talking point than he can resist breathing.
In future, I think you should append a statement to your comments, along these lines: “I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.” and just leave it at that.
Johnny Pez: In future, I think you should append a statement to your comments, along these lines: “I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.” and just leave it at that.
Excellent advice. I shall attempt to bear it in mind for the next time. 😉
Johnny Pez: In future, I think you should append a statement to your comments, along these lines: “I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.” and just leave it at that.
Excellent advice. I shall attempt to bear it in mind for the next time. 😉
“You have claimed this before, have been repeatedly asked to prove it, and have as repeatedly failed to do so.”
You are DEEPLY misremembering the previous discussions. In previous discussions you have claimed that there were no medically unnecessary late term abortions–which is an article of faith either way because the pro-choice lobby has systematically destroyed anyone’s ability investigate the issue by making it (in direct contradiction to medical practice for any other major procedure) difficult or unnecessary to record whether or not such procedures have a medical justification and by removing any checks on such. I have always said that systematic obstruction of evidence gathering was similar in concept to letting prison guards set all the rules on how to report prisoner abuse. Does that work well in the torture cases? Hmmm….
Your current claim is vastly different. You are NOW saying that no such abortions ever take place. You have not raised that claim to me in the past. If you believe you have, we have an EXTENSIVE record here. Please produce the comments you believe support your amazing non-new claim, or withdraw the vicious snarkiness.
“You have claimed this before, have been repeatedly asked to prove it, and have as repeatedly failed to do so.”
You are DEEPLY misremembering the previous discussions. In previous discussions you have claimed that there were no medically unnecessary late term abortions–which is an article of faith either way because the pro-choice lobby has systematically destroyed anyone’s ability investigate the issue by making it (in direct contradiction to medical practice for any other major procedure) difficult or unnecessary to record whether or not such procedures have a medical justification and by removing any checks on such. I have always said that systematic obstruction of evidence gathering was similar in concept to letting prison guards set all the rules on how to report prisoner abuse. Does that work well in the torture cases? Hmmm….
Your current claim is vastly different. You are NOW saying that no such abortions ever take place. You have not raised that claim to me in the past. If you believe you have, we have an EXTENSIVE record here. Please produce the comments you believe support your amazing non-new claim, or withdraw the vicious snarkiness.
“It’s clear, based on the anti-choice movement’s hostility toward birth control and sex education (and I mean real sex ed, not abstinence only) that they’re not really interested in slowing the rate of abortions except as a side benefit to controlling female sexuality.”
And yet when I, an actual pro-life movement supporter who is all for free freaking condoms being available in high schools, offer the slightest qualm about late term abortions, I get the rather nasty dismissals which are already in evidence in here.
This suggests that the “birth control and sex education” part of your objection either isn’t really a big deal, or that you aren’t listening.
“It’s clear, based on the anti-choice movement’s hostility toward birth control and sex education (and I mean real sex ed, not abstinence only) that they’re not really interested in slowing the rate of abortions except as a side benefit to controlling female sexuality.”
And yet when I, an actual pro-life movement supporter who is all for free freaking condoms being available in high schools, offer the slightest qualm about late term abortions, I get the rather nasty dismissals which are already in evidence in here.
This suggests that the “birth control and sex education” part of your objection either isn’t really a big deal, or that you aren’t listening.
Sebastian: And yet when I, an actual pro-life movement supporter who is all for free freaking condoms being available in high schools, offer the slightest qualm about late term abortions, I get the rather nasty dismissals which are already in evidence in here.
I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.
(Thank you, Johnny.)
Sebastian: And yet when I, an actual pro-life movement supporter who is all for free freaking condoms being available in high schools, offer the slightest qualm about late term abortions, I get the rather nasty dismissals which are already in evidence in here.
I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.
(Thank you, Johnny.)
Sebastian, I’ll admit that not much is publically known about 3rd trimester abortions. Let’s put aside the question of whose fault that might be.
I believe that there are somewhere between very very few and no 3rd-trimester abortions that aren’t medically necessary. I believe this because:
a) 3rd-trimester abortions are extremely rare. Do you agree that this is the case?
b) I have personal knowledge of a very few women who had abortions as late as month 5-6. In all cases, it was a life-or-death decision: the mother was dying, or the fetus was dying and abortion was the only way to save the other twin, or the fetus had no brain. In most cases the decision had to be made very quickly, within a few hours at most.
Do you have personal knowledge of arbitrary & capricious second-semester abortions? What makes you think they occur? If they do occur, what makes you think they are worth creating delays for women in life-and-death situations?
Sebastian, I’ll admit that not much is publically known about 3rd trimester abortions. Let’s put aside the question of whose fault that might be.
I believe that there are somewhere between very very few and no 3rd-trimester abortions that aren’t medically necessary. I believe this because:
a) 3rd-trimester abortions are extremely rare. Do you agree that this is the case?
b) I have personal knowledge of a very few women who had abortions as late as month 5-6. In all cases, it was a life-or-death decision: the mother was dying, or the fetus was dying and abortion was the only way to save the other twin, or the fetus had no brain. In most cases the decision had to be made very quickly, within a few hours at most.
Do you have personal knowledge of arbitrary & capricious second-semester abortions? What makes you think they occur? If they do occur, what makes you think they are worth creating delays for women in life-and-death situations?
Which is still not a useful contribution, IMHO. Absence of evidence is not evidence and all that…and discouragement of data collection does not mean data collection is not possible or that the data is non-existent (particularly since the process is far more amenable to third party observation….)
Which is still not a useful contribution, IMHO. Absence of evidence is not evidence and all that…and discouragement of data collection does not mean data collection is not possible or that the data is non-existent (particularly since the process is far more amenable to third party observation….)
I, an actual pro-life movement supporter who is all for free freaking condoms being available in high schools
But are you part of an organization? Do people who share your views have a place in the public discourse? I suspect that up to one-third of the USan public shares your views — the “pro-life pro-condom” platform, as it were — but why don’t you-all have a place in the public debate, given that there are so many of you?
On the public level, the “pro-life” movement is anti-condom; the pro-condom people are all on the pro-choice side. This is not the fault of pro-choicers — we have not forced our opponents to be the Anti-Sex League.
I, an actual pro-life movement supporter who is all for free freaking condoms being available in high schools
But are you part of an organization? Do people who share your views have a place in the public discourse? I suspect that up to one-third of the USan public shares your views — the “pro-life pro-condom” platform, as it were — but why don’t you-all have a place in the public debate, given that there are so many of you?
On the public level, the “pro-life” movement is anti-condom; the pro-condom people are all on the pro-choice side. This is not the fault of pro-choicers — we have not forced our opponents to be the Anti-Sex League.
Doctor Science: “Do you have personal knowledge of arbitrary & capricious second-semester abortions? What makes you think they occur?”
The last go-round here I recall, news reports about a few cases of late-term abortions due to cleft palate were cited. IIRC there were also some cites about limited studies in NY and NJ which gave a somewhat surprisingly high rate.
SH, I’d argue that the lack of data collection is probably more reasonably attributable to the hard-line pro-lifers than hard-line pro-choicers, plus the natural reluctance of doctors (if there are any such) to publicly acknowledge doing something that even most of us pro-choicers would find abhorrent.
Doctor Science: “Do you have personal knowledge of arbitrary & capricious second-semester abortions? What makes you think they occur?”
The last go-round here I recall, news reports about a few cases of late-term abortions due to cleft palate were cited. IIRC there were also some cites about limited studies in NY and NJ which gave a somewhat surprisingly high rate.
SH, I’d argue that the lack of data collection is probably more reasonably attributable to the hard-line pro-lifers than hard-line pro-choicers, plus the natural reluctance of doctors (if there are any such) to publicly acknowledge doing something that even most of us pro-choicers would find abhorrent.
“I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.”
I note explicitly, rather than passive-agressively pretending to note in passing, that your typically obnoxious response doesn’t even address what I raise. What you rudely term the Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory is not even what I’m talking about. I raised it ONLY for the purposes of properly noting what our previous discussions have been about in correction to your distortion about previous discussions. I also note that the reasoning employed in the “Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory” is reasoning you are perfectly happy to use in other contexts.
To bring it back. Are you standing by your rather surprising assertion that 8th and 9th abortions DO NOT OCCUR?
“I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.”
I note explicitly, rather than passive-agressively pretending to note in passing, that your typically obnoxious response doesn’t even address what I raise. What you rudely term the Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory is not even what I’m talking about. I raised it ONLY for the purposes of properly noting what our previous discussions have been about in correction to your distortion about previous discussions. I also note that the reasoning employed in the “Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory” is reasoning you are perfectly happy to use in other contexts.
To bring it back. Are you standing by your rather surprising assertion that 8th and 9th abortions DO NOT OCCUR?
“Absence of evidence is not evidence and all that…and discouragement of data collection does not mean data collection is not possible or that the data is non-existent (particularly since the process is far more amenable to third party observation….)”
What does your parenthetical mean? Determining whether or not an abortion is medically necessary is not particularly amenable to third party observation absent doctor or procedure level data collection.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence and all that…and discouragement of data collection does not mean data collection is not possible or that the data is non-existent (particularly since the process is far more amenable to third party observation….)”
What does your parenthetical mean? Determining whether or not an abortion is medically necessary is not particularly amenable to third party observation absent doctor or procedure level data collection.
“Do people who share your views have a place in the public discourse? I suspect that up to one-third of the USan public shares your views — the “pro-life pro-condom” platform, as it were — but why don’t you-all have a place in the public debate, given that there are so many of you?”
We do. You are surely aware that there actually is sex education in most public schools and that condoms generally are very available throughout the US.
“Do people who share your views have a place in the public discourse? I suspect that up to one-third of the USan public shares your views — the “pro-life pro-condom” platform, as it were — but why don’t you-all have a place in the public debate, given that there are so many of you?”
We do. You are surely aware that there actually is sex education in most public schools and that condoms generally are very available throughout the US.
Rilkefan: The last go-round here I recall, news reports about a few cases of late-term abortions due to cleft palate were cited.
Yes: the specific case (when I looked it up) was of an unnamed woman who had an abortion after 24 weeks, which a Church of England curate found out about by studying the national statistics, and then the curate attempted to have the two doctors who had approved the abortion prosecuted for unlawful killing. (Crown Prosecution Service) The attempt failed: the Abortion Act of 1967 leaves the decision of whether to allow a requested termination after 24 weeks if, in the medical judgement of the doctors, there is “grave risk to the life of the woman; evidence of severe foetal abnormality; or risk of grave physical and mental injury to the woman”. A cleft palate can be a minor disability or a severe one. the final decision of the court was to respect the personal judgement of the woman and the two doctors involved, which the law permits them to do.
No one apart from pro-lifers thinks it would be useful to make judges/legislators empowered to make sweeping judgements about when a late-term abortion can take place (let alone what method may be used) given how few late-term abortions do take place (in England and Wales, 363 abortions took place after 20 weeks in 2006, cite), and that each instance will be a different case with different circumstances.
Rilkefan: The last go-round here I recall, news reports about a few cases of late-term abortions due to cleft palate were cited.
Yes: the specific case (when I looked it up) was of an unnamed woman who had an abortion after 24 weeks, which a Church of England curate found out about by studying the national statistics, and then the curate attempted to have the two doctors who had approved the abortion prosecuted for unlawful killing. (Crown Prosecution Service) The attempt failed: the Abortion Act of 1967 leaves the decision of whether to allow a requested termination after 24 weeks if, in the medical judgement of the doctors, there is “grave risk to the life of the woman; evidence of severe foetal abnormality; or risk of grave physical and mental injury to the woman”. A cleft palate can be a minor disability or a severe one. the final decision of the court was to respect the personal judgement of the woman and the two doctors involved, which the law permits them to do.
No one apart from pro-lifers thinks it would be useful to make judges/legislators empowered to make sweeping judgements about when a late-term abortion can take place (let alone what method may be used) given how few late-term abortions do take place (in England and Wales, 363 abortions took place after 20 weeks in 2006, cite), and that each instance will be a different case with different circumstances.
There are times when if Sebastian weren’t a conservative gay man in CA and Jesurgislac weren’t a liberal gay woman in the UK, I’d swear they were married.
Sebastian, I understand you’re currently busy fending off the ravening hordes, but can I beg from you a moment’s acknowledgment of whether or not my comment satisfactorily answered the two questions you raised in your comment upthread?
There are times when if Sebastian weren’t a conservative gay man in CA and Jesurgislac weren’t a liberal gay woman in the UK, I’d swear they were married.
Sebastian, I understand you’re currently busy fending off the ravening hordes, but can I beg from you a moment’s acknowledgment of whether or not my comment satisfactorily answered the two questions you raised in your comment upthread?
We do. You are surely aware that there actually is sex education in most public schools and that condoms generally are very available throughout the US.
I don’t think that was quite the point he was driving at, Sebastian. It should be self-evident that the position of supporting sex education and contraceptive availability as a means of reducing abortions has considerable public support and visibility. I think it’s laudable that you’re on board with that. What is not clear is that this position has a nontrivial amount of traction within the pro-life movement, outside of a handful of smarter folk like you. Virtually all of the pro-contraception, pro-sex education noise comes from the pro-choice side.
Without trying to speak for anyone else, I believe the point is that if you want to strengthen the pro-life movement and noticeable reduce abortions, you should work within that movement to shift /their/ views on contraception and sex ed. The rest of the country is already with you on that.
It is primarily the aggressively anti-sex, anti-contraception, anti-science positions of most social conservatives that turn off regular folks, undermine their ostensible goal of reducing abortions, engrave them with the well-deserved reputation of being more interested in controlling sexuality than reducing abortions, and delegitimize them in the eyes of anyone who doesn’t already agree with them.
We do. You are surely aware that there actually is sex education in most public schools and that condoms generally are very available throughout the US.
I don’t think that was quite the point he was driving at, Sebastian. It should be self-evident that the position of supporting sex education and contraceptive availability as a means of reducing abortions has considerable public support and visibility. I think it’s laudable that you’re on board with that. What is not clear is that this position has a nontrivial amount of traction within the pro-life movement, outside of a handful of smarter folk like you. Virtually all of the pro-contraception, pro-sex education noise comes from the pro-choice side.
Without trying to speak for anyone else, I believe the point is that if you want to strengthen the pro-life movement and noticeable reduce abortions, you should work within that movement to shift /their/ views on contraception and sex ed. The rest of the country is already with you on that.
It is primarily the aggressively anti-sex, anti-contraception, anti-science positions of most social conservatives that turn off regular folks, undermine their ostensible goal of reducing abortions, engrave them with the well-deserved reputation of being more interested in controlling sexuality than reducing abortions, and delegitimize them in the eyes of anyone who doesn’t already agree with them.
Sebastian: You are surely aware that there actually is sex education in most public schools and that condoms generally are very available throughout the US.
However, according to this study (via Susie Bright) an alarming proportion of American teenagers don’t use condoms, and only 50% know that condoms usually prevent pregnancy.
A study in the UK (from years ago: I’ll try to find it) found that the most effective method of lowering the teen pregnancy rate in any area was to make absolutely certain that all the teenagers in a given area knew where they could go to get contraception and health advice, and knew that it would be free of charge, completely confidential, regardless of whether they were over or under the legal age of consent.
Pro-lifers are the group most guaranteed to complain when, for example, a high school nurse is able to provide contraceptive pills and advice, confidentially, to all high school students. They were also the group most likely to support pharmacists claiming a “right” to deny contraception to a woman with a prescription for it.
Sebastian: You are surely aware that there actually is sex education in most public schools and that condoms generally are very available throughout the US.
However, according to this study (via Susie Bright) an alarming proportion of American teenagers don’t use condoms, and only 50% know that condoms usually prevent pregnancy.
A study in the UK (from years ago: I’ll try to find it) found that the most effective method of lowering the teen pregnancy rate in any area was to make absolutely certain that all the teenagers in a given area knew where they could go to get contraception and health advice, and knew that it would be free of charge, completely confidential, regardless of whether they were over or under the legal age of consent.
Pro-lifers are the group most guaranteed to complain when, for example, a high school nurse is able to provide contraceptive pills and advice, confidentially, to all high school students. They were also the group most likely to support pharmacists claiming a “right” to deny contraception to a woman with a prescription for it.
Sorry Catsy, I didn’t mean to ignore you. I got caught up in the later comments when I read the thread.
The medical complications of abortion issue seems like an odd answer to me. Maybe I’m overinterpreting, but that doesn’t seem like the kind of ‘tough’ publius is talking about in the context where it came up. I’m hesitant to bring it up because I don’t want the analogy to purely elective surgery to get us going in the wrong direction, but I rarely hear of the decision to say get a nose job or a breast implant as ‘tough’ in what I thought of as the same sense publius used and they have a similar risk of serious complications.
The irrational emotional attachment explanation makes sense for the women that actually are pregnant. Again I’m not sure how it applies to someone like publius though (because he can’t really have the irrational emotional attachment to something in his body for something that can’t be in his body.
But that is a perfectly good answer for you. And two answers I had never heard before in this context.
The answer to the second question is fine, though reveals deeply annoying habits of the current political dialectic. It certainly seems true that in many cases, in many different issues, people with obvious similarities of views in broad areas won’t work together with people who disagree in other areas. (Interestingly the pro-life movement only gained its success when the evangelical groups, Catholics and Mormons all got over their mutual dislike for each other’s other policies got over that for the purposes of opposing abortion–which led to some of the things you don’t like such as the mostly Catholic opposition to birth control–most of the protestant groups don’t really care).
I’m not sure it plays out the way you outline though. Let us say that you believe late term abortions to be infanticide unless the mother is risking more serious injury than a regular pregnancy. Which group allows for that belief to be expressed and worked on. If I could work with pro-choice groups to deal with that, I happily would. But they aren’t willing to deal with that issue. Condoms aren’t tightly linked to the pro-choice/pro-life divide as late term abortions. There is certainly political overlap, but they aren’t identical or nearly identical. You can be pro-life and believe that condoms are fine. The pro-lifers won’t scream at you for that. If you are willing to express concern about late term abortions, pro-choicers will indeed scream at you about that. See for example the treatment of dutchmarbel at the hands of Jesurgislac on a regular basis here for example. I (representative of the pro-life side) end up defending her even though we don’t share identical positions, typically not commenters from the pro-choice side. Maybe that doesn’t mean anything. But I suspect it does.
Sorry Catsy, I didn’t mean to ignore you. I got caught up in the later comments when I read the thread.
The medical complications of abortion issue seems like an odd answer to me. Maybe I’m overinterpreting, but that doesn’t seem like the kind of ‘tough’ publius is talking about in the context where it came up. I’m hesitant to bring it up because I don’t want the analogy to purely elective surgery to get us going in the wrong direction, but I rarely hear of the decision to say get a nose job or a breast implant as ‘tough’ in what I thought of as the same sense publius used and they have a similar risk of serious complications.
The irrational emotional attachment explanation makes sense for the women that actually are pregnant. Again I’m not sure how it applies to someone like publius though (because he can’t really have the irrational emotional attachment to something in his body for something that can’t be in his body.
But that is a perfectly good answer for you. And two answers I had never heard before in this context.
The answer to the second question is fine, though reveals deeply annoying habits of the current political dialectic. It certainly seems true that in many cases, in many different issues, people with obvious similarities of views in broad areas won’t work together with people who disagree in other areas. (Interestingly the pro-life movement only gained its success when the evangelical groups, Catholics and Mormons all got over their mutual dislike for each other’s other policies got over that for the purposes of opposing abortion–which led to some of the things you don’t like such as the mostly Catholic opposition to birth control–most of the protestant groups don’t really care).
I’m not sure it plays out the way you outline though. Let us say that you believe late term abortions to be infanticide unless the mother is risking more serious injury than a regular pregnancy. Which group allows for that belief to be expressed and worked on. If I could work with pro-choice groups to deal with that, I happily would. But they aren’t willing to deal with that issue. Condoms aren’t tightly linked to the pro-choice/pro-life divide as late term abortions. There is certainly political overlap, but they aren’t identical or nearly identical. You can be pro-life and believe that condoms are fine. The pro-lifers won’t scream at you for that. If you are willing to express concern about late term abortions, pro-choicers will indeed scream at you about that. See for example the treatment of dutchmarbel at the hands of Jesurgislac on a regular basis here for example. I (representative of the pro-life side) end up defending her even though we don’t share identical positions, typically not commenters from the pro-choice side. Maybe that doesn’t mean anything. But I suspect it does.
The irrational emotional attachment explanation makes sense for the women that actually are pregnant. Again I’m not sure how it applies to someone like publius though (because he can’t really have the irrational emotional attachment to something in his body for something that can’t be in his body.
No, but providing he knows his partner/spouse is pregnant, he can certainly have an irrational emotional attachment to something in her body. This isn’t even a difficult concept, Sebastian — men, just as much as women, start mentally decorating the nursery and picking out baseball gloves just as soon as they find out their partner is pregnant.
. . . the mostly Catholic opposition to birth control–most of the protestant groups don’t really care
You’ve got to be effing kidding me.
The irrational emotional attachment explanation makes sense for the women that actually are pregnant. Again I’m not sure how it applies to someone like publius though (because he can’t really have the irrational emotional attachment to something in his body for something that can’t be in his body.
No, but providing he knows his partner/spouse is pregnant, he can certainly have an irrational emotional attachment to something in her body. This isn’t even a difficult concept, Sebastian — men, just as much as women, start mentally decorating the nursery and picking out baseball gloves just as soon as they find out their partner is pregnant.
. . . the mostly Catholic opposition to birth control–most of the protestant groups don’t really care
You’ve got to be effing kidding me.
“You can be pro-life and believe that condoms are fine. The pro-lifers won’t scream at you for that. ”
Well, according to Christina Page in How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, the pro-life person who co-wrote a NY Times Op-Ed with her calling for both sides to work together to reduce abortion – using actually productive techniques like sound sex-ed, contraception, etc. – got absolutely hammered by the movement.
But anyway, as I have New Years Eving to do, let me link to – for exampleScott over at LGM, from this summer, writing “More on the Impossibiity of “De-Politicizing” Reproductive Freedom . . . (and click through the “is opposed” bit, etc.)
“You can be pro-life and believe that condoms are fine. The pro-lifers won’t scream at you for that. ”
Well, according to Christina Page in How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, the pro-life person who co-wrote a NY Times Op-Ed with her calling for both sides to work together to reduce abortion – using actually productive techniques like sound sex-ed, contraception, etc. – got absolutely hammered by the movement.
But anyway, as I have New Years Eving to do, let me link to – for exampleScott over at LGM, from this summer, writing “More on the Impossibiity of “De-Politicizing” Reproductive Freedom . . . (and click through the “is opposed” bit, etc.)
Ack, missing hyphen.
More to the point, I’d think that one answer to “Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue” is that by definition the pro-choice movement admits that abortion is a tough issue. In fact, it insists on it. That’s why it’s the pro-choice movement, and why people who stand up for reproductive rights – and who in some cases may also be pro-life – are pro-choicers. It’s so tough an issue that the decision ultimately can’t be handed off to legislators or cops or preachers or husbands or parents, but must be made by the woman herself.
Remember, despite what the anti-abortion movement wants folks to think, we’re not actually pro-abortion (except in the way that doctors are pro-heart-surgery, perhaps), let alone pro-fetus-death. We’re not forcing women to have abortions – rather, we’re for women being able to choose, for reproductive freedom. We’re for a couple who had a condom break and is trying to get emergency contraception, because they already have two kids, and for Catholic schoolteachers who get sacked because they ‘choose life’, as well as all the other people who make some folks feel icky.
Granted, there’s always more that could be done, but of course, that’s largely because most of the movement’s energy gets sucked into fighting against abstinence-only ‘education’, and keeping clinics open, and etc., y’know?
Ack, missing hyphen.
More to the point, I’d think that one answer to “Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue” is that by definition the pro-choice movement admits that abortion is a tough issue. In fact, it insists on it. That’s why it’s the pro-choice movement, and why people who stand up for reproductive rights – and who in some cases may also be pro-life – are pro-choicers. It’s so tough an issue that the decision ultimately can’t be handed off to legislators or cops or preachers or husbands or parents, but must be made by the woman herself.
Remember, despite what the anti-abortion movement wants folks to think, we’re not actually pro-abortion (except in the way that doctors are pro-heart-surgery, perhaps), let alone pro-fetus-death. We’re not forcing women to have abortions – rather, we’re for women being able to choose, for reproductive freedom. We’re for a couple who had a condom break and is trying to get emergency contraception, because they already have two kids, and for Catholic schoolteachers who get sacked because they ‘choose life’, as well as all the other people who make some folks feel icky.
Granted, there’s always more that could be done, but of course, that’s largely because most of the movement’s energy gets sucked into fighting against abstinence-only ‘education’, and keeping clinics open, and etc., y’know?
The medical complications of abortion issue seems like an odd answer to me. Maybe I’m overinterpreting, but that doesn’t seem like the kind of ‘tough’ publius is talking about in the context where it came up. I’m hesitant to bring it up because I don’t want the analogy to purely elective surgery to get us going in the wrong direction, but I rarely hear of the decision to say get a nose job or a breast implant as ‘tough’ in what I thought of as the same sense publius used and they have a similar risk of serious complications.
Those really aren’t good procedures to compare abortion to, in this context. Think of it more like this: you were in an accident and unknowingly got a small piece of something stuck inside your abdomen, which is now healed. It is causing you some discomfort, but is not life-threatening. The doctor tells you that they can safely operate to remove it, although he warns you that like any surgery it does carry with it some risks. He also tells you that in less than a year your body will probably break down the material and absorb it anyway, although doing so would require regular and expensive follow-up care to ensure it stays low-risk, and a small chance of long-term health issues from some of the chemicals your body would absorb.
(Yes, I realize that this is a highly contrived hypothetical. My aim here is to construct a gender-blind, nonsexual scenario that is as close as possible to abortion in terms of potential risks and tradeoffs for the purpose of discussion.)
This would be a “tough” decision for me. I know I would be highly conflicted as to whether to take the risk of surgery, or the chance of my body working things out on its own.
Moreover, it would be perfectly understandable for an uninvolved third party to empathize with someone in that situation, be concerned for that person, and worry about whether or not they should have the surgery.
I suspect this isn’t the kind of “tough” he’s referring to either. I think it’s more likely closer to the second example I gave. But there is no question that this is part of the equation for many people.
The irrational emotional attachment explanation makes sense for the women that actually are pregnant. Again I’m not sure how it applies to someone like publius though (because he can’t really have the irrational emotional attachment to something in his body for something that can’t be in his body.
Why not? He helped create it, and he has a stake in whether or not it comes to term. It’s ultimately not his body or his decision, but the result of that decision most definitely impacts his life and likely his emotions.
And as for third parties, even if you have a rational, intellectual opinion about whether or not a fetus is morally equivalent to a child, that doesn’t stop you from being conflicted about it on an irrational gut level. I suspect that this is the level on which the “abortion is icky” feeling that most people have operates. Even if they don’t think it’s a child and don’t believe terminating it is murder, they can still find it distasteful for any number of reasons.
which led to some of the things you don’t like such as the mostly Catholic opposition to birth control–most of the protestant groups don’t really care
I’m sorry, but this is not even close to being accurate. It may well be that dogmatically, most protestant groups don’t have anything against contraception. But they have cast their lot with those who do, vote for candidates who do, support policies that do, and the end result of all of this is that socially conservative groups and politicians can be counted on to oppose access to contraception almost every time. The best that can be said is that they simply don’t care enough about the issue to go head-to-head with those in the pro-life movement who do.
I’m not sure it plays out the way you outline though. Let us say that you believe late term abortions to be infanticide unless the mother is risking more serious injury than a regular pregnancy. Which group allows for that belief to be expressed and worked on.
That’s the problem: pro-lifers who think that abortion is infanticide have no room to maneuver. Any compromise short of outlawing abortion entirely is tantamount to being an accessory to murder. And this is a big part of why pro-choicers have absolutely no reason to think that any compromise on their part will be used by the pro-life movement as a whole as anything other than a slippery slope towards criminalization. There is no rational basis whatsoever to think that a pro-life group who thinks abortion is murder would compromise on the subject in good faith.
The medical complications of abortion issue seems like an odd answer to me. Maybe I’m overinterpreting, but that doesn’t seem like the kind of ‘tough’ publius is talking about in the context where it came up. I’m hesitant to bring it up because I don’t want the analogy to purely elective surgery to get us going in the wrong direction, but I rarely hear of the decision to say get a nose job or a breast implant as ‘tough’ in what I thought of as the same sense publius used and they have a similar risk of serious complications.
Those really aren’t good procedures to compare abortion to, in this context. Think of it more like this: you were in an accident and unknowingly got a small piece of something stuck inside your abdomen, which is now healed. It is causing you some discomfort, but is not life-threatening. The doctor tells you that they can safely operate to remove it, although he warns you that like any surgery it does carry with it some risks. He also tells you that in less than a year your body will probably break down the material and absorb it anyway, although doing so would require regular and expensive follow-up care to ensure it stays low-risk, and a small chance of long-term health issues from some of the chemicals your body would absorb.
(Yes, I realize that this is a highly contrived hypothetical. My aim here is to construct a gender-blind, nonsexual scenario that is as close as possible to abortion in terms of potential risks and tradeoffs for the purpose of discussion.)
This would be a “tough” decision for me. I know I would be highly conflicted as to whether to take the risk of surgery, or the chance of my body working things out on its own.
Moreover, it would be perfectly understandable for an uninvolved third party to empathize with someone in that situation, be concerned for that person, and worry about whether or not they should have the surgery.
I suspect this isn’t the kind of “tough” he’s referring to either. I think it’s more likely closer to the second example I gave. But there is no question that this is part of the equation for many people.
The irrational emotional attachment explanation makes sense for the women that actually are pregnant. Again I’m not sure how it applies to someone like publius though (because he can’t really have the irrational emotional attachment to something in his body for something that can’t be in his body.
Why not? He helped create it, and he has a stake in whether or not it comes to term. It’s ultimately not his body or his decision, but the result of that decision most definitely impacts his life and likely his emotions.
And as for third parties, even if you have a rational, intellectual opinion about whether or not a fetus is morally equivalent to a child, that doesn’t stop you from being conflicted about it on an irrational gut level. I suspect that this is the level on which the “abortion is icky” feeling that most people have operates. Even if they don’t think it’s a child and don’t believe terminating it is murder, they can still find it distasteful for any number of reasons.
which led to some of the things you don’t like such as the mostly Catholic opposition to birth control–most of the protestant groups don’t really care
I’m sorry, but this is not even close to being accurate. It may well be that dogmatically, most protestant groups don’t have anything against contraception. But they have cast their lot with those who do, vote for candidates who do, support policies that do, and the end result of all of this is that socially conservative groups and politicians can be counted on to oppose access to contraception almost every time. The best that can be said is that they simply don’t care enough about the issue to go head-to-head with those in the pro-life movement who do.
I’m not sure it plays out the way you outline though. Let us say that you believe late term abortions to be infanticide unless the mother is risking more serious injury than a regular pregnancy. Which group allows for that belief to be expressed and worked on.
That’s the problem: pro-lifers who think that abortion is infanticide have no room to maneuver. Any compromise short of outlawing abortion entirely is tantamount to being an accessory to murder. And this is a big part of why pro-choicers have absolutely no reason to think that any compromise on their part will be used by the pro-life movement as a whole as anything other than a slippery slope towards criminalization. There is no rational basis whatsoever to think that a pro-life group who thinks abortion is murder would compromise on the subject in good faith.
Why not? He helped create it, and he has a stake in whether or not it comes to term. It’s ultimately not his body or his decision, but the result of that decision most definitely impacts his life and likely his emotions.
The difference, obviously, is that if he isn’t told about it–for example, if the woman involved terminates the pregnancy without ever informing him or if it was a one-off and they never see each other again–then he’ll never have the chance to create that “irrational emotional attachment.” The woman doesn’t have an option in the matter–the man isn’t as committed, biologically speaking.
Why not? He helped create it, and he has a stake in whether or not it comes to term. It’s ultimately not his body or his decision, but the result of that decision most definitely impacts his life and likely his emotions.
The difference, obviously, is that if he isn’t told about it–for example, if the woman involved terminates the pregnancy without ever informing him or if it was a one-off and they never see each other again–then he’ll never have the chance to create that “irrational emotional attachment.” The woman doesn’t have an option in the matter–the man isn’t as committed, biologically speaking.
You’ve got to be effing kidding me.
Posted by: Phil | December 31, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Most mainline Protestant churches are either pro-choice or “agnostic” on abortion. The fundementalist sects and within American Protestantism are the rabidly anti-abortion. The Southern Baptist switched their view in the 80’s.
Looking for information.
You’ve got to be effing kidding me.
Posted by: Phil | December 31, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Most mainline Protestant churches are either pro-choice or “agnostic” on abortion. The fundementalist sects and within American Protestantism are the rabidly anti-abortion. The Southern Baptist switched their view in the 80’s.
Looking for information.
This article gives a quick overview: Aborting Churches
Here’s his assesment: Though Greeley et al. did not address it directly, mainline Protestant hierarchs long championed legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade, culminating in their founding of RCRC in 1973. Undoubtedly this had some impact on abortion rates among their own flocks. The lower birth rate among mainline Protestants can probably be explained, at least partly, by some level of increased moral ease with and resort to abortion (the “Roe Effect”).
So perhaps unrestricted abortion is fueling the decline of the very same churches who have most championed it. The irony is a sad one.
Some one who really does not get it. Breeders for pew filling seems very seemly, but popular within certain circles.
This article gives a quick overview: Aborting Churches
Here’s his assesment: Though Greeley et al. did not address it directly, mainline Protestant hierarchs long championed legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade, culminating in their founding of RCRC in 1973. Undoubtedly this had some impact on abortion rates among their own flocks. The lower birth rate among mainline Protestants can probably be explained, at least partly, by some level of increased moral ease with and resort to abortion (the “Roe Effect”).
So perhaps unrestricted abortion is fueling the decline of the very same churches who have most championed it. The irony is a sad one.
Some one who really does not get it. Breeders for pew filling seems very seemly, but popular within certain circles.
There is certainly political overlap, but they aren’t identical or nearly identical. You can be pro-life and believe that condoms are fine. The pro-lifers won’t scream at you for that.
Some will. There is a definite faction in the pro-life movement which is anti-contraceptive of any type. They will scream at you for being pro-condom.
If you are willing to express concern about late term abortions, pro-choicers will indeed scream at you about that.
Some will. Some won’t. I’m pro-choice, but I would have no problem with a law restricting access to abortion in the third trimester IF (and only if) the following criteria were met:
1. Contraceptives were readily available (including available to teenagers), cheap or free, and education about their use was widespread.
2. Early abortion was readily available to all women and girls (even those who live in rural South Dakota), cheap or free, and provided without harassment from strangers or judgement from doctors or pharmacists.
3. Exceptions were made for severe fetal abnormalities or danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman. And for extra-legal coercion. If a woman were kidnapped by crazed pro-lifers and held until she was 25 weeks pregnant, it isn’t her fault she missed the deadline and she can’t be said to have given implied consent for the pregnancy to continue. I would expect this situation to arise rarely if ever.
4. Resources to help women (and men) raising small children alone were available so that in the rare instance of a pregnancy truly being discovered only very late it wouldn’t be a disaster at least economically for the mother.
Meet those criteria and I’d be ok with a law prohibiting purely elective abortion after 24 weeks. It’s really giving more rights to the fetus than are given to any living human being and the number of abortions such a law would prevent would be vanishingly small, but if it would make you happy…
There is certainly political overlap, but they aren’t identical or nearly identical. You can be pro-life and believe that condoms are fine. The pro-lifers won’t scream at you for that.
Some will. There is a definite faction in the pro-life movement which is anti-contraceptive of any type. They will scream at you for being pro-condom.
If you are willing to express concern about late term abortions, pro-choicers will indeed scream at you about that.
Some will. Some won’t. I’m pro-choice, but I would have no problem with a law restricting access to abortion in the third trimester IF (and only if) the following criteria were met:
1. Contraceptives were readily available (including available to teenagers), cheap or free, and education about their use was widespread.
2. Early abortion was readily available to all women and girls (even those who live in rural South Dakota), cheap or free, and provided without harassment from strangers or judgement from doctors or pharmacists.
3. Exceptions were made for severe fetal abnormalities or danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman. And for extra-legal coercion. If a woman were kidnapped by crazed pro-lifers and held until she was 25 weeks pregnant, it isn’t her fault she missed the deadline and she can’t be said to have given implied consent for the pregnancy to continue. I would expect this situation to arise rarely if ever.
4. Resources to help women (and men) raising small children alone were available so that in the rare instance of a pregnancy truly being discovered only very late it wouldn’t be a disaster at least economically for the mother.
Meet those criteria and I’d be ok with a law prohibiting purely elective abortion after 24 weeks. It’s really giving more rights to the fetus than are given to any living human being and the number of abortions such a law would prevent would be vanishingly small, but if it would make you happy…
Are we talking about abortion in any trimester, or abortion in the last trimester? Or are there still people claiming that that does not make a difference?
Sebastian: in the early pregnancy I really truelly believed that the fetus was not a seperate human being. I *did* feel that it had the potential to be one, it was the early stage of our very beloved child. I was emotionally attached to that potential and if I had aborted at that stage it would have been MY decision (and thus my responsibility) to terminate that potential. When parents loose a child after birth they also mourn the potential, the life the child now misses.
I really don’t understand the people who feel that a baby only has rights once it is born. I also don’t understand people who say thinks along the lines of ‘when a woman has carried the child into the third trimester she will only have her kids intrests at heart’. Yes, that will be true for most women, but unfortunately there are *also* women (and men) who abuse and even kill their kids. Unless you feel that child protection should be eliminated for the newborns, you agree with that. And though there is not a lot of documentation there *are* late term abortions for reasons that seem rather trivial to me (like cleft palate).
We currently have a trial against a woman who went to Spain and had a perfectly healthy fetus/baby aborted. She claims it was at 24 weeks, the father (who alerted the autorities) and doctors here say it was 27 weeks. 24 weeks would not make it punishable in both involved countries, which is essential for the right of the Dutch government to prosecute.
Yes a women should be in total control of het body and decide about it. Having sex is healty and knowing how to protect yourself should be well known to everybody. Frankly, if any of my boys would come home with a virgin and would want to marry her (or him, but there’s less risc of pregnancy in that case) I’d be scared to death and seriously try to talk them out of it.
I agree that a lot of the US right-wing reli-nuts try to control the right of a women to decide for herself about her body and her sexuality. Just like they try to decide Sebastians love-live for him since he doesn’t fit their nice ‘proper’ pattern either.
At the same time, as is noted before, most people don’t have a problem with first term abortion. They may not like it, but they agree that the woman should decide about wether she wants to continue this pregnancy. It’s the later abortions that cause the discussions.
Sebastian said in earlier discussions that he only wanted to limit late abortions, and that they ought to be allowed when the proper procedure was followed (I think he said that two doctors should agree that it was the best option). That is how it works in the Netherlands and I am perfectly fine with our system. I am also fine with the fact that *if* you have a severly handicapped baby that will have a very short life filled with pain and misery you can decide for euthanatia – which is probabely where Sebastian and I differ.
Yes, a child born after 24 weeks of pregnancy is seen as a person here. If it is dead it doesn’t need a passport or a social security number, but it has to be entered into the civil community register and it has to be burried in accordence with our burial laws and such. If a pregnancy is terminated that late, it will be a still birth and will be reported (like any other unexpected death) to the proper inspectorate.
At the same time I think Sebastian should make a difference between how aborion should be regarded in a percect society and how it should be regarded in the US. There is a real risc that any common sense restrictions/limitations on abortions will be abused to make it really hard for women. Just like it is appearently is normal to have pharmacists refusing to sell women anticonception or day-after pills, or like it is normal to prevent women from having early abortions. In that climate one might be inclined to err in favor or the womans rights.
Are we talking about abortion in any trimester, or abortion in the last trimester? Or are there still people claiming that that does not make a difference?
Sebastian: in the early pregnancy I really truelly believed that the fetus was not a seperate human being. I *did* feel that it had the potential to be one, it was the early stage of our very beloved child. I was emotionally attached to that potential and if I had aborted at that stage it would have been MY decision (and thus my responsibility) to terminate that potential. When parents loose a child after birth they also mourn the potential, the life the child now misses.
I really don’t understand the people who feel that a baby only has rights once it is born. I also don’t understand people who say thinks along the lines of ‘when a woman has carried the child into the third trimester she will only have her kids intrests at heart’. Yes, that will be true for most women, but unfortunately there are *also* women (and men) who abuse and even kill their kids. Unless you feel that child protection should be eliminated for the newborns, you agree with that. And though there is not a lot of documentation there *are* late term abortions for reasons that seem rather trivial to me (like cleft palate).
We currently have a trial against a woman who went to Spain and had a perfectly healthy fetus/baby aborted. She claims it was at 24 weeks, the father (who alerted the autorities) and doctors here say it was 27 weeks. 24 weeks would not make it punishable in both involved countries, which is essential for the right of the Dutch government to prosecute.
Yes a women should be in total control of het body and decide about it. Having sex is healty and knowing how to protect yourself should be well known to everybody. Frankly, if any of my boys would come home with a virgin and would want to marry her (or him, but there’s less risc of pregnancy in that case) I’d be scared to death and seriously try to talk them out of it.
I agree that a lot of the US right-wing reli-nuts try to control the right of a women to decide for herself about her body and her sexuality. Just like they try to decide Sebastians love-live for him since he doesn’t fit their nice ‘proper’ pattern either.
At the same time, as is noted before, most people don’t have a problem with first term abortion. They may not like it, but they agree that the woman should decide about wether she wants to continue this pregnancy. It’s the later abortions that cause the discussions.
Sebastian said in earlier discussions that he only wanted to limit late abortions, and that they ought to be allowed when the proper procedure was followed (I think he said that two doctors should agree that it was the best option). That is how it works in the Netherlands and I am perfectly fine with our system. I am also fine with the fact that *if* you have a severly handicapped baby that will have a very short life filled with pain and misery you can decide for euthanatia – which is probabely where Sebastian and I differ.
Yes, a child born after 24 weeks of pregnancy is seen as a person here. If it is dead it doesn’t need a passport or a social security number, but it has to be entered into the civil community register and it has to be burried in accordence with our burial laws and such. If a pregnancy is terminated that late, it will be a still birth and will be reported (like any other unexpected death) to the proper inspectorate.
At the same time I think Sebastian should make a difference between how aborion should be regarded in a percect society and how it should be regarded in the US. There is a real risc that any common sense restrictions/limitations on abortions will be abused to make it really hard for women. Just like it is appearently is normal to have pharmacists refusing to sell women anticonception or day-after pills, or like it is normal to prevent women from having early abortions. In that climate one might be inclined to err in favor or the womans rights.
3. Exceptions were made for severe fetal abnormalities or danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman. And for extra-legal coercion. If a woman were kidnapped by crazed pro-lifers and held until she was 25 weeks pregnant, it isn’t her fault she missed the deadline and she can’t be said to have given implied consent for the pregnancy to continue. I would expect this situation to arise rarely if ever.
Wouldn’t it fit the American system better to have the kidnappers pay for the cost of upbringing? Pay allowence for the next twenty years? Otherwise they might decide to keep her till after the birth.
3. Exceptions were made for severe fetal abnormalities or danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman. And for extra-legal coercion. If a woman were kidnapped by crazed pro-lifers and held until she was 25 weeks pregnant, it isn’t her fault she missed the deadline and she can’t be said to have given implied consent for the pregnancy to continue. I would expect this situation to arise rarely if ever.
Wouldn’t it fit the American system better to have the kidnappers pay for the cost of upbringing? Pay allowence for the next twenty years? Otherwise they might decide to keep her till after the birth.
Great comment from dutchmarbel at 10:14. If (as discussed in the post) I trusted the leadership of the other side farther than I could accelerate them, I might accept a more European system. Given reality though, no thanks.
Great comment from dutchmarbel at 10:14. If (as discussed in the post) I trusted the leadership of the other side farther than I could accelerate them, I might accept a more European system. Given reality though, no thanks.
It seems to me this talk about making contraception widely available or why would a woman continue a pregnancy into the third trimester and onl then have an abortion ignores an important factor – denial. The denial of a teenage girl who doesn’t use contraception because that would be admitting she is regularly sexually active (i.e., “loose”) but regularly has “impulsive” sex which she can deny responsibility for. Or the woman who can’t admit even to herself that she is pregnant until it gets too obvious to deny and then desparately wants out. (This is also the type of woman who abandons babies in the trash).
It seems to me this talk about making contraception widely available or why would a woman continue a pregnancy into the third trimester and onl then have an abortion ignores an important factor – denial. The denial of a teenage girl who doesn’t use contraception because that would be admitting she is regularly sexually active (i.e., “loose”) but regularly has “impulsive” sex which she can deny responsibility for. Or the woman who can’t admit even to herself that she is pregnant until it gets too obvious to deny and then desparately wants out. (This is also the type of woman who abandons babies in the trash).
There has been a recent study done in the UK on reasons for ‘late’ abortion (by which they mean 13-24 weeks). Such abortions are legal in the UK, provided you get the support of two doctors. The press release also gives statistics for the frequency of abortions: 89% in first trimester, 9% in weeks 13-19, only 1.4% week 20 or later. After 24 weeks (i.e. towards the end of the second trimester), the figures are even lower, less than 1% (just over one hundred actual cases) and abortion is allowed only in the case of grave risk to the life or health of the mother or serious handicap for the child. There are still arguments about whether all of these very late abortions are medically justified (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3252350.stm, but at least in a country with reasonable access to abortion and contraception, such cases are very rare, and discussion of them should not really be more than a side issue.
There has been a recent study done in the UK on reasons for ‘late’ abortion (by which they mean 13-24 weeks). Such abortions are legal in the UK, provided you get the support of two doctors. The press release also gives statistics for the frequency of abortions: 89% in first trimester, 9% in weeks 13-19, only 1.4% week 20 or later. After 24 weeks (i.e. towards the end of the second trimester), the figures are even lower, less than 1% (just over one hundred actual cases) and abortion is allowed only in the case of grave risk to the life or health of the mother or serious handicap for the child. There are still arguments about whether all of these very late abortions are medically justified (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3252350.stm, but at least in a country with reasonable access to abortion and contraception, such cases are very rare, and discussion of them should not really be more than a side issue.
IMV, precisely because it is (often) a hard decision, it should not be made by the state, in gross, but by the affected individuals, in full knowledge of the context. That’s not hard at all.
I guess I’m in the minority having no problem with the constitutional foundation of Roe et al. Really. But then I also think that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional under Loving, so I’m used to being in the minority.
Publius is obviously right about the link between Roe and Griswold etc. I’d go a step further: if Roe is bad law, it’s only because liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment isn’t big enough to include this aspect of control over personal destiny. OK, well, that isn’t just about privacy. It’s also about everything else that gets brought in through incorporation. That is, I don’t just think you have to kill Lawrence. I think you have to drop New York Times v. Sullivan, for example.
(Actually, I just thought of that example, and might well be talked out of it, in particular, some day when I’m not more than a little hung over. I think my point, though, is clear enough.)
IMV, precisely because it is (often) a hard decision, it should not be made by the state, in gross, but by the affected individuals, in full knowledge of the context. That’s not hard at all.
I guess I’m in the minority having no problem with the constitutional foundation of Roe et al. Really. But then I also think that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional under Loving, so I’m used to being in the minority.
Publius is obviously right about the link between Roe and Griswold etc. I’d go a step further: if Roe is bad law, it’s only because liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment isn’t big enough to include this aspect of control over personal destiny. OK, well, that isn’t just about privacy. It’s also about everything else that gets brought in through incorporation. That is, I don’t just think you have to kill Lawrence. I think you have to drop New York Times v. Sullivan, for example.
(Actually, I just thought of that example, and might well be talked out of it, in particular, some day when I’m not more than a little hung over. I think my point, though, is clear enough.)
I’m an older woman, and I can tell you there is no chance in the world that I would even consider a pregnancy unless I knew I would be not forced to give birth to a severely disabled child.
Prolifers need to do more to address the forced pregnancy issue in the case of Down syndrome, spina bifida, and severe disabilities. Do they really think in this era of easy and relatively inexpensive genetic tests that it is going to be possible to force women of any means at all to give birth to babies who will never have independent lives, babies who parents will have to give up on most of their hopes for the future from the moment they are born?
Sure, it’s fine for some people to make the choice to give birth under these circumstances, but it is deeply morally repugnant to force people to do it.
Why, when abortion rates in the presence of genetic disabilities are so high, are these issues so rarely discussed in the debate over abortion?
I’m an older woman, and I can tell you there is no chance in the world that I would even consider a pregnancy unless I knew I would be not forced to give birth to a severely disabled child.
Prolifers need to do more to address the forced pregnancy issue in the case of Down syndrome, spina bifida, and severe disabilities. Do they really think in this era of easy and relatively inexpensive genetic tests that it is going to be possible to force women of any means at all to give birth to babies who will never have independent lives, babies who parents will have to give up on most of their hopes for the future from the moment they are born?
Sure, it’s fine for some people to make the choice to give birth under these circumstances, but it is deeply morally repugnant to force people to do it.
Why, when abortion rates in the presence of genetic disabilities are so high, are these issues so rarely discussed in the debate over abortion?
Most mainline Protestant churches are either pro-choice or “agnostic” on abortion. The fundementalist sects and within American Protestantism are the rabidly anti-abortion. The Southern Baptist switched their view in the 80’s.
I’m pretty sure that Sebastian was speaking in terms of organized abortion opposition groups, not of churches qua churches, but I’ll let him answer for himself. If it is the former, I’ll bet him a dollar that the five most prominent non-Catholic anti-abortion groups he can think of also oppose condom use.
Most mainline Protestant churches are either pro-choice or “agnostic” on abortion. The fundementalist sects and within American Protestantism are the rabidly anti-abortion. The Southern Baptist switched their view in the 80’s.
I’m pretty sure that Sebastian was speaking in terms of organized abortion opposition groups, not of churches qua churches, but I’ll let him answer for himself. If it is the former, I’ll bet him a dollar that the five most prominent non-Catholic anti-abortion groups he can think of also oppose condom use.
I recall a survey that Doctor Science once did of all the pro-life organizations in the US: she established that not one of them actually supports contraceptive use to prevent abortions – and certainly not one of them is actively involved in any program to provide free contraception. The organisation most responsible for preventing abortion by preventing unwanted/unplanned pregnancy is Planned Parenthood.
This is, all by itself, sufficient evidence that while these groups may claim they view abortion as infanticide, that’s not what the people who decide what pro-life organizations are going to campaign on think: nor is it what the pro-life demonstrators who picket Planned Parenthood clinics think. If they actually believed abortion was infanticide, they would want to prevent abortions: they don’t.
I recall a survey that Doctor Science once did of all the pro-life organizations in the US: she established that not one of them actually supports contraceptive use to prevent abortions – and certainly not one of them is actively involved in any program to provide free contraception. The organisation most responsible for preventing abortion by preventing unwanted/unplanned pregnancy is Planned Parenthood.
This is, all by itself, sufficient evidence that while these groups may claim they view abortion as infanticide, that’s not what the people who decide what pro-life organizations are going to campaign on think: nor is it what the pro-life demonstrators who picket Planned Parenthood clinics think. If they actually believed abortion was infanticide, they would want to prevent abortions: they don’t.
I really don’t understand the people who feel that a baby only has rights once it is born. I also don’t understand people who say thinks along the lines of ‘when a woman has carried the child into the third trimester she will only have her kids intrests at heart’. Yes, that will be true for most women, but unfortunately there are *also* women (and men) who abuse and even kill their kids. Unless you feel that child protection should be eliminated for the newborns, you agree with that
Nothing personal, but what’s there to disagree with in your sentence? People abuse kids all the time, and it has nothing to do with abortion. Look, here’s the reason I fall on the side that says “let’s give women as many options as possible.” There will no doubt be circumstances where some women will have abortions that most people would find morally repugnant–my attitude is that they will likely be the exception, especially if we live in a society that has fully embraced the idea that women ought to have control over their bodies and their sexuality. But here’s the thing: I don’t want my government deciding what’s moral and immoral, because morality is a personal issue, and cannot be imposed by an outside source. Would you want government investigators snooping around to determine if your abortion met the criteria that they felt was acceptable? What if you’re a male and the government said you had to meet certain moral criteria before getting a vasectomy, and that if you’re doing it because you want to have lots of promiscuous sex, then you can’t have one? We’d tell the government to get out of our faces, and rightly so.
So why should women demand any less? Because of a fetus? I’m not convinced, and even if someone else made a choice about a fetus that outraged me, it’s their choice, not mine. And the religious who use their faith as a reason to stand against abortion are showing a real lack of it, as though their God is unable to exact proper punishment in the afterlife.
I really don’t understand the people who feel that a baby only has rights once it is born. I also don’t understand people who say thinks along the lines of ‘when a woman has carried the child into the third trimester she will only have her kids intrests at heart’. Yes, that will be true for most women, but unfortunately there are *also* women (and men) who abuse and even kill their kids. Unless you feel that child protection should be eliminated for the newborns, you agree with that
Nothing personal, but what’s there to disagree with in your sentence? People abuse kids all the time, and it has nothing to do with abortion. Look, here’s the reason I fall on the side that says “let’s give women as many options as possible.” There will no doubt be circumstances where some women will have abortions that most people would find morally repugnant–my attitude is that they will likely be the exception, especially if we live in a society that has fully embraced the idea that women ought to have control over their bodies and their sexuality. But here’s the thing: I don’t want my government deciding what’s moral and immoral, because morality is a personal issue, and cannot be imposed by an outside source. Would you want government investigators snooping around to determine if your abortion met the criteria that they felt was acceptable? What if you’re a male and the government said you had to meet certain moral criteria before getting a vasectomy, and that if you’re doing it because you want to have lots of promiscuous sex, then you can’t have one? We’d tell the government to get out of our faces, and rightly so.
So why should women demand any less? Because of a fetus? I’m not convinced, and even if someone else made a choice about a fetus that outraged me, it’s their choice, not mine. And the religious who use their faith as a reason to stand against abortion are showing a real lack of it, as though their God is unable to exact proper punishment in the afterlife.
Marbel: I really don’t understand the people who feel that a baby only has rights once it is born.
Because you can give a fetus rights only by removing rights from the pregnant woman. In particular, by removing her right to make medical decisions for herself.
I really don’t understand the people who think that a pregnant woman deserves less rights than a man or a woman who isn’t pregnant.
Marbel: I really don’t understand the people who feel that a baby only has rights once it is born.
Because you can give a fetus rights only by removing rights from the pregnant woman. In particular, by removing her right to make medical decisions for herself.
I really don’t understand the people who think that a pregnant woman deserves less rights than a man or a woman who isn’t pregnant.
I really don’t understand the people who think that a pregnant woman deserves less rights than a man or a woman who isn’t pregnant.
I can understand them–I just happen to think they’re wrong. There was a period in human existence where the preservation of a pregnancy was important enough that one might make an argument that the cost to a class’s rights would be understandable. But we’re not there, and we haven’t been for many, many millennia, and I don’t see us returning to such a situation any time soon.
I really don’t understand the people who think that a pregnant woman deserves less rights than a man or a woman who isn’t pregnant.
I can understand them–I just happen to think they’re wrong. There was a period in human existence where the preservation of a pregnancy was important enough that one might make an argument that the cost to a class’s rights would be understandable. But we’re not there, and we haven’t been for many, many millennia, and I don’t see us returning to such a situation any time soon.
wanttohear: Why, when abortion rates in the presence of genetic disabilities are so high, are these issues so rarely discussed in the debate over abortion?
I was so staying out of this thread…
Context here is Down Syndrome, not more serious disorders. Genetic testing can’t be done until the second trimester. And even then it only indicates a higher risk for certain diseases, and it’s only 60-80% accurate. If this is your criteria, should people choose abortion based on a 40% chance that the baby is normal?
If you don’t support second trimester abortions to begin with then I don’t think this should change your mind.
The risk of losing the baby getting the test (amniocentesis, CVS) is four times higher than the risk of Down Syndrome to start with (younger women).
And “never have independent lives” is simply false, at least in terms of Down Syndrome.
Now I’m pro-choice to a point. But I believe that if you have a higher risk of having a baby with genetic abnormalities the answer is simply not to get pregnant to begin with. The concept of “roll the dice” and just abort it if it might come out wrong doesn’t work for me. (That’s why my wife and I never had children.)
wanttohear: Why, when abortion rates in the presence of genetic disabilities are so high, are these issues so rarely discussed in the debate over abortion?
I was so staying out of this thread…
Context here is Down Syndrome, not more serious disorders. Genetic testing can’t be done until the second trimester. And even then it only indicates a higher risk for certain diseases, and it’s only 60-80% accurate. If this is your criteria, should people choose abortion based on a 40% chance that the baby is normal?
If you don’t support second trimester abortions to begin with then I don’t think this should change your mind.
The risk of losing the baby getting the test (amniocentesis, CVS) is four times higher than the risk of Down Syndrome to start with (younger women).
And “never have independent lives” is simply false, at least in terms of Down Syndrome.
Now I’m pro-choice to a point. But I believe that if you have a higher risk of having a baby with genetic abnormalities the answer is simply not to get pregnant to begin with. The concept of “roll the dice” and just abort it if it might come out wrong doesn’t work for me. (That’s why my wife and I never had children.)
OCSteve: If this is your criteria, should people choose abortion based on a 40% chance that the baby is normal?
Give the pregnant woman all the available information, and let her decide. What exactly is your problem with this?
If you don’t support second trimester abortions to begin with then I don’t think this should change your mind.
I suppose if you support forcing women to stay pregnant, no matter what, it won’t make any difference to you whether she is being forced to bear a healthy baby or a disabled baby or a baby that will die within hours of birth. It’s the ability to force her that matters.
OCSteve: If this is your criteria, should people choose abortion based on a 40% chance that the baby is normal?
Give the pregnant woman all the available information, and let her decide. What exactly is your problem with this?
If you don’t support second trimester abortions to begin with then I don’t think this should change your mind.
I suppose if you support forcing women to stay pregnant, no matter what, it won’t make any difference to you whether she is being forced to bear a healthy baby or a disabled baby or a baby that will die within hours of birth. It’s the ability to force her that matters.
It’s the ability to force her that matters.
Yup. That’s exactly what I said…
It’s the ability to force her that matters.
Yup. That’s exactly what I said…
But I believe that if you have a higher risk of having a baby with genetic abnormalities the answer is simply not to get pregnant to begin with. The concept of “roll the dice” and just abort it if it might come out wrong doesn’t work for me.
But who are you to determine that for other couples? That’s at the crux of this debate–who gets to choose? Do women get to choose for themselves, or does the state? Freedom of choice means–just as freedom of speech does–that sometimes people are going to make choices that you disagree with, perhaps even violently. But it’s their choice–at least it should be–not yours.
But I believe that if you have a higher risk of having a baby with genetic abnormalities the answer is simply not to get pregnant to begin with. The concept of “roll the dice” and just abort it if it might come out wrong doesn’t work for me.
But who are you to determine that for other couples? That’s at the crux of this debate–who gets to choose? Do women get to choose for themselves, or does the state? Freedom of choice means–just as freedom of speech does–that sometimes people are going to make choices that you disagree with, perhaps even violently. But it’s their choice–at least it should be–not yours.
Yup. That’s exactly what I said…
It’s always worth remembering, OCSteve, that every abortion you decide you won’t permit means one woman forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. That pro-lifers try to make you think of the fetus as if it floated in mid-air in a golden mist of light, is a particularly insidious piece of mind-control. Works, too, didn’t it?
What is your problem with giving the pregnant woman all available information and letting her decide for herself?
Yup. That’s exactly what I said…
It’s always worth remembering, OCSteve, that every abortion you decide you won’t permit means one woman forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. That pro-lifers try to make you think of the fetus as if it floated in mid-air in a golden mist of light, is a particularly insidious piece of mind-control. Works, too, didn’t it?
What is your problem with giving the pregnant woman all available information and letting her decide for herself?
Steve, I’m sure you’re familiar with the principle of local knowledge from the principles of market operation, even if you haven’t picked up that particular label for it (from Hayek, I believe). It’s not that the people involved in a transaction will always make what can in some sense be called the best decision, it’s just that nobody else is likely to reliably make it better on their behalf, so long as some basic conditions are secured. The pro-choice position on abortion says that’s what true of un-coerced economic decision-making is true of decision-making about children, too – that in uncertain circumstances, it is on the whole very much best to leave the decision to those who have to deal with it. Anti-choice positions are all grounded on the idea that there are key truths available to outside observers but not to participants – a direct contradiction of one of the most basic assumptions in economic choice, and more often asserted than demonstrated. 🙂
Steve, I’m sure you’re familiar with the principle of local knowledge from the principles of market operation, even if you haven’t picked up that particular label for it (from Hayek, I believe). It’s not that the people involved in a transaction will always make what can in some sense be called the best decision, it’s just that nobody else is likely to reliably make it better on their behalf, so long as some basic conditions are secured. The pro-choice position on abortion says that’s what true of un-coerced economic decision-making is true of decision-making about children, too – that in uncertain circumstances, it is on the whole very much best to leave the decision to those who have to deal with it. Anti-choice positions are all grounded on the idea that there are key truths available to outside observers but not to participants – a direct contradiction of one of the most basic assumptions in economic choice, and more often asserted than demonstrated. 🙂
dutchmarbel: As it happens, I think that the Dutch system is basically fine and I have no real problem with limiting third trimester abortions to cases of severe fetal anomalies or risk to the mother’s life as it does. However, I don’t think that it is the open and shut moral/legal case that you appear to be claiming either for several reasons.
1. 24 weeks is pretty early and the fetus is still pretty undeveloped. Premature infants don’t show signs of being able to feel pain until about 29-30 weeks (though primitive nocioception appears earlier). A 24 week premie needs essentially a complete life support system to survive: its lungs don’t work, it can’t maintain its body temperature, its heart doesn’t even beat reliably. The brain, along with the lungs, develops very late. The 27 week abortion is probably no big deal in terms of the likelihood of killing a sentient being.
2. A fetus isn’t a premature infant. Fetal circulation, oxygen levels, and stimuli are very different from those of a newborn. In particular, the partial pressure of oxygen in the fetal circulation is at a level that would not allow for cortical activity in an adult. It is, theoretically, possible that the cortex of a fetus can work at lower oxygen levels, but I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest this.
3. Even assuming that the above is wrong or irrelevant, in no other circumstance is one person allowed to use the body of another against the second person’s will, even if it is necessary for survival. Parents are not forced to give blood, bone marrow, or organs to their children even if they would die without them. If you volunteered to give bone marrow to another person but decided just before the needle was inserted that you didn’t want to donate, you would not be forced to, even if you were the only compatible donor and the person would die without a transplant. Why should a fetus be given more rights than any other person including a newborn?
One potential counterargument is that by not having an abortion for 24 weeks, even though the option is readily available, the pregnant woman gives implicit consent for the fetus to occupy her uterus for as long as it needs to. This, of course, is a legitimate argument only if the decision was made without coercion and in a situation in which abortion was available. These criteria are, if I understand correctly, met in the Netherlands, but they are not met in the US. Thus, I am much happier with a third trimester ban in the Netherlands than I would be with a similar ban in the US.
BTW: I included the “pro-life kidnappers” scenario just for completeness. I would expect such events to be about as common as the mythical woman who has an abortion at 36 weeks because she can’t fit into her prom dress. But if it did happen she would certainly have the right to sue for damages including 18 years of child support and would probably win, depending on the judge. A more common situation might be a doctor or U/S tech telling a woman that her pregnancy was too far advanced to have an abortion when it really wasn’t (i.e. telling her it was 24 weeks when it was really only 22). Maybe the declaration that a pregnancy is too far advanced should have to be confirmed by 2 doctors or something to prevent that sort of fraud.
dutchmarbel: As it happens, I think that the Dutch system is basically fine and I have no real problem with limiting third trimester abortions to cases of severe fetal anomalies or risk to the mother’s life as it does. However, I don’t think that it is the open and shut moral/legal case that you appear to be claiming either for several reasons.
1. 24 weeks is pretty early and the fetus is still pretty undeveloped. Premature infants don’t show signs of being able to feel pain until about 29-30 weeks (though primitive nocioception appears earlier). A 24 week premie needs essentially a complete life support system to survive: its lungs don’t work, it can’t maintain its body temperature, its heart doesn’t even beat reliably. The brain, along with the lungs, develops very late. The 27 week abortion is probably no big deal in terms of the likelihood of killing a sentient being.
2. A fetus isn’t a premature infant. Fetal circulation, oxygen levels, and stimuli are very different from those of a newborn. In particular, the partial pressure of oxygen in the fetal circulation is at a level that would not allow for cortical activity in an adult. It is, theoretically, possible that the cortex of a fetus can work at lower oxygen levels, but I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest this.
3. Even assuming that the above is wrong or irrelevant, in no other circumstance is one person allowed to use the body of another against the second person’s will, even if it is necessary for survival. Parents are not forced to give blood, bone marrow, or organs to their children even if they would die without them. If you volunteered to give bone marrow to another person but decided just before the needle was inserted that you didn’t want to donate, you would not be forced to, even if you were the only compatible donor and the person would die without a transplant. Why should a fetus be given more rights than any other person including a newborn?
One potential counterargument is that by not having an abortion for 24 weeks, even though the option is readily available, the pregnant woman gives implicit consent for the fetus to occupy her uterus for as long as it needs to. This, of course, is a legitimate argument only if the decision was made without coercion and in a situation in which abortion was available. These criteria are, if I understand correctly, met in the Netherlands, but they are not met in the US. Thus, I am much happier with a third trimester ban in the Netherlands than I would be with a similar ban in the US.
BTW: I included the “pro-life kidnappers” scenario just for completeness. I would expect such events to be about as common as the mythical woman who has an abortion at 36 weeks because she can’t fit into her prom dress. But if it did happen she would certainly have the right to sue for damages including 18 years of child support and would probably win, depending on the judge. A more common situation might be a doctor or U/S tech telling a woman that her pregnancy was too far advanced to have an abortion when it really wasn’t (i.e. telling her it was 24 weeks when it was really only 22). Maybe the declaration that a pregnancy is too far advanced should have to be confirmed by 2 doctors or something to prevent that sort of fraud.
The risk of losing the baby getting the test (amniocentesis, CVS) is four times higher than the risk of Down Syndrome to start with (younger women).
That is highly dependent on the age of the woman and other factors. The risk of amnio is flat whereas the risk of DS and other anomalies rises steadily with age. The point at which the risks are about equal is around 35 years of age. Additionally, if either partner has a first degree relative with DS or who has had a child with DS then the risk is higher (i.e. risk of balanced translocation).
Amnio/CVS is near to 100% accurate when the results are analyzed by a competent geneticist. The 60% number is for the safer non-invasive screening tests such as alpha fetoprotein measurement. But abortions based on these tests are rare–the normal procedure would be to get an amnio if the test turns up a possible problem. So some fetuses may be lost to miscarriage after amnio for false positive triple screens, for example, but induced abortions based on false positives would likely be quite rare. Definitely a reason to look for ways to make the tests safer and more accurate, but I don’t see the argument against the legality of abortion.
The risk of losing the baby getting the test (amniocentesis, CVS) is four times higher than the risk of Down Syndrome to start with (younger women).
That is highly dependent on the age of the woman and other factors. The risk of amnio is flat whereas the risk of DS and other anomalies rises steadily with age. The point at which the risks are about equal is around 35 years of age. Additionally, if either partner has a first degree relative with DS or who has had a child with DS then the risk is higher (i.e. risk of balanced translocation).
Amnio/CVS is near to 100% accurate when the results are analyzed by a competent geneticist. The 60% number is for the safer non-invasive screening tests such as alpha fetoprotein measurement. But abortions based on these tests are rare–the normal procedure would be to get an amnio if the test turns up a possible problem. So some fetuses may be lost to miscarriage after amnio for false positive triple screens, for example, but induced abortions based on false positives would likely be quite rare. Definitely a reason to look for ways to make the tests safer and more accurate, but I don’t see the argument against the legality of abortion.
publius, I agree with you about the reason for keeping Roe intact. However, I think there should be discussion of a compromise: a constitutional amendment that explicitly defines the right to privacy in exchange for striking down Roe. That way there would be no chain reaction, and no more tortured logic by “activist” judges. Plus it would be very entertaining how the two camps played it out.
publius, I agree with you about the reason for keeping Roe intact. However, I think there should be discussion of a compromise: a constitutional amendment that explicitly defines the right to privacy in exchange for striking down Roe. That way there would be no chain reaction, and no more tortured logic by “activist” judges. Plus it would be very entertaining how the two camps played it out.
My response on the textualism question here.
My response on the textualism question here.
“Nothing personal, but what’s there to disagree with in your sentence? People abuse kids all the time, and it has nothing to do with abortion.”
The assertion both above and in recent threads is that women would never or almost never capriciously decide to do something like just abort a child after viability if there weren’t life-threatening medical reasons. In that context, the abuse of children was raised to point out that women do in fact abuse their children even after they are born, so it isn’t shocking at all to think that they would make similar ranges of decisions before birth.
But perhaps we shouldn’t investigate child abuse since a woman would *obviously* never allow anything bad to happen to her own children.
I find the alleged reliance on Griswold a bit hard to stomach. That whole right was based on the super-douper-deep respect for the ancient history of marriage and the inability of the state to meddle in those sacred bonds. One year later, oops we were just kidding about all that. It kind of makes the game a bit obvious.
“Nothing personal, but what’s there to disagree with in your sentence? People abuse kids all the time, and it has nothing to do with abortion.”
The assertion both above and in recent threads is that women would never or almost never capriciously decide to do something like just abort a child after viability if there weren’t life-threatening medical reasons. In that context, the abuse of children was raised to point out that women do in fact abuse their children even after they are born, so it isn’t shocking at all to think that they would make similar ranges of decisions before birth.
But perhaps we shouldn’t investigate child abuse since a woman would *obviously* never allow anything bad to happen to her own children.
I find the alleged reliance on Griswold a bit hard to stomach. That whole right was based on the super-douper-deep respect for the ancient history of marriage and the inability of the state to meddle in those sacred bonds. One year later, oops we were just kidding about all that. It kind of makes the game a bit obvious.
I really don’t understand the people who think that a pregnant woman deserves less rights than a man or a woman who isn’t pregnant.
That’s because you have trouble with the concept ‘weighting the intrests against each other’ since you feel that the fetus/baby does not have any till it is born. Or till it is 32 weeks, I’m not sure anymore what your exact position is.
Dianne: The 27 week abortion is probably no big deal in terms of the likelihood of killing a sentient being.
My niece was born at 27 weeks gestation. She was operated that same day because her guts were not properly attached to her stomach. If you click the link and go to 2006, oktober, you see the her picks right after birth. Are you seriously telling me that if someone killed her that first day, or that first week, it would be no big deal because she wasn’t a sentient being? Or are you telling me that you’d not have minded the doctors operating on her without painmedication?
in no other circumstance is one person allowed to use the body of another against the second person’s will, even if it is necessary for survival Of course there are circumstances where that would be allowed. But I doubt that the discussion would be helped if we discussed possible and likely contrived examples. Because this is a rather unique circumstance, pregnancy, and all comparisons are contrived.
Parents are not forced to give blood, bone marrow, or organs to their children even if they would die without them. But they are forced to give them food, cloths and protection – or rather they are punished if they don’t. And the ways to provide a fetus with those are limited.
It all depends on when you feel the fetus is entitled to protection of it’s own, when it is seen as a person in it’s own right. Which imho is a gliding scale, there is no real cut-off point – but for me it is earlier than birth.
Of course that doesn’t mean that the intrests of the fetus/baby suddenly outweights those of the mother. It’s not a relay batton that can be hold by only one person. In the Netherlands, with cheap and easily available anti-conception & free medical care & free pre-natal tests and ultrasounds & with free abortions & with euthanatia-options after birth I think it is very reasonable to have a third trimester prohibition.
In the US I don’t think the fetus/baby is less entitled to protection but I think the mother is entitled to more protection so when you weigh the intrests of the pregnant woman against those of the fetus/baby there should be more rights given to the mother.
Comparisons with forced organ transplants don’t really resonate with me. That is actively changing the status quo, but with pregnancy it is about maintaining the status quo. Also, it denies the fact that the fetus/baby had any rights at physical integrity since you allow the pregnant woman to actively kill it (is there a less loaded term than kill that I could use?).
I really don’t understand the people who think that a pregnant woman deserves less rights than a man or a woman who isn’t pregnant.
That’s because you have trouble with the concept ‘weighting the intrests against each other’ since you feel that the fetus/baby does not have any till it is born. Or till it is 32 weeks, I’m not sure anymore what your exact position is.
Dianne: The 27 week abortion is probably no big deal in terms of the likelihood of killing a sentient being.
My niece was born at 27 weeks gestation. She was operated that same day because her guts were not properly attached to her stomach. If you click the link and go to 2006, oktober, you see the her picks right after birth. Are you seriously telling me that if someone killed her that first day, or that first week, it would be no big deal because she wasn’t a sentient being? Or are you telling me that you’d not have minded the doctors operating on her without painmedication?
in no other circumstance is one person allowed to use the body of another against the second person’s will, even if it is necessary for survival Of course there are circumstances where that would be allowed. But I doubt that the discussion would be helped if we discussed possible and likely contrived examples. Because this is a rather unique circumstance, pregnancy, and all comparisons are contrived.
Parents are not forced to give blood, bone marrow, or organs to their children even if they would die without them. But they are forced to give them food, cloths and protection – or rather they are punished if they don’t. And the ways to provide a fetus with those are limited.
It all depends on when you feel the fetus is entitled to protection of it’s own, when it is seen as a person in it’s own right. Which imho is a gliding scale, there is no real cut-off point – but for me it is earlier than birth.
Of course that doesn’t mean that the intrests of the fetus/baby suddenly outweights those of the mother. It’s not a relay batton that can be hold by only one person. In the Netherlands, with cheap and easily available anti-conception & free medical care & free pre-natal tests and ultrasounds & with free abortions & with euthanatia-options after birth I think it is very reasonable to have a third trimester prohibition.
In the US I don’t think the fetus/baby is less entitled to protection but I think the mother is entitled to more protection so when you weigh the intrests of the pregnant woman against those of the fetus/baby there should be more rights given to the mother.
Comparisons with forced organ transplants don’t really resonate with me. That is actively changing the status quo, but with pregnancy it is about maintaining the status quo. Also, it denies the fact that the fetus/baby had any rights at physical integrity since you allow the pregnant woman to actively kill it (is there a less loaded term than kill that I could use?).
Marbel: That’s because you have trouble with the concept ‘weighting the intrests against each other’ since you feel that the fetus/baby does not have any till it is born.
The concept I have trouble with – or rather, reject absolutely – is that anyone but the pregnant woman can “weigh the interests against each other”.
What pro-lifers appear to swallow without question is that it’s okay to tell a pregnant woman that she can’t be permitted to make decisions about her own body, because that entails making decisions about the fetus she is carrying, and she can’t be allowed to do that because she might decide that her life or her health, or the well-being of herself and her family, is more important than deciding to have another child.
I repeat: if the pro-life movement was actually concerned about preventing abortions, pro-life organizations would rival Planned Parenthood in providing free or low-cost contraception and sex education to all: and the pro-life movement would be the strongest advocate for mandatory paid maternity leave and free health care in the US. Neither is true. Ergo, the pro-life movement is indifferent to preventing abortions.
But they are forced to give them food, cloths and protection – or rather they are punished if they don’t. And the ways to provide a fetus with those are limited.
Given that a fetus does not require food, clothing, or protection, it’s hard to see why a parent should be “punished” for not providing it with any of the above. A fetus requires the use of a woman’s body to survive.
Marbel: That’s because you have trouble with the concept ‘weighting the intrests against each other’ since you feel that the fetus/baby does not have any till it is born.
The concept I have trouble with – or rather, reject absolutely – is that anyone but the pregnant woman can “weigh the interests against each other”.
What pro-lifers appear to swallow without question is that it’s okay to tell a pregnant woman that she can’t be permitted to make decisions about her own body, because that entails making decisions about the fetus she is carrying, and she can’t be allowed to do that because she might decide that her life or her health, or the well-being of herself and her family, is more important than deciding to have another child.
I repeat: if the pro-life movement was actually concerned about preventing abortions, pro-life organizations would rival Planned Parenthood in providing free or low-cost contraception and sex education to all: and the pro-life movement would be the strongest advocate for mandatory paid maternity leave and free health care in the US. Neither is true. Ergo, the pro-life movement is indifferent to preventing abortions.
But they are forced to give them food, cloths and protection – or rather they are punished if they don’t. And the ways to provide a fetus with those are limited.
Given that a fetus does not require food, clothing, or protection, it’s hard to see why a parent should be “punished” for not providing it with any of the above. A fetus requires the use of a woman’s body to survive.
It all depends on when you feel the fetus is entitled to protection of it’s own, when it is seen as a person in it’s own right.
Well, it doesn’t need protection of it’s own till it’s born, and it can’t be a person in it’s own right till it’s born. When the woman’s pregnancy reaches the stage when early labor could be induced without harm to the fetus (32 weeks, the BMA reckons) you can certainly argue that if the woman has a need not to be pregnant any more, she must terminate the pregnancy by c-sec or induced labor if she wants to (there’s no other way to get the fetus at that point, anyway, short of a teleport) but still, the woman’s the only person who can make the final decision, given all the medical information available. The fetus can’t, and giving another person than the pregnant woman the right to “decide on behalf of the fetus” merely means giving another person the right to decide, overriding the pregnant woman’s decision, when and how she is to give birth. Why argue for that?
It all depends on when you feel the fetus is entitled to protection of it’s own, when it is seen as a person in it’s own right.
Well, it doesn’t need protection of it’s own till it’s born, and it can’t be a person in it’s own right till it’s born. When the woman’s pregnancy reaches the stage when early labor could be induced without harm to the fetus (32 weeks, the BMA reckons) you can certainly argue that if the woman has a need not to be pregnant any more, she must terminate the pregnancy by c-sec or induced labor if she wants to (there’s no other way to get the fetus at that point, anyway, short of a teleport) but still, the woman’s the only person who can make the final decision, given all the medical information available. The fetus can’t, and giving another person than the pregnant woman the right to “decide on behalf of the fetus” merely means giving another person the right to decide, overriding the pregnant woman’s decision, when and how she is to give birth. Why argue for that?
My niece was born at 27 weeks gestation…Or are you telling me that you’d not have minded the doctors operating on her without pain medication?
I won’t comment on your niece. In fact, I’m sorry that I hit that particular time point and brought up painful associations. If it were my kid, I’d want the doctors to use the minimum possible medication to suppress the stress reflexes associated with nocioception and not suppress the already low functioning cortex with unnecessary medications unless compelling evidence is found that there is a pain response in a 27 week premie. Anesthesia is dangerous and I would see using unnecessary anesthesia to relieve my anxiety as a bad idea. A 27 week old newborn is not a 27 week fetus is not a 40 week newborn is not an adult and treating them all as though they were the same is asking for trouble.
Of course there are circumstances where that [forcing one person to allow another to parasitize their body] would be allowed. But I doubt that the discussion would be helped if we discussed possible and likely contrived examples.
It’s probably wise of you to refuse to discuss it since you’re going to come up with a blank. At least, I can’t think of a single instance in which one person can be legally forced to use their body to sustain another person. At least not in the US or Europe. I have the vague idea that people in the military can be ordered to donate blood, but I’m not sure that’s even true. So go ahead, give an example, no matter how contrived.
But they are forced to give them food, cloths and protection – or rather they are punished if they don’t.
Actually, no. A person can surrender parental rights to a child and no longer have any responsibility toward that child and so will not be punished for failing to provide food, etc. In some circumstances, this is even considered an admirable thing to do.
Comparisons with forced organ transplants don’t really resonate with me. That is actively changing the status quo, but with pregnancy it is about maintaining the status quo.
Not really. One method of late abortion is simply induction of labor and allowing nature to take its course after birth. How is that different from refusing to donate an organ? Or bone marrow, which is about 10X safer than completing a pregnancy?
As I said, I don’t really have any problem with restricting elective abortion in the third trimester if earlier mentioned prerequisites are met. Six months is long enough to decide. I just think that it should be done with the acknowledgement that it is giving fetuses special rights that we never give to any person who has been born (unless you can name an example in which one person can requisition another’s body or bodily resources). It is probably best-more likely to provide good social outcomes in general–to allow these special rights to late fetuses, but let’s not get sentimental about it.
My niece was born at 27 weeks gestation…Or are you telling me that you’d not have minded the doctors operating on her without pain medication?
I won’t comment on your niece. In fact, I’m sorry that I hit that particular time point and brought up painful associations. If it were my kid, I’d want the doctors to use the minimum possible medication to suppress the stress reflexes associated with nocioception and not suppress the already low functioning cortex with unnecessary medications unless compelling evidence is found that there is a pain response in a 27 week premie. Anesthesia is dangerous and I would see using unnecessary anesthesia to relieve my anxiety as a bad idea. A 27 week old newborn is not a 27 week fetus is not a 40 week newborn is not an adult and treating them all as though they were the same is asking for trouble.
Of course there are circumstances where that [forcing one person to allow another to parasitize their body] would be allowed. But I doubt that the discussion would be helped if we discussed possible and likely contrived examples.
It’s probably wise of you to refuse to discuss it since you’re going to come up with a blank. At least, I can’t think of a single instance in which one person can be legally forced to use their body to sustain another person. At least not in the US or Europe. I have the vague idea that people in the military can be ordered to donate blood, but I’m not sure that’s even true. So go ahead, give an example, no matter how contrived.
But they are forced to give them food, cloths and protection – or rather they are punished if they don’t.
Actually, no. A person can surrender parental rights to a child and no longer have any responsibility toward that child and so will not be punished for failing to provide food, etc. In some circumstances, this is even considered an admirable thing to do.
Comparisons with forced organ transplants don’t really resonate with me. That is actively changing the status quo, but with pregnancy it is about maintaining the status quo.
Not really. One method of late abortion is simply induction of labor and allowing nature to take its course after birth. How is that different from refusing to donate an organ? Or bone marrow, which is about 10X safer than completing a pregnancy?
As I said, I don’t really have any problem with restricting elective abortion in the third trimester if earlier mentioned prerequisites are met. Six months is long enough to decide. I just think that it should be done with the acknowledgement that it is giving fetuses special rights that we never give to any person who has been born (unless you can name an example in which one person can requisition another’s body or bodily resources). It is probably best-more likely to provide good social outcomes in general–to allow these special rights to late fetuses, but let’s not get sentimental about it.
it’s
Psst, everyone, its–no apostrophe. “It’s” is a contraction for it is, not indicative of the possessive as the apostrophe usually is. Sorry, just a little grammar interlude. Please correct my spelling, grammar, or word usage in any way that you like.
it’s
Psst, everyone, its–no apostrophe. “It’s” is a contraction for it is, not indicative of the possessive as the apostrophe usually is. Sorry, just a little grammar interlude. Please correct my spelling, grammar, or word usage in any way that you like.
“I just think that it should be done with the acknowledgement that it is giving fetuses special rights that we never give to any person who has been born”
There’s the sick violinist example, of course, but it famously doesn’t prove anything. Considering hypotheticals like “Aliens handcuff you to a stranger for nine months unless you kill him” aren’t going to help much either.
It seems to me that something is considered a right or isn’t, and qualifying it with “be grateful you’re getting this because it’s a special case and nobody else benefits from it” is asking for trouble.
“I just think that it should be done with the acknowledgement that it is giving fetuses special rights that we never give to any person who has been born”
There’s the sick violinist example, of course, but it famously doesn’t prove anything. Considering hypotheticals like “Aliens handcuff you to a stranger for nine months unless you kill him” aren’t going to help much either.
It seems to me that something is considered a right or isn’t, and qualifying it with “be grateful you’re getting this because it’s a special case and nobody else benefits from it” is asking for trouble.
Dianne: At least, I can’t think of a single instance in which one person can be legally forced to use their body to sustain another person. At least not in the US or Europe.
In China, criminals condemned to death can “volunteer” to have their body parts used after death for transplants. Amnesty International (among other organizations) questions how “voluntary” that usage is. That’s the only parallel I can think of, where a person is (almost certainly) forced to give up parts of their body to sustain others: but even the Chinese government recognizes that they have to at least claim it’s voluntary.
I know of no other group but pro-lifers that claim it’s OK to force use of a human body against that person’s will: and I know of no group but pregnant woman of whom it’s claimed that it’s OK they should be so forced.
The decision of the International Criminal Court, in 1999, was that forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity.
Dianne: At least, I can’t think of a single instance in which one person can be legally forced to use their body to sustain another person. At least not in the US or Europe.
In China, criminals condemned to death can “volunteer” to have their body parts used after death for transplants. Amnesty International (among other organizations) questions how “voluntary” that usage is. That’s the only parallel I can think of, where a person is (almost certainly) forced to give up parts of their body to sustain others: but even the Chinese government recognizes that they have to at least claim it’s voluntary.
I know of no other group but pro-lifers that claim it’s OK to force use of a human body against that person’s will: and I know of no group but pregnant woman of whom it’s claimed that it’s OK they should be so forced.
The decision of the International Criminal Court, in 1999, was that forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity.
Rilke: It seems to me that something is considered a right or isn’t, and qualifying it with “be grateful you’re getting this because it’s a special case and nobody else benefits from it” is asking for trouble.
Fine. Regardless of what restrictions are placed on third trimester abortions, let us by all means not demand that fetuses express their gratitude.
*wanders off, shaking head*
Rilke: It seems to me that something is considered a right or isn’t, and qualifying it with “be grateful you’re getting this because it’s a special case and nobody else benefits from it” is asking for trouble.
Fine. Regardless of what restrictions are placed on third trimester abortions, let us by all means not demand that fetuses express their gratitude.
*wanders off, shaking head*
Incertus (Brian): But who are you to determine that for other couples?
No one at all and my opinion means zip. I’m defining the limits of my abortion support. As I noted I’m pro-choice to a point. Accidental pregnancy, rape, etc. it’s the woman’s choice.
But if you try to get pregnant and you are high risk for Downs and you then decide to abort in the second trimester based on the test – I do not support that at all. If you are high risk and want to get pregnant but then want a “do-over” I do not support it.
Jes: What is your problem with giving the pregnant woman all available information and letting her decide for herself?
See above…
Bruce: Again, just defining my boundaries when I say I am pro-choice.
Incertus (Brian): But who are you to determine that for other couples?
No one at all and my opinion means zip. I’m defining the limits of my abortion support. As I noted I’m pro-choice to a point. Accidental pregnancy, rape, etc. it’s the woman’s choice.
But if you try to get pregnant and you are high risk for Downs and you then decide to abort in the second trimester based on the test – I do not support that at all. If you are high risk and want to get pregnant but then want a “do-over” I do not support it.
Jes: What is your problem with giving the pregnant woman all available information and letting her decide for herself?
See above…
Bruce: Again, just defining my boundaries when I say I am pro-choice.
There’s the sick violinist example, of course, but it famously doesn’t prove anything. Considering hypotheticals like “Aliens handcuff you to a stranger for nine months unless you kill him” aren’t going to help much either.
I can give you a much more down to earth example, one that happens and happens relatively frequently. There are a number of diseases for which the only cure is a bone marrow transplant using bone marrow (or, more often these days, peripheral blood stem cells) from another person. The best donor is a sibling whose cell antigens closely match your own (“HLA matched”). But not everyone has sibs and not all sibs are HLA matched. So there is an organization that takes blood from volunteers, determines their HLA haplotype, and keeps the data on record. If someone needs a BMT and doesn’t have a sib donor, they can go to this registry and see if there are any stranger HLA matches available. Note that participation in this registry is entirely voluntary. No one anywhere is required to participate and if there was a question about whether a volunteer was coerced they would be removed from the pool immediately.
Now, stranger matches are relatively rare and matches from more than one stranger even more so. So if a match is found, the sick person is entirely dependent for their survival on one particular volunteer following through. If the volunteer refuses to donate their marrow or PBSC, the sick person will die. And sometimes they do refuse. They are not compelled to donate after refusal. Should volunteers be compelled to give their marrow/PBSC if they volunteer in the first place? Should all people be compelled to participate?
There’s the sick violinist example, of course, but it famously doesn’t prove anything. Considering hypotheticals like “Aliens handcuff you to a stranger for nine months unless you kill him” aren’t going to help much either.
I can give you a much more down to earth example, one that happens and happens relatively frequently. There are a number of diseases for which the only cure is a bone marrow transplant using bone marrow (or, more often these days, peripheral blood stem cells) from another person. The best donor is a sibling whose cell antigens closely match your own (“HLA matched”). But not everyone has sibs and not all sibs are HLA matched. So there is an organization that takes blood from volunteers, determines their HLA haplotype, and keeps the data on record. If someone needs a BMT and doesn’t have a sib donor, they can go to this registry and see if there are any stranger HLA matches available. Note that participation in this registry is entirely voluntary. No one anywhere is required to participate and if there was a question about whether a volunteer was coerced they would be removed from the pool immediately.
Now, stranger matches are relatively rare and matches from more than one stranger even more so. So if a match is found, the sick person is entirely dependent for their survival on one particular volunteer following through. If the volunteer refuses to donate their marrow or PBSC, the sick person will die. And sometimes they do refuse. They are not compelled to donate after refusal. Should volunteers be compelled to give their marrow/PBSC if they volunteer in the first place? Should all people be compelled to participate?
And if a sibling is HLA matched and refuses to donate, should the sibling be prosecuted for not doing so?
And if a sibling is HLA matched and refuses to donate, should the sibling be prosecuted for not doing so?
“A 27 week old newborn is not a 27 week fetus ”
Locationally yes. But intrinsically no. It turns out that the 27 week gestated preemie is exactly the same as a 27 week gestated fetus. And that is precisely the point dutchmarbel is making.
“But they are forced to give them food, cloths and protection – or rather they are punished if they don’t.
Actually, no. A person can surrender parental rights to a child and no longer have any responsibility toward that child and so will not be punished for failing to provide food, etc.”
Actually a woman can do that. For the most part if by ‘person’ you include men, they can’t give up parental rights to avoid having welfare responsibilities. If you are a man you can totally disclaim parental rights and still be prosecuted if you don’t support the child. Which really is a whole different debate, I point it out not because I have some sort of men’s rights concern but only because your dismissal of dutchmarbel’s point is only accurate for half the population.
“One method of late abortion is simply induction of labor and allowing nature to take its course after birth.”
Not in the US it isn’t. If you induce labor, deliver the baby completely and just let it die you are seriously risking murder charges or at the very least manslaughter. That is why partial-birth abortions exist at all. The abortionist has to be sure to kill the ‘fetus’ before it becomes a ‘baby’ by exiting the womb. If for some reason you fail to kill it before it exits the womb, you aren’t performing an abortion, you are performing clear infanticide. This is true even under Jesurgislac’s definitions–the mother no longer has any danger associated with the now born baby, and no physical ‘forced support’. There are cases where the late term abortion has failed, and there is now a good child wandering around in the world. If there are indeed ‘abortions’ happening like you describe, I’m appalled.
“A 27 week old newborn is not a 27 week fetus ”
Locationally yes. But intrinsically no. It turns out that the 27 week gestated preemie is exactly the same as a 27 week gestated fetus. And that is precisely the point dutchmarbel is making.
“But they are forced to give them food, cloths and protection – or rather they are punished if they don’t.
Actually, no. A person can surrender parental rights to a child and no longer have any responsibility toward that child and so will not be punished for failing to provide food, etc.”
Actually a woman can do that. For the most part if by ‘person’ you include men, they can’t give up parental rights to avoid having welfare responsibilities. If you are a man you can totally disclaim parental rights and still be prosecuted if you don’t support the child. Which really is a whole different debate, I point it out not because I have some sort of men’s rights concern but only because your dismissal of dutchmarbel’s point is only accurate for half the population.
“One method of late abortion is simply induction of labor and allowing nature to take its course after birth.”
Not in the US it isn’t. If you induce labor, deliver the baby completely and just let it die you are seriously risking murder charges or at the very least manslaughter. That is why partial-birth abortions exist at all. The abortionist has to be sure to kill the ‘fetus’ before it becomes a ‘baby’ by exiting the womb. If for some reason you fail to kill it before it exits the womb, you aren’t performing an abortion, you are performing clear infanticide. This is true even under Jesurgislac’s definitions–the mother no longer has any danger associated with the now born baby, and no physical ‘forced support’. There are cases where the late term abortion has failed, and there is now a good child wandering around in the world. If there are indeed ‘abortions’ happening like you describe, I’m appalled.
Dianne: That is highly dependent on the age of the woman and other factors.
My info is likely way out of date, so thanks for the clarification. I did specify younger women. As I understand it the risk of DS is 1:800, the risk of losing the baby due to the tests is 1:200 (higher for CVS).
Again, I’m not arguing at all about the legality of abortion. Just where my boundaries are…
Dianne: That is highly dependent on the age of the woman and other factors.
My info is likely way out of date, so thanks for the clarification. I did specify younger women. As I understand it the risk of DS is 1:800, the risk of losing the baby due to the tests is 1:200 (higher for CVS).
Again, I’m not arguing at all about the legality of abortion. Just where my boundaries are…
But intrinsically no. It turns out that the 27 week gestated preemie is exactly the same as a 27 week gestated fetus.
Not remotely, Sebastian. A premature baby, or “premie”, even one that has been gestated for only 27 weeks and has (statistically) only a 70% chance of survival and an 85% chance of survival without severe morbidity, has been born.
A 27-week fetus is still unborn. The differences between a fetus and a baby are considerable, and I would recommend you go look them up before you start trying to claim that a baby is identical to a fetus.
But intrinsically no. It turns out that the 27 week gestated preemie is exactly the same as a 27 week gestated fetus.
Not remotely, Sebastian. A premature baby, or “premie”, even one that has been gestated for only 27 weeks and has (statistically) only a 70% chance of survival and an 85% chance of survival without severe morbidity, has been born.
A 27-week fetus is still unborn. The differences between a fetus and a baby are considerable, and I would recommend you go look them up before you start trying to claim that a baby is identical to a fetus.
My info is likely way out of date, so thanks for the clarification. I did specify younger women. As I understand it the risk of DS is 1:800, the risk of losing the baby due to the tests is 1:200 (higher for CVS).
OCSteve,
For a healthy persons with no symptoms whatsoever, the risk of serious complications from a brain biopsy is much greater than the risk of dying from a brain tumor. Fortunately, we don’t give healthy asymptomatic people brain biopsies.
In the same way, amnio is usually targeted at at-risk populations for whom the risk calculus is very different than your typical healthy 25 year old mother.
My info is likely way out of date, so thanks for the clarification. I did specify younger women. As I understand it the risk of DS is 1:800, the risk of losing the baby due to the tests is 1:200 (higher for CVS).
OCSteve,
For a healthy persons with no symptoms whatsoever, the risk of serious complications from a brain biopsy is much greater than the risk of dying from a brain tumor. Fortunately, we don’t give healthy asymptomatic people brain biopsies.
In the same way, amnio is usually targeted at at-risk populations for whom the risk calculus is very different than your typical healthy 25 year old mother.
Sebastian: That is why partial-birth abortions exist at all. The abortionist has to be sure to kill the ‘fetus’ before it becomes a ‘baby’ by exiting the womb.
No, Sebastian, that’s not why IDX is performed. IDX is performed because it can be the safest method of aborting a fetus where the intact skull is too large to safely pass the cervix. This can be necessary as early as 13 weeks. The obstetrician who developed IDX as a means of more safely performing abortions did not do so to prevent doctors being prosecuted for murder: only pro-lifers would think up something that nonsensical.
Sebastian: That is why partial-birth abortions exist at all. The abortionist has to be sure to kill the ‘fetus’ before it becomes a ‘baby’ by exiting the womb.
No, Sebastian, that’s not why IDX is performed. IDX is performed because it can be the safest method of aborting a fetus where the intact skull is too large to safely pass the cervix. This can be necessary as early as 13 weeks. The obstetrician who developed IDX as a means of more safely performing abortions did not do so to prevent doctors being prosecuted for murder: only pro-lifers would think up something that nonsensical.
“The differences between a fetus and a baby are considerable, and I would recommend you go look them up before you start trying to claim that a baby is identical to a fetus.”
At 27 weeks they are identical in or out of the womb. The fact that out-of-the-womb they are more likely to die is not because of physical differences in the fetus, but rather because medical technology isn’t as good at taking care of a 27 week fetus/baby as a mother’s body typically is.
“The differences between a fetus and a baby are considerable, and I would recommend you go look them up before you start trying to claim that a baby is identical to a fetus.”
At 27 weeks they are identical in or out of the womb. The fact that out-of-the-womb they are more likely to die is not because of physical differences in the fetus, but rather because medical technology isn’t as good at taking care of a 27 week fetus/baby as a mother’s body typically is.
I was removed via C-section 10 weeks early (2 lbs. 4 oz.) to keep my mother from bleeding to death; fortunately, for me, my parents lived outside of Hartford, Connecticut, which at the time had one of the most advanced neonatal care facilities in the country.
They were not required to file a birth certificate until one week after the operation, so had I “died” in that period, I presume I would have been listed as a stillbirth or medically necessary abortion, even though I had been alive outside the womb for a short period of time. I think this type of circumstance is what Jes had in mind when she said “let nature take its course.”
I was removed via C-section 10 weeks early (2 lbs. 4 oz.) to keep my mother from bleeding to death; fortunately, for me, my parents lived outside of Hartford, Connecticut, which at the time had one of the most advanced neonatal care facilities in the country.
They were not required to file a birth certificate until one week after the operation, so had I “died” in that period, I presume I would have been listed as a stillbirth or medically necessary abortion, even though I had been alive outside the womb for a short period of time. I think this type of circumstance is what Jes had in mind when she said “let nature take its course.”
BTW Jes, are you ok with the ‘abortion’ Dianne describes: inducing labor and letting the intact baby die of neglect after birth?
BTW Jes, are you ok with the ‘abortion’ Dianne describes: inducing labor and letting the intact baby die of neglect after birth?
Juno and Abortion: Maybe Pro-Life Side Has More to Learn FromIt
publius over at Obsidian Wings gets it right on the issue of Juno, a movie that many on the right are billing as a powerful pro-life movie. Worth a read.
As Matt Zietlin notes:
The reason Juno is able to go through with the pregnancy is …
Juno and Abortion: Maybe Pro-Life Side Has More to Learn FromIt
publius over at Obsidian Wings gets it right on the issue of Juno, a movie that many on the right are billing as a powerful pro-life movie. Worth a read.
As Matt Zietlin notes:
The reason Juno is able to go through with the pregnancy is …
Sebastian: At 27 weeks they are identical in or out of the womb.
Oh, go look up the facts in a medical textbook, Sebastian. They’re not, and arguing that they are just makes you look ignorant.
Priest: Uh, that was Dianne, not me.
Sebastian: BTW Jes, are you ok with the ‘abortion’ Dianne describes: inducing labor and letting the intact baby die of neglect after birth?
I would not be OK with inducing labor as a method of abortion unless all other methods of abortion are either legally forbidden or medically advised as unsafe. The decision whether or not to abort has to be down to the pregnant woman in each instance, but I think that although the woman should have a reasonable amount of input into the method used, the final decision as to method ought to be down to the attending physician, who ought to be the person best informed as to which method is safest for their patient, and who ought to use that method.
According to what I have read, inducing labor is rarely the safest method of abortion: when it is, yes, it should be used.
I really don’t think there’s a terrible lot of point in trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution for any abortions after 24 weeks. Each one will be different, each one will be carried out for different reasons and in different circumstances, they are extremely rare, and why again is it that it’s not acceptable to go with the individual judgment of the attending physician(s), the woman, and/or her medical proxy? That’s my option: what’s your problem with it?
Sebastian: At 27 weeks they are identical in or out of the womb.
Oh, go look up the facts in a medical textbook, Sebastian. They’re not, and arguing that they are just makes you look ignorant.
Priest: Uh, that was Dianne, not me.
Sebastian: BTW Jes, are you ok with the ‘abortion’ Dianne describes: inducing labor and letting the intact baby die of neglect after birth?
I would not be OK with inducing labor as a method of abortion unless all other methods of abortion are either legally forbidden or medically advised as unsafe. The decision whether or not to abort has to be down to the pregnant woman in each instance, but I think that although the woman should have a reasonable amount of input into the method used, the final decision as to method ought to be down to the attending physician, who ought to be the person best informed as to which method is safest for their patient, and who ought to use that method.
According to what I have read, inducing labor is rarely the safest method of abortion: when it is, yes, it should be used.
I really don’t think there’s a terrible lot of point in trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution for any abortions after 24 weeks. Each one will be different, each one will be carried out for different reasons and in different circumstances, they are extremely rare, and why again is it that it’s not acceptable to go with the individual judgment of the attending physician(s), the woman, and/or her medical proxy? That’s my option: what’s your problem with it?
Re marrow donation, I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with a system of morals that weighs physical autonomy against human life and decided for human life in this case. Consider a hypo where a swab of the mouth to harvest a few stem cells, not an unpleasant invasive operation, was sufficient to cure a dying patient – would you be opposed to laws mandating such donations?
And of course an important difference here is the often voluntary nature of the genesis of the situation.
There is of course a commonly-held principle saying that one is not obliged to help someone in need – a strong swimmer doesn’t need to rescue someone drowning in a puddle – but I tend not to find that convincing.
Re marrow donation, I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with a system of morals that weighs physical autonomy against human life and decided for human life in this case. Consider a hypo where a swab of the mouth to harvest a few stem cells, not an unpleasant invasive operation, was sufficient to cure a dying patient – would you be opposed to laws mandating such donations?
And of course an important difference here is the often voluntary nature of the genesis of the situation.
There is of course a commonly-held principle saying that one is not obliged to help someone in need – a strong swimmer doesn’t need to rescue someone drowning in a puddle – but I tend not to find that convincing.
But if you try to get pregnant and you are high risk for Downs and you then decide to abort in the second trimester based on the test – I do not support that at all. If you are high risk and want to get pregnant but then want a “do-over” I do not support it.
No one is asking you to support it. All pro-choicers are asking you to do is not try to make it against the law–there’s a huge freaking gulf between the two.
But if you try to get pregnant and you are high risk for Downs and you then decide to abort in the second trimester based on the test – I do not support that at all. If you are high risk and want to get pregnant but then want a “do-over” I do not support it.
No one is asking you to support it. All pro-choicers are asking you to do is not try to make it against the law–there’s a huge freaking gulf between the two.
Jesurgislas: I really don’t think there’s a terrible lot of point in trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution for any abortions after 24 weeks. Each one will be different, each one will be carried out for different reasons and in different circumstances, they are extremely rare, and why again is it that it’s not acceptable to go with the individual judgment of the attending physician(s), the woman, and/or her medical proxy? That’s my option: what’s your problem with it?
I would certainly agree that such cases need to be judged on a case by case basis, but the problem is surely that the needs of two individuals are now in play and one of the two is incapable of acting, speaking and defending its (grammar) rights. The role of the state in this is defense of the rights of those unable to act for themselves.
Jesurgislas: I really don’t think there’s a terrible lot of point in trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution for any abortions after 24 weeks. Each one will be different, each one will be carried out for different reasons and in different circumstances, they are extremely rare, and why again is it that it’s not acceptable to go with the individual judgment of the attending physician(s), the woman, and/or her medical proxy? That’s my option: what’s your problem with it?
I would certainly agree that such cases need to be judged on a case by case basis, but the problem is surely that the needs of two individuals are now in play and one of the two is incapable of acting, speaking and defending its (grammar) rights. The role of the state in this is defense of the rights of those unable to act for themselves.
Rilkefan: Consider a hypo where a swab of the mouth to harvest a few stem cells, not an unpleasant invasive operation, was sufficient to cure a dying patient – would you be opposed to laws mandating such donations?
Yes. Just as I am opposed to a law that would require a person with a rare blood group to show up at a blood center every six weeks and provide a pint. Is mandatory provision of blood something you would support, Rilke? How about mandatory kidney transplant?
Barnabas: but the problem is surely that the needs of two individuals are now in play and one of the two is incapable of acting, speaking and defending its (grammar) rights.
Is that in and of itself a good reason for the state being allowed to remove the right to decide on her own treatment from the one who is capable of using judgement? If a patient in a coma needs a liver transplant to survive, is this a good reason for the state to find the best available donor and force that donor to submit to a live liver transplant?
Rilkefan: Consider a hypo where a swab of the mouth to harvest a few stem cells, not an unpleasant invasive operation, was sufficient to cure a dying patient – would you be opposed to laws mandating such donations?
Yes. Just as I am opposed to a law that would require a person with a rare blood group to show up at a blood center every six weeks and provide a pint. Is mandatory provision of blood something you would support, Rilke? How about mandatory kidney transplant?
Barnabas: but the problem is surely that the needs of two individuals are now in play and one of the two is incapable of acting, speaking and defending its (grammar) rights.
Is that in and of itself a good reason for the state being allowed to remove the right to decide on her own treatment from the one who is capable of using judgement? If a patient in a coma needs a liver transplant to survive, is this a good reason for the state to find the best available donor and force that donor to submit to a live liver transplant?
Rilke: Re marrow donation, I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with a system of morals that weighs physical autonomy against human life and decided for human life in this case.
Okay, so you’re explicitly for everyone being available on the marrow donor registry, failure to submit to testing for compatibility a prosecutable offense, failure to provide marrow when a compatible recipient is found also illegal. Given that, I suppose it’s needless to inquire if you’re on a bone marrow registry, Rilke: you would hardly advocate that it should be criminal not to be unless you were registered yourself.
Rilke: Re marrow donation, I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with a system of morals that weighs physical autonomy against human life and decided for human life in this case.
Okay, so you’re explicitly for everyone being available on the marrow donor registry, failure to submit to testing for compatibility a prosecutable offense, failure to provide marrow when a compatible recipient is found also illegal. Given that, I suppose it’s needless to inquire if you’re on a bone marrow registry, Rilke: you would hardly advocate that it should be criminal not to be unless you were registered yourself.
Consider a hypo where a swab of the mouth to harvest a few stem cells, not an unpleasant invasive operation, was sufficient to cure a dying patient – would you be opposed to laws mandating such donations?
That, alas, is still in the realm of science fiction. Bone marrow donation is a painful, invasive procedure (though less painful than labor*) with a definite morbidity and mortality (though far less of either than pregnancy). Consider that you’re suggesting forcing someone to undergo 50-100 bone marrow biopsies, not just a cheek swab. Or, if PBSCT is used, to undergo multiple injections with a drug that may cause bony pain and fever followed by several hours of sitting and getting blood pheresed. Both have a mortality rate of around 1 in 100,000 (compared to 10-15/100,000 for pregnancy). Still up for legally forcing people to donate? Of course, if you say no then you’re saying that it’s ok if people die from curable diseases, so I must admit that ends up being a “have you stopped beating your husband yet?” questions. Sorry about that, but I’m afraid it’s reality.
*Yes, I know what both feel like.
Consider a hypo where a swab of the mouth to harvest a few stem cells, not an unpleasant invasive operation, was sufficient to cure a dying patient – would you be opposed to laws mandating such donations?
That, alas, is still in the realm of science fiction. Bone marrow donation is a painful, invasive procedure (though less painful than labor*) with a definite morbidity and mortality (though far less of either than pregnancy). Consider that you’re suggesting forcing someone to undergo 50-100 bone marrow biopsies, not just a cheek swab. Or, if PBSCT is used, to undergo multiple injections with a drug that may cause bony pain and fever followed by several hours of sitting and getting blood pheresed. Both have a mortality rate of around 1 in 100,000 (compared to 10-15/100,000 for pregnancy). Still up for legally forcing people to donate? Of course, if you say no then you’re saying that it’s ok if people die from curable diseases, so I must admit that ends up being a “have you stopped beating your husband yet?” questions. Sorry about that, but I’m afraid it’s reality.
*Yes, I know what both feel like.
I have a surfiet of imagination and mischief. If there is a need for a contrived analogy to pregancy, consider this: a person inhabits a diving bell under the surface of the ocean. Power, warmth and oxygen supplies are piped from a ship on the surface.
What is then the responsibility of those operating the ship and should the law intervene if they decided for one reason or another to abandon their post?
I have a surfiet of imagination and mischief. If there is a need for a contrived analogy to pregancy, consider this: a person inhabits a diving bell under the surface of the ocean. Power, warmth and oxygen supplies are piped from a ship on the surface.
What is then the responsibility of those operating the ship and should the law intervene if they decided for one reason or another to abandon their post?
The decision of the International Criminal Court, in 1999, was that forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity.
yeah. They even defined forced pregnancy: “(f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;”
Dianne: So if a match is found, the sick person is entirely dependent for their survival on one particular volunteer following through. If the volunteer refuses to donate their marrow or PBSC, the sick person will die. And sometimes they do refuse. They are not compelled to donate after refusal. Should volunteers be compelled to give their marrow/PBSC if they volunteer in the first place? Should all people be compelled to participate?
But that, again, is about *giving* something, not about withholding something. Being in the named register I’m well aware of it. But what if I donated bloodmarrow… or no, a clearer example; what if I donated a kidney or a piece of my liver – and once it was in the other persons body I would want it back? Suppose the other person was a kid? So first I made the kid dependent of part of my body, and than I’d want it back?
Do you really feel that the growing fetus is a part of the female’s body till it is born? Would it be allright to … eh… sell it’s organs, or bonemarrow, or eggs – as long as those were harvested before birth?
Jes: A premature baby, or “premie”, even one that has been gestated for only 27 weeks and has (statistically) only a 70% chance of survival and an 85% chance of survival without severe morbidity
Ah, only a 70% chance of survival. So on average 7 out of every 10 born survives and 6 of those .. eh, don’t die? I don’t understand what you mean by morbidity.
Jes: IDX is performed because it can be the safest method of aborting a fetus where the intact skull is too large to safely pass the cervix. This can be necessary as early as 13 weeks.
there are not many fetus with intact skulls who are too large to safely pass the cervix. My third one was more than 11 pounds with a biiiiig skull and both he and I survived fine. Dr. Science explained in an earlier post some of the circumstances where an partial birth procedure would be safer, but ‘big skull’ wasn’t among them.
Jes: but I think that although the woman should have a reasonable amount of input into the method used, the final decision as to method ought to be down to the attending physician, who ought to be the person best informed as to which method is safest for their patient, and who ought to use that method.
Butbutbut… shouldn’t the pregnant woman decide everything? I thought you didn’t want doctor’s input in the decision about the pregnant womans body, let alone let him or her have the final say.
The decision of the International Criminal Court, in 1999, was that forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity.
yeah. They even defined forced pregnancy: “(f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;”
Dianne: So if a match is found, the sick person is entirely dependent for their survival on one particular volunteer following through. If the volunteer refuses to donate their marrow or PBSC, the sick person will die. And sometimes they do refuse. They are not compelled to donate after refusal. Should volunteers be compelled to give their marrow/PBSC if they volunteer in the first place? Should all people be compelled to participate?
But that, again, is about *giving* something, not about withholding something. Being in the named register I’m well aware of it. But what if I donated bloodmarrow… or no, a clearer example; what if I donated a kidney or a piece of my liver – and once it was in the other persons body I would want it back? Suppose the other person was a kid? So first I made the kid dependent of part of my body, and than I’d want it back?
Do you really feel that the growing fetus is a part of the female’s body till it is born? Would it be allright to … eh… sell it’s organs, or bonemarrow, or eggs – as long as those were harvested before birth?
Jes: A premature baby, or “premie”, even one that has been gestated for only 27 weeks and has (statistically) only a 70% chance of survival and an 85% chance of survival without severe morbidity
Ah, only a 70% chance of survival. So on average 7 out of every 10 born survives and 6 of those .. eh, don’t die? I don’t understand what you mean by morbidity.
Jes: IDX is performed because it can be the safest method of aborting a fetus where the intact skull is too large to safely pass the cervix. This can be necessary as early as 13 weeks.
there are not many fetus with intact skulls who are too large to safely pass the cervix. My third one was more than 11 pounds with a biiiiig skull and both he and I survived fine. Dr. Science explained in an earlier post some of the circumstances where an partial birth procedure would be safer, but ‘big skull’ wasn’t among them.
Jes: but I think that although the woman should have a reasonable amount of input into the method used, the final decision as to method ought to be down to the attending physician, who ought to be the person best informed as to which method is safest for their patient, and who ought to use that method.
Butbutbut… shouldn’t the pregnant woman decide everything? I thought you didn’t want doctor’s input in the decision about the pregnant womans body, let alone let him or her have the final say.
Re marrow donation, I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with a system of morals that weighs physical autonomy against human life and decided for human life in this case.
I actually was a bone marrow donor for a sibling.
Prior to the operation, my sibling’s physician took me aside to ask me if I was sure I wanted to go through with it. If I did not, he offered to cover for me by manufacturing some medical reason for my not going through with the operation.
This was all in confidence, and it was made absolutely clear to me that had I decided not to go through with it, noone but me and the doctor would be the wiser.
There was some risk to me in being a donor, but that wasn’t the issue at hand. It was purely a matter of my comfort level and willingness to proceed.
IMO that was completely the correct thing for my sib’s physician to do.
Abortion completely to the side, I’m not sure we want to open the door to coercive surrender of bodily tissue, no matter how good the reason.
Thanks –
Re marrow donation, I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with a system of morals that weighs physical autonomy against human life and decided for human life in this case.
I actually was a bone marrow donor for a sibling.
Prior to the operation, my sibling’s physician took me aside to ask me if I was sure I wanted to go through with it. If I did not, he offered to cover for me by manufacturing some medical reason for my not going through with the operation.
This was all in confidence, and it was made absolutely clear to me that had I decided not to go through with it, noone but me and the doctor would be the wiser.
There was some risk to me in being a donor, but that wasn’t the issue at hand. It was purely a matter of my comfort level and willingness to proceed.
IMO that was completely the correct thing for my sib’s physician to do.
Abortion completely to the side, I’m not sure we want to open the door to coercive surrender of bodily tissue, no matter how good the reason.
Thanks –
I mean bonemarrow, not bloodmarrow. You register via the bloodbank when you donate blood, which may be why I mixed it up. Or I should just go to bed ;).
Dianne: you didn’t say sustain someone elses body, you said use someone elses body. If I lift my baby over the balcony of a high flat and hold her there with one hand, should I be entitled to opening my hand just because I feel like opening them? After all it is my hand and my body…
I mean bonemarrow, not bloodmarrow. You register via the bloodbank when you donate blood, which may be why I mixed it up. Or I should just go to bed ;).
Dianne: you didn’t say sustain someone elses body, you said use someone elses body. If I lift my baby over the balcony of a high flat and hold her there with one hand, should I be entitled to opening my hand just because I feel like opening them? After all it is my hand and my body…
Abortion completely to the side, I’m not sure we want to open the door to coercive surrender of bodily tissue, no matter how good the reason.
I agree. However, abortion can not be to the side when considering this issue because forced pregnancy involves the coercive surrender of bodily tissue and nutrients. So if we restrict abortion in any way at all then we have opened that door. It may be that pregnancy is such a special case that the door would not open any wider without further shoving. Or maybe not. Once a precedent is set…
BTW, I hope I’m not making marrow donation sound unattractive. Actually, it’s not either particularly painful or particularly dangerous. I’m in the registry personally (though my chances of being called on are low for a number of reasons). The bone marrow biopsies I mentioned would be done under anesthetic, so they aren’t actually painful (though expect a sore hip afterwards) and frankly the risk is probably offset by the benefit of having a thorough physical and having any donor health problems uncovered and treated. (Anecdotally, I know of one person who had a benign tumor discovered during the pre-donation work-up. It was removed and he was told to stop the @#&($ smoking or the next one might be malignant.) In short, voluntary donation is good but coercive donation is bad. I feel much the same way about pregnancy.
Abortion completely to the side, I’m not sure we want to open the door to coercive surrender of bodily tissue, no matter how good the reason.
I agree. However, abortion can not be to the side when considering this issue because forced pregnancy involves the coercive surrender of bodily tissue and nutrients. So if we restrict abortion in any way at all then we have opened that door. It may be that pregnancy is such a special case that the door would not open any wider without further shoving. Or maybe not. Once a precedent is set…
BTW, I hope I’m not making marrow donation sound unattractive. Actually, it’s not either particularly painful or particularly dangerous. I’m in the registry personally (though my chances of being called on are low for a number of reasons). The bone marrow biopsies I mentioned would be done under anesthetic, so they aren’t actually painful (though expect a sore hip afterwards) and frankly the risk is probably offset by the benefit of having a thorough physical and having any donor health problems uncovered and treated. (Anecdotally, I know of one person who had a benign tumor discovered during the pre-donation work-up. It was removed and he was told to stop the @#&($ smoking or the next one might be malignant.) In short, voluntary donation is good but coercive donation is bad. I feel much the same way about pregnancy.
there are not many fetus with intact skulls who are too large to safely pass the cervix.
Normal fetuses with normal positioning yes, abnormal no. Consider hydrocephalus. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus can have a skull twice normal size. With no brain. It’s not pretty. Also if the fetus is stuck in an abnormal position, its head may not be able to clear the cervix. One could deliver the fetus by c-section, but that would leave the woman’s fertility compromised. Only a very slight compromise, true, but to what purpose?
there are not many fetus with intact skulls who are too large to safely pass the cervix.
Normal fetuses with normal positioning yes, abnormal no. Consider hydrocephalus. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus can have a skull twice normal size. With no brain. It’s not pretty. Also if the fetus is stuck in an abnormal position, its head may not be able to clear the cervix. One could deliver the fetus by c-section, but that would leave the woman’s fertility compromised. Only a very slight compromise, true, but to what purpose?
Barnabas: If there is a need for a contrived analogy to pregancy, consider this: a person inhabits a diving bell under the surface of the ocean. Power, warmth and oxygen supplies are piped from a ship on the surface.
It’s typical for pro-lifers to come up with “analogies” that avoid the real issue: forced use of a woman’s body.
Marbel: there are not many fetus with intact skulls who are too large to safely pass the cervix.
So? The reason for IDX being available is that sometimes a fetal skull is too large to pass the cervix safely.
Ah, only a 70% chance of survival. So on average 7 out of every 10 born survives and 6 of those .. eh, don’t die?
Sorry: technical terms. Mortality means just that: the premature baby will die. Severe morbidity means that the premature baby survives with permanent damage, which may result in a severely decreased lifespan. Roughly speaking, at 27 weeks, 7 out of 10 premies will survive – this is highly variable and depends on the baby’s weight, as well as how long it has been gestating. (cite) I find the figures for severe morbidity harder to understand, but yes, the earlier birth, and presumably the lower the bodyweight, the more risk that survival past birth won’t mean long-term survival.
Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Yes, the Rome Statute, Article 7. There is an outline here by HRW on how rape came to be recognized as a crime against humanity: I would guess that the forced pregnancies in the Congo will be found to fall under international criminal law: Amnesty International has already recognized forced pregnancy as a humanitarian offense which they will actively campaign against. This will apply in principle only to countries in war zones where women are made pregnant by rape and the governing authorities do not permit abortion under any circumstances: it would most likely, therefore, not apply in the US, though it could ensure that American soldiers in a war zone, if they are raped, are legally entitled to be able to get an abortion from the local military clinic, rather than being forced to travel back to the US and pay for it out of their own pocket and on their own time.
Barnabas: If there is a need for a contrived analogy to pregancy, consider this: a person inhabits a diving bell under the surface of the ocean. Power, warmth and oxygen supplies are piped from a ship on the surface.
It’s typical for pro-lifers to come up with “analogies” that avoid the real issue: forced use of a woman’s body.
Marbel: there are not many fetus with intact skulls who are too large to safely pass the cervix.
So? The reason for IDX being available is that sometimes a fetal skull is too large to pass the cervix safely.
Ah, only a 70% chance of survival. So on average 7 out of every 10 born survives and 6 of those .. eh, don’t die?
Sorry: technical terms. Mortality means just that: the premature baby will die. Severe morbidity means that the premature baby survives with permanent damage, which may result in a severely decreased lifespan. Roughly speaking, at 27 weeks, 7 out of 10 premies will survive – this is highly variable and depends on the baby’s weight, as well as how long it has been gestating. (cite) I find the figures for severe morbidity harder to understand, but yes, the earlier birth, and presumably the lower the bodyweight, the more risk that survival past birth won’t mean long-term survival.
Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Yes, the Rome Statute, Article 7. There is an outline here by HRW on how rape came to be recognized as a crime against humanity: I would guess that the forced pregnancies in the Congo will be found to fall under international criminal law: Amnesty International has already recognized forced pregnancy as a humanitarian offense which they will actively campaign against. This will apply in principle only to countries in war zones where women are made pregnant by rape and the governing authorities do not permit abortion under any circumstances: it would most likely, therefore, not apply in the US, though it could ensure that American soldiers in a war zone, if they are raped, are legally entitled to be able to get an abortion from the local military clinic, rather than being forced to travel back to the US and pay for it out of their own pocket and on their own time.
Oh, I agree Dianne, there are circumstances. I’ve said earlier that I opposed the ban on IDX. But skulls that are too large as from 13 weeks??? AFAIK IDX is mainly performed after 18 weeks, isn’t it?
Oh, I agree Dianne, there are circumstances. I’ve said earlier that I opposed the ban on IDX. But skulls that are too large as from 13 weeks??? AFAIK IDX is mainly performed after 18 weeks, isn’t it?
But skulls that are too large as from 13 weeks???
I don’t hold to it: I can’t find a cite. It comes down to “I remember reading somewhere” – but given normal variation in size of skull and size of cervix, I wouldn’t have thought it impossible, especially if the fetus is hydrocephalic.
But skulls that are too large as from 13 weeks???
I don’t hold to it: I can’t find a cite. It comes down to “I remember reading somewhere” – but given normal variation in size of skull and size of cervix, I wouldn’t have thought it impossible, especially if the fetus is hydrocephalic.
Jes: you cited the ICC and I quoted their definition for you. Switching to other intstitutions and other definitions makes the original point rather incomprehensible.
We are discussing third trimester abortions aren’t we? Since everybody agrees that early abortions should be the womans decision only so they are not part of the controverse.
I have difficulty judging what ‘sever morbidity’ would mean. Is that being in a wheelchair all your life? Is that a condition that will end your life rather soon? Is that a learning disorder? Wearing thick glasses? But 7 out of 10 and 6 of those without severe disabilities; I’d be pretty miffed if they decided to let my baby die because they thought those chances were too bad. And if the child was still in the womb I’d feel the same way, especially since I have a very vivid image of a 27 week old fetus just after it left the womb – and the 14 months old toddler it grew into (no painfull memories Dianna, but a stressfull period at the time).
Since midnight was more than two hours ago I’m off to bed now.
Jes: you cited the ICC and I quoted their definition for you. Switching to other intstitutions and other definitions makes the original point rather incomprehensible.
We are discussing third trimester abortions aren’t we? Since everybody agrees that early abortions should be the womans decision only so they are not part of the controverse.
I have difficulty judging what ‘sever morbidity’ would mean. Is that being in a wheelchair all your life? Is that a condition that will end your life rather soon? Is that a learning disorder? Wearing thick glasses? But 7 out of 10 and 6 of those without severe disabilities; I’d be pretty miffed if they decided to let my baby die because they thought those chances were too bad. And if the child was still in the womb I’d feel the same way, especially since I have a very vivid image of a 27 week old fetus just after it left the womb – and the 14 months old toddler it grew into (no painfull memories Dianna, but a stressfull period at the time).
Since midnight was more than two hours ago I’m off to bed now.
Since everybody agrees that early abortions should be the womans decision only
Do they? The difficulty in the US is that there are many powerful groups and politicians who profess the belief that women should never be allowed to make the decision to have an abortion, no matter how early: who even oppose the provision of a contraceptive pill, on the (false) grounds that the pill prevents implantation and is therefore an abortifacient, and a woman has no right to abort even by preventing implantation. As you yourself have acknowledged, the reason why late-term abortions have to be allowed in the US is because one strategy for the forced-pregnancy activists is to prevent women having access to means of prevention or early abortion.
I have difficulty judging what ‘sever morbidity’ would mean.
Well, in another BMJ article I read (which I was trying to find) they point out that “severe morbidity” can mean “dead before their 5th birthday”, as well as “never able to walk, talk, feed themselves”.
I’d be pretty miffed if they decided to let my baby die because they thought those chances were too bad.
I’d be outraged on your behalf. You get to decide, not the doctors, if you want them to keep your baby alive at all costs and no matter what the baby’s quality of life and length of life might be: while it may constitute a form of child abuse if (to take an extreme example) a mother wants to keep a child alive for five years in permanent pain with no chance of long-term survival, I think in general it’s way too risky to give the decision when to give up, to anyone but the child’s parents.
Since everybody agrees that early abortions should be the womans decision only
Do they? The difficulty in the US is that there are many powerful groups and politicians who profess the belief that women should never be allowed to make the decision to have an abortion, no matter how early: who even oppose the provision of a contraceptive pill, on the (false) grounds that the pill prevents implantation and is therefore an abortifacient, and a woman has no right to abort even by preventing implantation. As you yourself have acknowledged, the reason why late-term abortions have to be allowed in the US is because one strategy for the forced-pregnancy activists is to prevent women having access to means of prevention or early abortion.
I have difficulty judging what ‘sever morbidity’ would mean.
Well, in another BMJ article I read (which I was trying to find) they point out that “severe morbidity” can mean “dead before their 5th birthday”, as well as “never able to walk, talk, feed themselves”.
I’d be pretty miffed if they decided to let my baby die because they thought those chances were too bad.
I’d be outraged on your behalf. You get to decide, not the doctors, if you want them to keep your baby alive at all costs and no matter what the baby’s quality of life and length of life might be: while it may constitute a form of child abuse if (to take an extreme example) a mother wants to keep a child alive for five years in permanent pain with no chance of long-term survival, I think in general it’s way too risky to give the decision when to give up, to anyone but the child’s parents.
I agree. However, abortion can not be to the side when considering this issue because forced pregnancy involves the coercive surrender of bodily tissue and nutrients.
Understood. I’m just loathe to wade in on the topic of abortion per se.
If a fetus is, truly and fully, a human life, abortion is hard to defend. If it’s not, then not.
To answer whether a fetus is a human life, and at what point, requires that you define what life is, and what being human is. Those are questions that are, frankly, so far above my pay grade that I can’t begin to hazard an answer. So, I try to stay out of it.
I just don’t know the answer.
BTW, I hope I’m not making marrow donation sound unattractive. Actually, it’s not either particularly painful or particularly dangerous.
FWIW, the procedure was a piece of cake, and that was almost 30 years ago. Nowadays, I’m sure it’s a walk in the park. Nobody should be afraid of it.
Since everybody agrees that early abortions should be the womans decision only so they are not part of the controverse.
Unfortunately, there is no such consensus.
Thanks –
I agree. However, abortion can not be to the side when considering this issue because forced pregnancy involves the coercive surrender of bodily tissue and nutrients.
Understood. I’m just loathe to wade in on the topic of abortion per se.
If a fetus is, truly and fully, a human life, abortion is hard to defend. If it’s not, then not.
To answer whether a fetus is a human life, and at what point, requires that you define what life is, and what being human is. Those are questions that are, frankly, so far above my pay grade that I can’t begin to hazard an answer. So, I try to stay out of it.
I just don’t know the answer.
BTW, I hope I’m not making marrow donation sound unattractive. Actually, it’s not either particularly painful or particularly dangerous.
FWIW, the procedure was a piece of cake, and that was almost 30 years ago. Nowadays, I’m sure it’s a walk in the park. Nobody should be afraid of it.
Since everybody agrees that early abortions should be the womans decision only so they are not part of the controverse.
Unfortunately, there is no such consensus.
Thanks –
Barnabas: If there is a need for a contrived analogy to pregancy, consider this: a person inhabits a diving bell under the surface of the ocean. Power, warmth and oxygen supplies are piped from a ship on the surface.
Let’s see how many holes we can poke in this scenario. Was the crew told that they were going out for a pleasure excursion and then trapped against their will into caring for the person in the diving bell? Was the crew denied opportunities to get off the boat before the diving bell was sent below? Did they find themselves on the boat either against their will or as the result of deception? Were they put on the boat because the boat they were originally on sprung a leak?
Here’s the real question, though, Barnabas–do you really believe the crap you’re writing, or do you just think you’re being cute?
Barnabas: If there is a need for a contrived analogy to pregancy, consider this: a person inhabits a diving bell under the surface of the ocean. Power, warmth and oxygen supplies are piped from a ship on the surface.
Let’s see how many holes we can poke in this scenario. Was the crew told that they were going out for a pleasure excursion and then trapped against their will into caring for the person in the diving bell? Was the crew denied opportunities to get off the boat before the diving bell was sent below? Did they find themselves on the boat either against their will or as the result of deception? Were they put on the boat because the boat they were originally on sprung a leak?
Here’s the real question, though, Barnabas–do you really believe the crap you’re writing, or do you just think you’re being cute?
russell: If a fetus is, truly and fully, a human life, abortion is hard to defend
Why? Do you feel that women are not, truly and fully, human?
To answer whether a fetus is a human life, and at what point, requires that you define what life is, and what being human is. Those are questions that are, frankly, so far above my pay grade that I can’t begin to hazard an answer.
But you feel that the question of whether women are human is within your pay grade?
russell: If a fetus is, truly and fully, a human life, abortion is hard to defend
Why? Do you feel that women are not, truly and fully, human?
To answer whether a fetus is a human life, and at what point, requires that you define what life is, and what being human is. Those are questions that are, frankly, so far above my pay grade that I can’t begin to hazard an answer.
But you feel that the question of whether women are human is within your pay grade?
To answer whether a fetus is a human life, and at what point, requires that you define what life is, and what being human is. Those are questions that are, frankly, so far above my pay grade that I can’t begin to hazard an answer. So, I try to stay out of it.
I just don’t know the answer.
And what’s more important, I don’t know the answer for anyone else either. Who am I to push my personal morality on another human being, especially as regards such a personal and painful decision?
To answer whether a fetus is a human life, and at what point, requires that you define what life is, and what being human is. Those are questions that are, frankly, so far above my pay grade that I can’t begin to hazard an answer. So, I try to stay out of it.
I just don’t know the answer.
And what’s more important, I don’t know the answer for anyone else either. Who am I to push my personal morality on another human being, especially as regards such a personal and painful decision?
Was the crew told that they were going out for a pleasure excursion and then trapped against their will into caring for the person in the diving bell? Was the crew denied opportunities to get off the boat before the diving bell was sent below? Did they find themselves on the boat either against their will or as the result of deception? Were they put on the boat because the boat they were originally on sprung a leak?
Has the boat the crew are on, from which the diving bell is suspended, sprung a leak? Are the crew dependent for their lives on the same supply of oxygen and power that the diving bell is using? When all the crew die and the ship sinks because the diving bell gets priority and the crew were not allowed to decide to cut it loose, won’t everyone in the diving bell die along with the crew, whereas if the crew were allowed to decide when to cut it loose, the crew would have survived?
Was the crew told that they were going out for a pleasure excursion and then trapped against their will into caring for the person in the diving bell? Was the crew denied opportunities to get off the boat before the diving bell was sent below? Did they find themselves on the boat either against their will or as the result of deception? Were they put on the boat because the boat they were originally on sprung a leak?
Has the boat the crew are on, from which the diving bell is suspended, sprung a leak? Are the crew dependent for their lives on the same supply of oxygen and power that the diving bell is using? When all the crew die and the ship sinks because the diving bell gets priority and the crew were not allowed to decide to cut it loose, won’t everyone in the diving bell die along with the crew, whereas if the crew were allowed to decide when to cut it loose, the crew would have survived?
Why? Do you feel that women are not, truly and fully, human?
No, I certainly do not think that.
Look, I’ll cut this line of debate short, at least as far as my own involvement.
I, personally, line up politically on the pro-choice end of the spectrum because the issues involved in answering the question of whether a fetus is, or is not, a full human life deserving legal protection are, frankly, matters of private conscience and persuasion. I don’t see how they can be legislated fairly other than to leave it as a matter of private conscience.
That said, I also understand the concerns of folks who do consider the fetus to be a human life, because (duh) they consider the fetus to be a human life. It’s not an extraordinary position.
I really can’t say anything beyond that, because I simply don’t know.
That’s about the best you’re going to get out of me on the topic. I’m not wading in any further, because I have nothing further of value to add.
Thanks –
Why? Do you feel that women are not, truly and fully, human?
No, I certainly do not think that.
Look, I’ll cut this line of debate short, at least as far as my own involvement.
I, personally, line up politically on the pro-choice end of the spectrum because the issues involved in answering the question of whether a fetus is, or is not, a full human life deserving legal protection are, frankly, matters of private conscience and persuasion. I don’t see how they can be legislated fairly other than to leave it as a matter of private conscience.
That said, I also understand the concerns of folks who do consider the fetus to be a human life, because (duh) they consider the fetus to be a human life. It’s not an extraordinary position.
I really can’t say anything beyond that, because I simply don’t know.
That’s about the best you’re going to get out of me on the topic. I’m not wading in any further, because I have nothing further of value to add.
Thanks –
No, I certainly do not think that.
So, isn’t the issue “When is it ever appropriate to make use of a human being’s body against her will?”
Ialso understand the concerns of folks who do consider the fetus to be a human life, because (duh) they consider the fetus to be a human life. It’s not an extraordinary position.
Sadly, no, it isn’t, because if you regard women as human, the issue of when or whether the fetus is human becomes secondary to the question of whether it’s ever appropriate to force a human being to risk permanent damage to her body, possible risk to her life, and known risks to her health, against her will.
That pro-lifers prefer to skip right over the question of “Are women human? Is it ever right to treat women like incubators?” and pretend that question has already been settled (and that it is right to treat women as non-human incubators and the only question is the humanity of the fetus) is certainly one of their great rhetorical victories.
I really can’t say anything beyond that, because I simply don’t know.
Well, if you know women are human, you only have to figure out where you stand on human rights: do you approve of forced organ donation to save lives, or don’t you?
No, I certainly do not think that.
So, isn’t the issue “When is it ever appropriate to make use of a human being’s body against her will?”
Ialso understand the concerns of folks who do consider the fetus to be a human life, because (duh) they consider the fetus to be a human life. It’s not an extraordinary position.
Sadly, no, it isn’t, because if you regard women as human, the issue of when or whether the fetus is human becomes secondary to the question of whether it’s ever appropriate to force a human being to risk permanent damage to her body, possible risk to her life, and known risks to her health, against her will.
That pro-lifers prefer to skip right over the question of “Are women human? Is it ever right to treat women like incubators?” and pretend that question has already been settled (and that it is right to treat women as non-human incubators and the only question is the humanity of the fetus) is certainly one of their great rhetorical victories.
I really can’t say anything beyond that, because I simply don’t know.
Well, if you know women are human, you only have to figure out where you stand on human rights: do you approve of forced organ donation to save lives, or don’t you?
Almost zero. Fortunately, there are more than two camps. The fallacy of the excluded middle is a nasty one to spot when the middle isn’t hogging the megaphones.
Almost zero. Fortunately, there are more than two camps. The fallacy of the excluded middle is a nasty one to spot when the middle isn’t hogging the megaphones.
Dianne: “That, alas, is still in the realm of science fiction.”
Sure. But I take it that you would oppose mandatory cheek swabs, so your bone marrow discussion is irrelevant. Of course this position is consistent with a moral/legal system without an affirmative duty to save a life in the absence of any rational objection (e.g., saving someone by flipping a switch), which is I presume what we have.
‘Of course, if you say no then you’re saying that it’s ok if people die from curable diseases, so I must admit that ends up being a “have you stopped beating your husband yet?” questions. Sorry about that, but I’m afraid it’s reality.’
You do know you’re arguing (snidely to boot) with yourself here, don’t you?
Dianne: “That, alas, is still in the realm of science fiction.”
Sure. But I take it that you would oppose mandatory cheek swabs, so your bone marrow discussion is irrelevant. Of course this position is consistent with a moral/legal system without an affirmative duty to save a life in the absence of any rational objection (e.g., saving someone by flipping a switch), which is I presume what we have.
‘Of course, if you say no then you’re saying that it’s ok if people die from curable diseases, so I must admit that ends up being a “have you stopped beating your husband yet?” questions. Sorry about that, but I’m afraid it’s reality.’
You do know you’re arguing (snidely to boot) with yourself here, don’t you?
Totally OT: Thomas at RS notes, “Fifth, I want to take a moment to thank Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Duncan Black, Oliver Willis, the whole crew at Obsidian Wings, and the writers of any other far-left wing moron factory I’ve inadvertantly omitted, for sending us the waves of cretins who’ve, between them, managed to make target practice a sport for the whole family again.”
Take a bow, everybody.
Totally OT: Thomas at RS notes, “Fifth, I want to take a moment to thank Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Duncan Black, Oliver Willis, the whole crew at Obsidian Wings, and the writers of any other far-left wing moron factory I’ve inadvertantly omitted, for sending us the waves of cretins who’ve, between them, managed to make target practice a sport for the whole family again.”
Take a bow, everybody.
“Let’s see how many holes we can poke in this scenario. Was the crew told that they were going out for a pleasure excursion and then trapped against their will into caring for the person in the diving bell? Was the crew denied opportunities to get off the boat before the diving bell was sent below? Did they find themselves on the boat either against their will or as the result of deception? Were they put on the boat because the boat they were originally on sprung a leak?”
The funny thing is that when you added all these things I thought “wow, it would be really selfish for them to leave those people to die even if they thought it was a pleasure cruise or even if they had been on a leaky boat.”
“Let’s see how many holes we can poke in this scenario. Was the crew told that they were going out for a pleasure excursion and then trapped against their will into caring for the person in the diving bell? Was the crew denied opportunities to get off the boat before the diving bell was sent below? Did they find themselves on the boat either against their will or as the result of deception? Were they put on the boat because the boat they were originally on sprung a leak?”
The funny thing is that when you added all these things I thought “wow, it would be really selfish for them to leave those people to die even if they thought it was a pleasure cruise or even if they had been on a leaky boat.”
Almost zero. Fortunately, there are more than two camps. The fallacy of the excluded middle is a nasty one to spot when the middle isn’t hogging the megaphones.
The fallacy is that there’s a middle ground on this. Either you trust women to control their bodies, or you don’t. The middle is simply a place where you say “we trust women sometimes, but not all the time.”
The funny thing is that when you added all these things I thought “wow, it would be really selfish for them to leave those people to die even if they thought it was a pleasure cruise or even if they had been on a leaky boat.”
You find it funny. I find it pathetic. But then again, I’m not out to control the lives of people I disagree with, where you clearly find yourself to be of such superior moral acumen as to make those decisions for others. Must be nice to be so certain of your wown rightness. Ignorance really is bliss.
Almost zero. Fortunately, there are more than two camps. The fallacy of the excluded middle is a nasty one to spot when the middle isn’t hogging the megaphones.
The fallacy is that there’s a middle ground on this. Either you trust women to control their bodies, or you don’t. The middle is simply a place where you say “we trust women sometimes, but not all the time.”
The funny thing is that when you added all these things I thought “wow, it would be really selfish for them to leave those people to die even if they thought it was a pleasure cruise or even if they had been on a leaky boat.”
You find it funny. I find it pathetic. But then again, I’m not out to control the lives of people I disagree with, where you clearly find yourself to be of such superior moral acumen as to make those decisions for others. Must be nice to be so certain of your wown rightness. Ignorance really is bliss.
So, isn’t the issue “When is it ever appropriate to make use of a human being’s body against her will?”
Yes, I think that is certainly part of the issue.
If the fetus is a human life, its interests arguably deserve consideration. If the woman does not want to bring it to term, there’s a conflict between the interests of the fetus and those of the woman.
Diving bells aside, it’s a situation for which I do not think there is an analogy.
If you don’t think the fetus is a human life, the question is pretty simple.
If you think the fetus is a human life, but the rights of the woman trump those of the fetus in all cases, ditto.
Otherwise, it’s not a simple question.
With that, I retire from the field.
Thanks –
So, isn’t the issue “When is it ever appropriate to make use of a human being’s body against her will?”
Yes, I think that is certainly part of the issue.
If the fetus is a human life, its interests arguably deserve consideration. If the woman does not want to bring it to term, there’s a conflict between the interests of the fetus and those of the woman.
Diving bells aside, it’s a situation for which I do not think there is an analogy.
If you don’t think the fetus is a human life, the question is pretty simple.
If you think the fetus is a human life, but the rights of the woman trump those of the fetus in all cases, ditto.
Otherwise, it’s not a simple question.
With that, I retire from the field.
Thanks –
Jes:Do they? The difficulty in the US is that there are many powerful groups and politicians who profess the belief that women should never be allowed to make the decision to have an abortion, no matter how early:
I ment here on ObWi, since that is where I have this discussion now.
I’d be outraged on your behalf. You get to decide, not the doctors, if you want them to keep your baby alive at all costs and no matter what the baby’s quality of life and length of life might be
That’s not true. Doctors decide wether they will perform medical procedures or not, wether they perform risky operations or not, wether they will resussitate or not. Doctors decide when they will try to keep a preemy alive and when not.
Jes:Do they? The difficulty in the US is that there are many powerful groups and politicians who profess the belief that women should never be allowed to make the decision to have an abortion, no matter how early:
I ment here on ObWi, since that is where I have this discussion now.
I’d be outraged on your behalf. You get to decide, not the doctors, if you want them to keep your baby alive at all costs and no matter what the baby’s quality of life and length of life might be
That’s not true. Doctors decide wether they will perform medical procedures or not, wether they perform risky operations or not, wether they will resussitate or not. Doctors decide when they will try to keep a preemy alive and when not.
If the fetus is a human life, its interests arguably deserve consideration. If the woman does not want to bring it to term, there’s a conflict between the interests of the fetus and those of the woman.
And if you believe women are human beings, you have to believe that it’s up to the woman to decide. If you think women aren’t really human, someone else gets to decide. It’s a fairly simple point: as Brian notes, there is no real middle ground here.
Rilkefan: Of course this position is consistent with a moral/legal system without an affirmative duty to save a life in the absence of any rational objection (e.g., saving someone by flipping a switch), which is I presume what we have.
No, Rilke. The position is: does the state – or any other individual with the ability to do it – have the right to force another human being, against her will, to give up the use of her* body to save the life of another? Pro-lifers say yes. Pro-choicers say no.
*I say “her” because you’re actually the first pro-lifer I’ve encountered who was willing to argue that this applied to involuntary use of organs that could be taken from men, too.
Sebastian: The funny thing is that when you added all these things I thought “wow, it would be really selfish for them to leave those people to die even if they thought it was a pleasure cruise or even if they had been on a leaky boat.”
I expect you think it’s really selfish for airlines to instruct passengers to put on their own oxygen masks first before they help anyone else, too.
If the fetus is a human life, its interests arguably deserve consideration. If the woman does not want to bring it to term, there’s a conflict between the interests of the fetus and those of the woman.
And if you believe women are human beings, you have to believe that it’s up to the woman to decide. If you think women aren’t really human, someone else gets to decide. It’s a fairly simple point: as Brian notes, there is no real middle ground here.
Rilkefan: Of course this position is consistent with a moral/legal system without an affirmative duty to save a life in the absence of any rational objection (e.g., saving someone by flipping a switch), which is I presume what we have.
No, Rilke. The position is: does the state – or any other individual with the ability to do it – have the right to force another human being, against her will, to give up the use of her* body to save the life of another? Pro-lifers say yes. Pro-choicers say no.
*I say “her” because you’re actually the first pro-lifer I’ve encountered who was willing to argue that this applied to involuntary use of organs that could be taken from men, too.
Sebastian: The funny thing is that when you added all these things I thought “wow, it would be really selfish for them to leave those people to die even if they thought it was a pleasure cruise or even if they had been on a leaky boat.”
I expect you think it’s really selfish for airlines to instruct passengers to put on their own oxygen masks first before they help anyone else, too.
And if you believe women are human beings, you have to believe that it’s up to the woman to decide. If you think women aren’t really human, someone else gets to decide.
I would ask what happens if you think that both women and late-term fetuses are fully human, but it turns out I actually don’t care what you think. Convenient for both of us!
And if you believe women are human beings, you have to believe that it’s up to the woman to decide. If you think women aren’t really human, someone else gets to decide.
I would ask what happens if you think that both women and late-term fetuses are fully human, but it turns out I actually don’t care what you think. Convenient for both of us!
Phil: I would ask what happens if you think that both women and late-term fetuses are fully human
Eh, if you were at all interested in the answer, you’d be able to figure it out for yourself. I’m assuming that you are yourself fully human: do you think you have a right to a live liver transplant, should you need one, against the will of the person who currently has the liver that you need half of to save your life. A fetus is in the same position: it needs the use of a woman’s body to save its life.
If you argue that because the fetus is human it is therefore entitled to the use of a woman’s body against her will, you are either arguing that women are not human – or you are arguing that humans have a right to take from other human bodies against the will of those humans.
Phil: I would ask what happens if you think that both women and late-term fetuses are fully human
Eh, if you were at all interested in the answer, you’d be able to figure it out for yourself. I’m assuming that you are yourself fully human: do you think you have a right to a live liver transplant, should you need one, against the will of the person who currently has the liver that you need half of to save your life. A fetus is in the same position: it needs the use of a woman’s body to save its life.
If you argue that because the fetus is human it is therefore entitled to the use of a woman’s body against her will, you are either arguing that women are not human – or you are arguing that humans have a right to take from other human bodies against the will of those humans.
I’m not sure we want to open the door to coercive surrender of bodily tissue, no matter how good the reason.
I’m repeating the above quote, from russell, because I really think it cuts through the BS surrounding the debate on third trimester abortion. If you believe, as he does, that it is NEVER ok to demand the surrender of bodily tissue for any cause, including saving another’s life, then obviously any restriction on abortion is immoral because it does just that and opens that door. If you don’t believe that then the question becomes how much coercion is ok? Is it ok to demand bodily tissue if it is a minor invasion and the danger to the other person is great? Is it ok to force someone to give blood (an almost no-risk procedure for a healthy person)? To donate bone marrow (10X safer than completing a pregnancy for an average risk woman)? To donate a kidney (slightly higher risk than the average pregnancy but far lower risk than some pregnancies that have been declared not dangerous enough to warrant an abortion based on maternal risk)? Part of a liver (dangerous)? Part of a lung (theoretical)?
I’m not sure we want to open the door to coercive surrender of bodily tissue, no matter how good the reason.
I’m repeating the above quote, from russell, because I really think it cuts through the BS surrounding the debate on third trimester abortion. If you believe, as he does, that it is NEVER ok to demand the surrender of bodily tissue for any cause, including saving another’s life, then obviously any restriction on abortion is immoral because it does just that and opens that door. If you don’t believe that then the question becomes how much coercion is ok? Is it ok to demand bodily tissue if it is a minor invasion and the danger to the other person is great? Is it ok to force someone to give blood (an almost no-risk procedure for a healthy person)? To donate bone marrow (10X safer than completing a pregnancy for an average risk woman)? To donate a kidney (slightly higher risk than the average pregnancy but far lower risk than some pregnancies that have been declared not dangerous enough to warrant an abortion based on maternal risk)? Part of a liver (dangerous)? Part of a lung (theoretical)?
“I expect you think it’s really selfish for airlines to instruct passengers to put on their own oxygen masks first before they help anyone else, too.”
Huh? From what I know, they instruct you to do that so you can be sure that you can actually help. It would suck to pass out while trying to get your kid’s mask on and have you both die.
Did that response have some connection to what I said? You quote me, but I don’t understand. A further hypothetical was given with the idea that it would suggest that the people in the boat should be able to cut off the diving bell and let the people in it die. I suggested that the idea that the people in the boat originally were on a pleasure cruise wouldn’t make me feel like they should abandon the people in the diving bell to die. How does your airline response respond to that?
“I expect you think it’s really selfish for airlines to instruct passengers to put on their own oxygen masks first before they help anyone else, too.”
Huh? From what I know, they instruct you to do that so you can be sure that you can actually help. It would suck to pass out while trying to get your kid’s mask on and have you both die.
Did that response have some connection to what I said? You quote me, but I don’t understand. A further hypothetical was given with the idea that it would suggest that the people in the boat should be able to cut off the diving bell and let the people in it die. I suggested that the idea that the people in the boat originally were on a pleasure cruise wouldn’t make me feel like they should abandon the people in the diving bell to die. How does your airline response respond to that?
Also, do we all agree that there is something immoral about aborting a fetus through full delivery and then just letting it die afterwards. I ask, because I would have thought in the framework of “involuntary use of the mother’s body” that the answer would be obvious, but the issue has been raised as if it were unproblematic.
Dianne? Jesurgislac?
Also, do we all agree that there is something immoral about aborting a fetus through full delivery and then just letting it die afterwards. I ask, because I would have thought in the framework of “involuntary use of the mother’s body” that the answer would be obvious, but the issue has been raised as if it were unproblematic.
Dianne? Jesurgislac?
From what I know, they instruct you to do that so you can be sure that you can actually help. It would suck to pass out while trying to get your kid’s mask on and have you both die.
Yeah. And it would suck to be forced to undergo childbirth against your will and be permanently handicapped, leaving you blind with three children. Pretty selfish of Alicja Tysiac to have wanted to retain her sight to be able to care for the two children she already had, huh?
From what I know, they instruct you to do that so you can be sure that you can actually help. It would suck to pass out while trying to get your kid’s mask on and have you both die.
Yeah. And it would suck to be forced to undergo childbirth against your will and be permanently handicapped, leaving you blind with three children. Pretty selfish of Alicja Tysiac to have wanted to retain her sight to be able to care for the two children she already had, huh?
From what I know, they instruct you to do that so you can be sure that you can actually help. It would suck to pass out while trying to get your kid’s mask on and have you both die.
Do you know why you would pass out? Because there isn’t enough oxygen at the altitudes that commercial airplanes fly to allow for normal cortical activity. Now, think about the uterine environment. Look up p02 in the umbilical vein if necessary. Do you stand by your statement that there is no difference between a 27 week fetus and a 27 week premie?
From what I know, they instruct you to do that so you can be sure that you can actually help. It would suck to pass out while trying to get your kid’s mask on and have you both die.
Do you know why you would pass out? Because there isn’t enough oxygen at the altitudes that commercial airplanes fly to allow for normal cortical activity. Now, think about the uterine environment. Look up p02 in the umbilical vein if necessary. Do you stand by your statement that there is no difference between a 27 week fetus and a 27 week premie?
A further hypothetical was given with the idea that it would suggest that the people in the boat should be able to cut off the diving bell and let the people in it die. I suggested that the idea that the people in the boat originally were on a pleasure cruise wouldn’t make me feel like they should abandon the people in the diving bell to die.
The final answer to that, though, is that: If the captain of the ship decided that the diving bell was endangering the ship, (and given that for the sake of this stupid analogy there was no way to bring the bell to the surface/allow the people in the bell to escape), the captain would have the right to cut the diving bell loose and let the people in it die. Sea captains have made exactly that kind of judgement in the past, and while they have sometimes had to defend their judgement against a board of enquiry, their right to make that decision is not in question.
The analogy is not perfect because (most of the time) the diving bell is not drawing on resources that everyone aboard ship needs to survive. (And on the other side of the equation, unless you fantasise outright, the bell was a known and planned hazard, and the people in it will be conscious and aware of what is happening to them. The first is not true of an accidental pregnancy, the second is not true of a fetus.)
A further hypothetical was given with the idea that it would suggest that the people in the boat should be able to cut off the diving bell and let the people in it die. I suggested that the idea that the people in the boat originally were on a pleasure cruise wouldn’t make me feel like they should abandon the people in the diving bell to die.
The final answer to that, though, is that: If the captain of the ship decided that the diving bell was endangering the ship, (and given that for the sake of this stupid analogy there was no way to bring the bell to the surface/allow the people in the bell to escape), the captain would have the right to cut the diving bell loose and let the people in it die. Sea captains have made exactly that kind of judgement in the past, and while they have sometimes had to defend their judgement against a board of enquiry, their right to make that decision is not in question.
The analogy is not perfect because (most of the time) the diving bell is not drawing on resources that everyone aboard ship needs to survive. (And on the other side of the equation, unless you fantasise outright, the bell was a known and planned hazard, and the people in it will be conscious and aware of what is happening to them. The first is not true of an accidental pregnancy, the second is not true of a fetus.)
Also, do we all agree that there is something immoral about aborting a fetus through full delivery and then just letting it die afterwards.
So are you arguing that premature infants should never be treated with comfort care only but should always be treated with the most aggressive treatment avaiable? Even when it won’t make any difference? Even when it just means that the baby will die in an incubator or warming bed with a dozen tubes stuck in its body rather than in its parents’ arms? Remember, third trimester abortions are usually done because of severe fetal anomolies incompatible with life. I would say that it is inappropriate to intubate an ancephalic baby regardless of whether it was born at 20 weeks or 40, induced or born after natural labor. It won’t make any difference and would just torture the parents.
On the other hand, if there were a scenario in which, for some reason, a woman presents for an abortion saying that she is 15 weeks pregnant, labor is induced and the baby is born looking more like 28 weeks gestation (and without gross abnormalities that mean it is going to die regardless), then yes, go for it, at least as far as the initial treatment goes. If, later on, it is clear that it is hopeless then go to comfort care. Also fire your U/S tech who apparently didn’t pick up on the 13 week difference between stated dates and fetal size.
Also, do we all agree that there is something immoral about aborting a fetus through full delivery and then just letting it die afterwards.
So are you arguing that premature infants should never be treated with comfort care only but should always be treated with the most aggressive treatment avaiable? Even when it won’t make any difference? Even when it just means that the baby will die in an incubator or warming bed with a dozen tubes stuck in its body rather than in its parents’ arms? Remember, third trimester abortions are usually done because of severe fetal anomolies incompatible with life. I would say that it is inappropriate to intubate an ancephalic baby regardless of whether it was born at 20 weeks or 40, induced or born after natural labor. It won’t make any difference and would just torture the parents.
On the other hand, if there were a scenario in which, for some reason, a woman presents for an abortion saying that she is 15 weeks pregnant, labor is induced and the baby is born looking more like 28 weeks gestation (and without gross abnormalities that mean it is going to die regardless), then yes, go for it, at least as far as the initial treatment goes. If, later on, it is clear that it is hopeless then go to comfort care. Also fire your U/S tech who apparently didn’t pick up on the 13 week difference between stated dates and fetal size.
“So are you arguing that premature infants should never be treated with comfort care only but should always be treated with the most aggressive treatment avaiable? Even when it won’t make any difference? Even when it just means that the baby will die in an incubator or warming bed with a dozen tubes stuck in its body rather than in its parents’ arms?”
You’re changing the whole tenor of your comment. It was “One method of late abortion is simply induction of labor and allowing nature to take its course after birth.” So far as I know that is factually false in the US. But even if it isn’t, I am arguing that such a child should be give *exactly the same care any other human being who needed similar levels of support would be given*. Needing a venitlator to breathe is not normally a reason to just let someone die, so it shouldn’t be for a preemie either. And at that point, you should probably get an outside conservator for health care to make treatment decisions.
“Remember, third trimester abortions are usually done because of severe fetal anomolies incompatible with life.”
You don’t know that. You hope that is true. So do I. You may deeply believe that is true. But you can’t preface that with ‘remember’. Statistics on the reasons for 3rd trimester abortions are not regularly kept in the US. The abortion industry and/or pro-choice lobby has made certain of that.
“I would say that it is inappropriate to intubate an ancephalic baby regardless of whether it was born at 20 weeks or 40, induced or born after natural labor. It won’t make any difference and would just torture the parents.”
I would say it is always inappropriate to given treatment that won’t make any difference. Any baby delivered should get the same treatment whether or not it was a ‘preemie’ or a ‘product of abortion’.
Do you agree with that statement?
“So are you arguing that premature infants should never be treated with comfort care only but should always be treated with the most aggressive treatment avaiable? Even when it won’t make any difference? Even when it just means that the baby will die in an incubator or warming bed with a dozen tubes stuck in its body rather than in its parents’ arms?”
You’re changing the whole tenor of your comment. It was “One method of late abortion is simply induction of labor and allowing nature to take its course after birth.” So far as I know that is factually false in the US. But even if it isn’t, I am arguing that such a child should be give *exactly the same care any other human being who needed similar levels of support would be given*. Needing a venitlator to breathe is not normally a reason to just let someone die, so it shouldn’t be for a preemie either. And at that point, you should probably get an outside conservator for health care to make treatment decisions.
“Remember, third trimester abortions are usually done because of severe fetal anomolies incompatible with life.”
You don’t know that. You hope that is true. So do I. You may deeply believe that is true. But you can’t preface that with ‘remember’. Statistics on the reasons for 3rd trimester abortions are not regularly kept in the US. The abortion industry and/or pro-choice lobby has made certain of that.
“I would say that it is inappropriate to intubate an ancephalic baby regardless of whether it was born at 20 weeks or 40, induced or born after natural labor. It won’t make any difference and would just torture the parents.”
I would say it is always inappropriate to given treatment that won’t make any difference. Any baby delivered should get the same treatment whether or not it was a ‘preemie’ or a ‘product of abortion’.
Do you agree with that statement?
“Do you know why you would pass out? Because there isn’t enough oxygen at the altitudes that commercial airplanes fly to allow for normal cortical activity. Now, think about the uterine environment. Look up p02 in the umbilical vein if necessary. Do you stand by your statement that there is no difference between a 27 week fetus and a 27 week premie?”
I’m not following the logic here. A 27 week preemie is in fact a 27 week fetus outside of the womb. They are the same. The fact that a 27 week preemie has only a 70% or so chance of survival is because it isn’t in the womb. Why drag the aiplane into this? Under your analogy it seems like you are saying that the airplane shouldn’t have oxygen masks for people. But I’m pretty sure that isn’t what you are saying, so I just don’t get it.
“Do you know why you would pass out? Because there isn’t enough oxygen at the altitudes that commercial airplanes fly to allow for normal cortical activity. Now, think about the uterine environment. Look up p02 in the umbilical vein if necessary. Do you stand by your statement that there is no difference between a 27 week fetus and a 27 week premie?”
I’m not following the logic here. A 27 week preemie is in fact a 27 week fetus outside of the womb. They are the same. The fact that a 27 week preemie has only a 70% or so chance of survival is because it isn’t in the womb. Why drag the aiplane into this? Under your analogy it seems like you are saying that the airplane shouldn’t have oxygen masks for people. But I’m pretty sure that isn’t what you are saying, so I just don’t get it.
“Do you know why you would pass out? Because there isn’t enough oxygen at the altitudes that commercial airplanes fly to allow for normal cortical activity. Now, think about the uterine environment. Look up p02 in the umbilical vein if necessary. Do you stand by your statement that there is no difference between a 27 week fetus and a 27 week premie?”
I’m not following the logic here. A 27 week preemie is in fact a 27 week fetus outside of the womb. They are the same. The fact that a 27 week preemie has only a 70% or so chance of survival is because it isn’t in the womb. Why drag the aiplane into this? Under your analogy it seems like you are saying that the airplane shouldn’t have oxygen masks for people. But I’m pretty sure that isn’t what you are saying, so I just don’t get it.
“Do you know why you would pass out? Because there isn’t enough oxygen at the altitudes that commercial airplanes fly to allow for normal cortical activity. Now, think about the uterine environment. Look up p02 in the umbilical vein if necessary. Do you stand by your statement that there is no difference between a 27 week fetus and a 27 week premie?”
I’m not following the logic here. A 27 week preemie is in fact a 27 week fetus outside of the womb. They are the same. The fact that a 27 week preemie has only a 70% or so chance of survival is because it isn’t in the womb. Why drag the aiplane into this? Under your analogy it seems like you are saying that the airplane shouldn’t have oxygen masks for people. But I’m pretty sure that isn’t what you are saying, so I just don’t get it.
You don’t know that[that the vast majority of third trimester abortions are performed for reasons of fetal anomoly]
Five minutes of research netted the following articles on third trimester abortion:
This one, this one, and this one. I’ll stop here out of respect for the spam filter. Needless to say, the grounds for abortion was severe fetal abnormalities or (relatively rarely) maternal illness in all cases.
You don’t know that[that the vast majority of third trimester abortions are performed for reasons of fetal anomoly]
Five minutes of research netted the following articles on third trimester abortion:
This one, this one, and this one. I’ll stop here out of respect for the spam filter. Needless to say, the grounds for abortion was severe fetal abnormalities or (relatively rarely) maternal illness in all cases.
A 27 week preemie is in fact a 27 week fetus outside of the womb. They are the same.
Of course. Just the same. Which is the treatment of premature infants is to attach their umbilical cords to heart/lung machines and let them pretend to be in the uterus for another 5-16 weeks. Hmm…why are they all dying? A number of serious chances in circulation, hematology, oxygenation, and neurology occur at birth. You may consider the differences between a premature infant and a fetus trivial or irrelevant for the purposes of discussing their status, but saying that they are just the same only makes you sound like you don’t know biology.
Under your analogy it seems like you are saying that the airplane shouldn’t have oxygen masks for people.
People who are hypoxic because they are in a low oxygen environment have had conscious cortical activity before. A fetus has not. It will if all goes well and it is eventually born and exposed to a high oxygen environment, but it never has any more than a sperm cell has (but will, if it is exposed to an egg, allowed to develop, etc).
To switch analogies, suppose you started building an AI. Advances in the understanding of neurology and/or computer science now allow you to build an AI that is essentially the same as a human in terms of its brain function. Suppose you work on it for a while and have tested the basic functions that will support the AI’s ability to think, reason, and be self-aware once it is turned on completely. However, you have never turned it on. Would it be immoral of you to now walk away and never turn it on?
A 27 week preemie is in fact a 27 week fetus outside of the womb. They are the same.
Of course. Just the same. Which is the treatment of premature infants is to attach their umbilical cords to heart/lung machines and let them pretend to be in the uterus for another 5-16 weeks. Hmm…why are they all dying? A number of serious chances in circulation, hematology, oxygenation, and neurology occur at birth. You may consider the differences between a premature infant and a fetus trivial or irrelevant for the purposes of discussing their status, but saying that they are just the same only makes you sound like you don’t know biology.
Under your analogy it seems like you are saying that the airplane shouldn’t have oxygen masks for people.
People who are hypoxic because they are in a low oxygen environment have had conscious cortical activity before. A fetus has not. It will if all goes well and it is eventually born and exposed to a high oxygen environment, but it never has any more than a sperm cell has (but will, if it is exposed to an egg, allowed to develop, etc).
To switch analogies, suppose you started building an AI. Advances in the understanding of neurology and/or computer science now allow you to build an AI that is essentially the same as a human in terms of its brain function. Suppose you work on it for a while and have tested the basic functions that will support the AI’s ability to think, reason, and be self-aware once it is turned on completely. However, you have never turned it on. Would it be immoral of you to now walk away and never turn it on?
If you believe, as he does, that it is NEVER ok to demand the surrender of bodily tissue for any cause, including saving another’s life, then obviously any restriction on abortion is immoral because it does just that and opens that door.
That’s pretty much where I fall, though I cringe a bit at the use of the word immoral, because it’s so abstract and so open to interpretation that it becomes meaningless in these sorts of discussions. It’s important to remember that just because I feel this way doesn’t mean I would agree with or support someone who decided to have a day-before-birth elective abortion, should one actually take place. It just means that I’d acknowledge the woman’s right to have one, even if I found the idea distasteful, which I do. As long as the fetus is inside the woman, it’s only a potential life–there are enough cases of things going wrong in what seem to be normal deliveries for me to be comfortable with that definition. It has to get out before it’s alive, as far as I’m concerned.
If you believe, as he does, that it is NEVER ok to demand the surrender of bodily tissue for any cause, including saving another’s life, then obviously any restriction on abortion is immoral because it does just that and opens that door.
That’s pretty much where I fall, though I cringe a bit at the use of the word immoral, because it’s so abstract and so open to interpretation that it becomes meaningless in these sorts of discussions. It’s important to remember that just because I feel this way doesn’t mean I would agree with or support someone who decided to have a day-before-birth elective abortion, should one actually take place. It just means that I’d acknowledge the woman’s right to have one, even if I found the idea distasteful, which I do. As long as the fetus is inside the woman, it’s only a potential life–there are enough cases of things going wrong in what seem to be normal deliveries for me to be comfortable with that definition. It has to get out before it’s alive, as far as I’m concerned.
Jes: Pretty selfish of Alicja Tysiac to have wanted to retain her sight to be able to care for the two children she already had, huh?
No, it wasn’t. She should have had access to contraception, she should have been able to get sterilized should she want so, she should have had the abortion immediately when she wanted it. Which was quite early in the pregnancy. So what does that have to do with third trimester abortions?
Dianne: Do you know why you would pass out? Because there isn’t enough oxygen at the altitudes that commercial airplanes fly to allow for normal cortical activity. Now, think about the uterine environment. Look up p02 in the umbilical vein if necessary. Do you stand by your statement that there is no difference between a 27 week fetus and a 27 week premie?
Is the p02 level your distinction between a lump of flesh and eh… how did you put it… a sentient being where it becomes a big deal terminating its life?
If the fetus is a non-existing entity till birth, is it allright for the pregnant woman to sell its organs, as long as they were harvested before birth? Give away the heart and the kidney, sell the eggs of a female fetus?
Jes: Pretty selfish of Alicja Tysiac to have wanted to retain her sight to be able to care for the two children she already had, huh?
No, it wasn’t. She should have had access to contraception, she should have been able to get sterilized should she want so, she should have had the abortion immediately when she wanted it. Which was quite early in the pregnancy. So what does that have to do with third trimester abortions?
Dianne: Do you know why you would pass out? Because there isn’t enough oxygen at the altitudes that commercial airplanes fly to allow for normal cortical activity. Now, think about the uterine environment. Look up p02 in the umbilical vein if necessary. Do you stand by your statement that there is no difference between a 27 week fetus and a 27 week premie?
Is the p02 level your distinction between a lump of flesh and eh… how did you put it… a sentient being where it becomes a big deal terminating its life?
If the fetus is a non-existing entity till birth, is it allright for the pregnant woman to sell its organs, as long as they were harvested before birth? Give away the heart and the kidney, sell the eggs of a female fetus?
Dianne all three of your cites come from countries with dramatically more restrictive rules on abortion in general and late term abortion specifically than are found in the US. This is especially true in countries like Holland that do not allow for elective late term abortions and which have very stringent reporting requirements to authorize late term abortions for medical necessity. It is rather unsurprising that a study of late term abortions in that kind of regime doesn’t find elective ones.
You will rather pointedly NOT find similar studies in the US.
“Of course. Just the same. Which is the treatment of premature infants is to attach their umbilical cords to heart/lung machines and let them pretend to be in the uterus for another 5-16 weeks. Hmm…why are they all dying? A number of serious chances in circulation, hematology, oxygenation, and neurology occur at birth. You may consider the differences between a premature infant and a fetus trivial or irrelevant for the purposes of discussing their status, but saying that they are just the same only makes you sound like you don’t know biology.”
Good grief. Yes the womb provides many things that leaving a baby lying on the ground wouldn’t–including breathing and circulation support. That isn’t exactly a revelation. The point is that the *fetus* is the same, the environment has changed dramatically. I’m aware that tossing it in the sink or putting it in a freezer wouldn’t be great medical practice. The body of a fetus is meant to have the support of the womb. When you remove it from the womb, it doesn’t have that support and medical technology tries to half-ass it. That doesn’t mean the fetus is different that means the environment is different. Sheesh.
Dianne all three of your cites come from countries with dramatically more restrictive rules on abortion in general and late term abortion specifically than are found in the US. This is especially true in countries like Holland that do not allow for elective late term abortions and which have very stringent reporting requirements to authorize late term abortions for medical necessity. It is rather unsurprising that a study of late term abortions in that kind of regime doesn’t find elective ones.
You will rather pointedly NOT find similar studies in the US.
“Of course. Just the same. Which is the treatment of premature infants is to attach their umbilical cords to heart/lung machines and let them pretend to be in the uterus for another 5-16 weeks. Hmm…why are they all dying? A number of serious chances in circulation, hematology, oxygenation, and neurology occur at birth. You may consider the differences between a premature infant and a fetus trivial or irrelevant for the purposes of discussing their status, but saying that they are just the same only makes you sound like you don’t know biology.”
Good grief. Yes the womb provides many things that leaving a baby lying on the ground wouldn’t–including breathing and circulation support. That isn’t exactly a revelation. The point is that the *fetus* is the same, the environment has changed dramatically. I’m aware that tossing it in the sink or putting it in a freezer wouldn’t be great medical practice. The body of a fetus is meant to have the support of the womb. When you remove it from the womb, it doesn’t have that support and medical technology tries to half-ass it. That doesn’t mean the fetus is different that means the environment is different. Sheesh.
I think you’re missing part of what Dianne is saying, Sebastian. I can’t verify the truth of what she’s saying, though it sounds plausible to me. At any rate, she’s saying that the fetus is fundamentally changed by the process of birth, however that may occur. Once exposed to the outside environment, the biology of the baby changes significantly and irreversibly.
I think you’re missing part of what Dianne is saying, Sebastian. I can’t verify the truth of what she’s saying, though it sounds plausible to me. At any rate, she’s saying that the fetus is fundamentally changed by the process of birth, however that may occur. Once exposed to the outside environment, the biology of the baby changes significantly and irreversibly.
Yes the womb provides many things that leaving a baby lying on the ground wouldn’t–including breathing and circulation support. That isn’t exactly a revelation. The point is that the *fetus* is the same, the environment has changed dramatically.
Ok, this is degenerating, but I’ll try it again. What would happen if you shoved a baby back into the uterus? Along, of course, with its placenta? Say you even had a way to reattach the placenta. Here’s what would happen: It would die. Once the baby is born and exposed to air its circulation changes and there’s no going back. That’s why the treatment of premature birth is not simply a simulation of the uterine environment. The ductus arteriosus closes. The uterine vessels atrophy. The beta-hemoglobin shifts from fetal to adult. Things happen. It’s not just an extra-uterine fetus it’s a baby. A baby can not obtain its oxygen from the maternal circulation. It can not float in liquid without access to air, no matter how ideal that liquid is for a fetus. On the other hand, a baby (as opposed to a fetus) can breathe and maintain its circulation perfectly fine lying on the ground, despite your apparent belief that all newborns need respiratory support–how did you think the human species survived before there were respirators anyway? It’ll get into other forms of trouble pretty quickly, but it’d be fine with breathing and circulation. It has changed. I repeat, you can claim that these changes are of no importance to the issue of the personhood, but why are you trying to pretend that they don’t exist?
Yes the womb provides many things that leaving a baby lying on the ground wouldn’t–including breathing and circulation support. That isn’t exactly a revelation. The point is that the *fetus* is the same, the environment has changed dramatically.
Ok, this is degenerating, but I’ll try it again. What would happen if you shoved a baby back into the uterus? Along, of course, with its placenta? Say you even had a way to reattach the placenta. Here’s what would happen: It would die. Once the baby is born and exposed to air its circulation changes and there’s no going back. That’s why the treatment of premature birth is not simply a simulation of the uterine environment. The ductus arteriosus closes. The uterine vessels atrophy. The beta-hemoglobin shifts from fetal to adult. Things happen. It’s not just an extra-uterine fetus it’s a baby. A baby can not obtain its oxygen from the maternal circulation. It can not float in liquid without access to air, no matter how ideal that liquid is for a fetus. On the other hand, a baby (as opposed to a fetus) can breathe and maintain its circulation perfectly fine lying on the ground, despite your apparent belief that all newborns need respiratory support–how did you think the human species survived before there were respirators anyway? It’ll get into other forms of trouble pretty quickly, but it’d be fine with breathing and circulation. It has changed. I repeat, you can claim that these changes are of no importance to the issue of the personhood, but why are you trying to pretend that they don’t exist?
C-section, baby’s lungs full of fluid – no question it’s human. Tuck it back in the womb and sew up the incision – question?
C-section, baby’s lungs full of fluid – no question it’s human. Tuck it back in the womb and sew up the incision – question?
Another report on third trimester abortion this one from Georgia (the one in the US). Two interesting points from this article: 1. Induced abortion in the third trimester was very overreported: when the records were reviewed, all but 3 of the reported abortions were actually fetal loss or first or second trimester abortions. 2. Of the three true third trimester abortions, two were done for ancephaly. The reason for the third was undetermined, so I suppose that could be your “couldn’t fit into the prom dress” anecdote, but there’s no particular reason to think that it was anything other than another fetal malformation.
Another report on third trimester abortion this one from Georgia (the one in the US). Two interesting points from this article: 1. Induced abortion in the third trimester was very overreported: when the records were reviewed, all but 3 of the reported abortions were actually fetal loss or first or second trimester abortions. 2. Of the three true third trimester abortions, two were done for ancephaly. The reason for the third was undetermined, so I suppose that could be your “couldn’t fit into the prom dress” anecdote, but there’s no particular reason to think that it was anything other than another fetal malformation.
Another report on third trimester abortion this one from Georgia (the one in the US). Two interesting points from this article: 1. Induced abortion in the third trimester was very overreported: when the records were reviewed, all but 3 of the reported abortions were actually fetal loss or first or second trimester abortions. 2. Of the three true third trimester abortions, two were done for ancephaly. The reason for the third was undetermined, so I suppose that could be your “couldn’t fit into the prom dress” anecdote, but there’s no particular reason to think that it was anything other than another fetal malformation.
Another report on third trimester abortion this one from Georgia (the one in the US). Two interesting points from this article: 1. Induced abortion in the third trimester was very overreported: when the records were reviewed, all but 3 of the reported abortions were actually fetal loss or first or second trimester abortions. 2. Of the three true third trimester abortions, two were done for ancephaly. The reason for the third was undetermined, so I suppose that could be your “couldn’t fit into the prom dress” anecdote, but there’s no particular reason to think that it was anything other than another fetal malformation.
According to MMWR of the approximately 9800 legal late abortions (>21 weeks) that occurred in the US in 1998, about 2500 took place in NY. NY restricts third trimester abortions to situations in which the mother’s life is in danger. About 1000 more apiece occurred in Texas and Georgia, both of which restrict third trimester abortion to threat to life and health of mother. No other state had over 1000 abortions performed at greater than 21 weeks. Kansas , which restricts abortion after “viability”, had about 660, so the majority of abortions at >21 weeks are occurring in states that don’t allow elective abortion in the third trimester. So where do these hordes of women who want abortions in the third trimester because they wake up cranky one morning that Sebastian postulates go to get them?
According to MMWR of the approximately 9800 legal late abortions (>21 weeks) that occurred in the US in 1998, about 2500 took place in NY. NY restricts third trimester abortions to situations in which the mother’s life is in danger. About 1000 more apiece occurred in Texas and Georgia, both of which restrict third trimester abortion to threat to life and health of mother. No other state had over 1000 abortions performed at greater than 21 weeks. Kansas , which restricts abortion after “viability”, had about 660, so the majority of abortions at >21 weeks are occurring in states that don’t allow elective abortion in the third trimester. So where do these hordes of women who want abortions in the third trimester because they wake up cranky one morning that Sebastian postulates go to get them?
Coming into comments too late, but I just wanted to respond to Seb’s question why anyone who thinks that “it is not morally relevant” (which I take to mean: the fetus/embryo does not have enough moral standing to make killing it wrong?) would find abortion “tough.
As others have noted, part of the confusion might be that “tough” does not necessarily mean “morally tough”. It’s not entirely clear which publius meant, but Seb presumably meant “morally tough”.
Even so, though: the decision to have an abortion is the decision not to have a child. It’s a decision between two very, very different futures, one of which includes a child of yours, and one of which does not. Even leaving aside the moral issues, this would have to be incredibly hard in most cases: kind of like breaking up with someone you’ve been deeply involved with, only much, much more so. (I mean: breaking up involves kissing an entire possible future, involving someone you (by hypothesis) care a lot about, goodbye: the similarity. It does not involve that person’s not existing: why abortion is often much tougher.)
Most breakups of serious relationships are tough, even when you know you’re doing the right thing. They are emotionally tough, for obvious reasons. But they are also, a lot of the time, morally tough, even though *none* of the issues about moral standing are involved. You ask yourself: am I just being selfish here? Is it really true that we just can’t work this out, or am I just somehow not willing to make the kind of effort it would need? Am I being smart enough to cut my losses, or too shallow and selfish to go the distance?
These are all serious *moral* questions. In cases that do not involve either rape or birth defects so serious as to make the child’s life (were it allowed to become a born child) unbearable (e.g., Tay Sachs), I think questions like that have to arise. Imho, they are more than adequate to make decisions about abortion genuinely tough.
I think the decision whether or not to have an abortion is (almost) always tremendously tough. And one of the claims made by people who oppose abortion (not, *not*, including Seb, who said something quite different) that most consistently infuriates me is that the fact that people who have abortions find this decision difficult or tragic or heartbreaking somehow *shows* that they secretly recognize that abortion is murder. Not a lot of things reduce me to sputtering rage, but that claim — which strikes me as willful self-deception deployed in an unusually heartless way — does.
Coming into comments too late, but I just wanted to respond to Seb’s question why anyone who thinks that “it is not morally relevant” (which I take to mean: the fetus/embryo does not have enough moral standing to make killing it wrong?) would find abortion “tough.
As others have noted, part of the confusion might be that “tough” does not necessarily mean “morally tough”. It’s not entirely clear which publius meant, but Seb presumably meant “morally tough”.
Even so, though: the decision to have an abortion is the decision not to have a child. It’s a decision between two very, very different futures, one of which includes a child of yours, and one of which does not. Even leaving aside the moral issues, this would have to be incredibly hard in most cases: kind of like breaking up with someone you’ve been deeply involved with, only much, much more so. (I mean: breaking up involves kissing an entire possible future, involving someone you (by hypothesis) care a lot about, goodbye: the similarity. It does not involve that person’s not existing: why abortion is often much tougher.)
Most breakups of serious relationships are tough, even when you know you’re doing the right thing. They are emotionally tough, for obvious reasons. But they are also, a lot of the time, morally tough, even though *none* of the issues about moral standing are involved. You ask yourself: am I just being selfish here? Is it really true that we just can’t work this out, or am I just somehow not willing to make the kind of effort it would need? Am I being smart enough to cut my losses, or too shallow and selfish to go the distance?
These are all serious *moral* questions. In cases that do not involve either rape or birth defects so serious as to make the child’s life (were it allowed to become a born child) unbearable (e.g., Tay Sachs), I think questions like that have to arise. Imho, they are more than adequate to make decisions about abortion genuinely tough.
I think the decision whether or not to have an abortion is (almost) always tremendously tough. And one of the claims made by people who oppose abortion (not, *not*, including Seb, who said something quite different) that most consistently infuriates me is that the fact that people who have abortions find this decision difficult or tragic or heartbreaking somehow *shows* that they secretly recognize that abortion is murder. Not a lot of things reduce me to sputtering rage, but that claim — which strikes me as willful self-deception deployed in an unusually heartless way — does.
I will probably regret weighing on in this, but although I consider women fully human, I feel there is a point towards the end of the pregnancy where it is not moral for the woman to choose an abortion rather than go to the full-term (except if there are pressing medical reasons). And that is something to do loosely with implied consent to use eventually giving a right to use. The issue by eight or nine months (except in places where there are extreme difficulties in obtaining abortions earlier) isn’t about a new attempt to force use of the mother’s body, it’s about continuing use by the fetus of a body that the woman has previously allowed for its use/support. If you want to use an organ donation analogy, it’s someone who has offered to make a kidney donation or the like and when the receipient is already opened up on the operating theatre, saying ‘No, I don’t want to do this.’ It seems to me morally wrong to back out at the very end stage if the initial choice had been made freely. In other words, while I support a woman’s right to choose, I think there is a cut-off point by which she must exercise this right and I am not in favour of making that cutoff point full-term.
I will probably regret weighing on in this, but although I consider women fully human, I feel there is a point towards the end of the pregnancy where it is not moral for the woman to choose an abortion rather than go to the full-term (except if there are pressing medical reasons). And that is something to do loosely with implied consent to use eventually giving a right to use. The issue by eight or nine months (except in places where there are extreme difficulties in obtaining abortions earlier) isn’t about a new attempt to force use of the mother’s body, it’s about continuing use by the fetus of a body that the woman has previously allowed for its use/support. If you want to use an organ donation analogy, it’s someone who has offered to make a kidney donation or the like and when the receipient is already opened up on the operating theatre, saying ‘No, I don’t want to do this.’ It seems to me morally wrong to back out at the very end stage if the initial choice had been made freely. In other words, while I support a woman’s right to choose, I think there is a cut-off point by which she must exercise this right and I am not in favour of making that cutoff point full-term.
Dianne, there is California with 1/6th of the population, the size of France, and more pregnancies (it is almost certainly in the 1000+ range). It doesn’t report at all. Texas has the ‘and mental health’ exception which was so abused in California in the pre-Roe years and later 70s. And it requires nothing more than a sign off on the form.
I’ll look at the Georgia report tonight after volleyball.
Dianne, there is California with 1/6th of the population, the size of France, and more pregnancies (it is almost certainly in the 1000+ range). It doesn’t report at all. Texas has the ‘and mental health’ exception which was so abused in California in the pre-Roe years and later 70s. And it requires nothing more than a sign off on the form.
I’ll look at the Georgia report tonight after volleyball.
Dianne: Another report on third trimester abortion this one from Georgia (the one in the US)
It is 29 years old, this in one report about one clinic and according to the data in the report 33% of the third term abortions (1 in 3) were unaccounted for. Though I agree (as does Sebastian as far as I know) that in all likelyhood most of the third term abortions are because of fetal anomalies (that is not what this discussion is about actually) this report only confirms his statement that there is no trustworthy info about it.
Your other report, from the MMWR, does not specify why the abortions took place. Sebastian’s point is that there are no detailed reports available. So far your proving his point for him.
Almost midnight here, so bedtime. But it is probabely clear that I agree with magistra.
Dianne: Another report on third trimester abortion this one from Georgia (the one in the US)
It is 29 years old, this in one report about one clinic and according to the data in the report 33% of the third term abortions (1 in 3) were unaccounted for. Though I agree (as does Sebastian as far as I know) that in all likelyhood most of the third term abortions are because of fetal anomalies (that is not what this discussion is about actually) this report only confirms his statement that there is no trustworthy info about it.
Your other report, from the MMWR, does not specify why the abortions took place. Sebastian’s point is that there are no detailed reports available. So far your proving his point for him.
Almost midnight here, so bedtime. But it is probabely clear that I agree with magistra.
juno
a bunch of people have written about the politics of juno…
juno
a bunch of people have written about the politics of juno…
magistra: I feel there is a point towards the end of the pregnancy where it is not moral for the woman to choose an abortion rather than go to the full-term (except if there are pressing medical reasons).
Once the pregnancy is past 32 weeks, inducing labor or having a c-sec will (assuming the fetus is alive and healthy) result in a premature baby that, given a developed country’s best standards of health care, is as likely to survive and grow up as normally as any other baby. So if there’s a need to terminate the pregnancy early, after 32 weeks there’s no reason not to do so by inducing labour or having a c-sec. As already noted, however, there is no evidence except in pro-lifer fantasies that women are just randomly going into clinics and having 8th or 9th month abortions because they feel like it.
magistra: I feel there is a point towards the end of the pregnancy where it is not moral for the woman to choose an abortion rather than go to the full-term (except if there are pressing medical reasons).
Once the pregnancy is past 32 weeks, inducing labor or having a c-sec will (assuming the fetus is alive and healthy) result in a premature baby that, given a developed country’s best standards of health care, is as likely to survive and grow up as normally as any other baby. So if there’s a need to terminate the pregnancy early, after 32 weeks there’s no reason not to do so by inducing labour or having a c-sec. As already noted, however, there is no evidence except in pro-lifer fantasies that women are just randomly going into clinics and having 8th or 9th month abortions because they feel like it.
Texas has the ‘and mental health’ exception which was so abused in California in the pre-Roe years and later 70s.
Source for the claim that the exception is abused? I’ve heard that claim before, but not with any particular evidence and given that mental illness kills (20% mortality for untreated major depression, 8% mortality for borderline personality disorder, etc), I don’t see why concern for the mental health of the mother should be seen as a sign of weakness.
I agree that California is not listed–embarrassingly, I, um, forgot about its existence and therefore didn’t either comment or attempt to dig up figures for it. However, it appears that California bans elective abortion after “viability” so they aren’t particularly relevant.
Texas has the ‘and mental health’ exception which was so abused in California in the pre-Roe years and later 70s.
Source for the claim that the exception is abused? I’ve heard that claim before, but not with any particular evidence and given that mental illness kills (20% mortality for untreated major depression, 8% mortality for borderline personality disorder, etc), I don’t see why concern for the mental health of the mother should be seen as a sign of weakness.
I agree that California is not listed–embarrassingly, I, um, forgot about its existence and therefore didn’t either comment or attempt to dig up figures for it. However, it appears that California bans elective abortion after “viability” so they aren’t particularly relevant.
So if there’s a need to terminate the pregnancy early, after 32 weeks there’s no reason not to do so by inducing labour or having a c-sec.
Not entirely. Some of the more grotesque fetal anomolies can produce situations in which the fetus can’t fit through the cervix. For example, hydrocephalus producing a skull twice or more times normal diameter or muscle disorders that leave the fetus in an unrelenting spasm, forcing it into a shape that can not fit through the cervix (and looks even worse than it sounds…not something you ever want to see, even just on ultrasound.) Technically, a c-section is usually possible, but why do major abdominal surgery in order to remove a fetus that is dead already. I know you probably meant no reason not to induce or do a c-section when the fetus is healthy, but, as you said…
As already noted, however, there is no evidence except in pro-lifer fantasies that women are just randomly going into clinics and having 8th or 9th month abortions because they feel like it.
It’s not women with healthy fetuses that have 3rd trimester abortions. Does anyone have even anecdotal evidence of anyone attempting or succeeding in getting a 3rd trimester abortion of a healthy fetus when they are also healthy? Why would anyone? After putting up with 7-8 months of fatigue, nausea, weight gain, hormonal fluctuations, constipation, etc to not even get a baby out of it? Yuck. If you didn’t want it, what was wrong with getting an abortion 7 months ago and sparing yourself the agony?
So if there’s a need to terminate the pregnancy early, after 32 weeks there’s no reason not to do so by inducing labour or having a c-sec.
Not entirely. Some of the more grotesque fetal anomolies can produce situations in which the fetus can’t fit through the cervix. For example, hydrocephalus producing a skull twice or more times normal diameter or muscle disorders that leave the fetus in an unrelenting spasm, forcing it into a shape that can not fit through the cervix (and looks even worse than it sounds…not something you ever want to see, even just on ultrasound.) Technically, a c-section is usually possible, but why do major abdominal surgery in order to remove a fetus that is dead already. I know you probably meant no reason not to induce or do a c-section when the fetus is healthy, but, as you said…
As already noted, however, there is no evidence except in pro-lifer fantasies that women are just randomly going into clinics and having 8th or 9th month abortions because they feel like it.
It’s not women with healthy fetuses that have 3rd trimester abortions. Does anyone have even anecdotal evidence of anyone attempting or succeeding in getting a 3rd trimester abortion of a healthy fetus when they are also healthy? Why would anyone? After putting up with 7-8 months of fatigue, nausea, weight gain, hormonal fluctuations, constipation, etc to not even get a baby out of it? Yuck. If you didn’t want it, what was wrong with getting an abortion 7 months ago and sparing yourself the agony?
‘However, it appears that California bans elective abortion after “viability” so they aren’t particularly relevant.’
Begs the question.
‘However, it appears that California bans elective abortion after “viability” so they aren’t particularly relevant.’
Begs the question.
In other words, while I support a woman’s right to choose, I think there is a cut-off point by which she must exercise this right and I am not in favour of making that cutoff point full-term.
And it always comes back to this–if you don’t want to have a late term abortion, don’t have one. People make decisions that other people find morally repugnant every freaking day, but it seems like on this matter and in one’s sexual preference, there’s this sense that it’s not only acceptable, but proper to impose your personal opinion on someone else. Sorry, but I don’t think so–you are welcome to your opinions, but not to someone else’s body.
In other words, while I support a woman’s right to choose, I think there is a cut-off point by which she must exercise this right and I am not in favour of making that cutoff point full-term.
And it always comes back to this–if you don’t want to have a late term abortion, don’t have one. People make decisions that other people find morally repugnant every freaking day, but it seems like on this matter and in one’s sexual preference, there’s this sense that it’s not only acceptable, but proper to impose your personal opinion on someone else. Sorry, but I don’t think so–you are welcome to your opinions, but not to someone else’s body.
Texas also banned homosexual sodomy for 40 years with exactly one enforcement prosecution. Would you argue that the was precisely one act of homosexual sex in that period?
Texas also banned homosexual sodomy for 40 years with exactly one enforcement prosecution. Would you argue that the was precisely one act of homosexual sex in that period?
“Why would anyone? After putting up with 7-8 months of fatigue, nausea, weight gain, hormonal fluctuations, constipation, etc to not even get a baby out of it?”
This is a very odd argument. Why would they go through the entire birthing process and then kill the kid a couple of weeks later? I don’t know but they do. Why would they let their boyfriends sexually abuse the kids? I don’t know but they do. Why would they cut off their boy’s balls? I don’t know but some do.
People do bad things. They aren’t common but they are still bad. We often make those things illegal. The fact that your average person wouldn’t murder anyone isn’t an argument against making murder illegal. Neither is the fact that *most* women wouldn’t abort late for stupid reasons.
“Why would anyone? After putting up with 7-8 months of fatigue, nausea, weight gain, hormonal fluctuations, constipation, etc to not even get a baby out of it?”
This is a very odd argument. Why would they go through the entire birthing process and then kill the kid a couple of weeks later? I don’t know but they do. Why would they let their boyfriends sexually abuse the kids? I don’t know but they do. Why would they cut off their boy’s balls? I don’t know but some do.
People do bad things. They aren’t common but they are still bad. We often make those things illegal. The fact that your average person wouldn’t murder anyone isn’t an argument against making murder illegal. Neither is the fact that *most* women wouldn’t abort late for stupid reasons.
There’s no question that people do stupid things, but the question at hand involves someone wanting to do something highly frowned on by society and a doctor willing to participate.
Ok, people apparently convince doctors to amputate healthy limbs because of body-image issues, but I at least have never heard so much as a rumor of a late-term abortion done for non-medical reasons in this country.
And I can imagine that some percentage of abortions have side effects requiring hospitalization, so I would think a few such would have come to light if the rate is non-negligible.
There’s no question that people do stupid things, but the question at hand involves someone wanting to do something highly frowned on by society and a doctor willing to participate.
Ok, people apparently convince doctors to amputate healthy limbs because of body-image issues, but I at least have never heard so much as a rumor of a late-term abortion done for non-medical reasons in this country.
And I can imagine that some percentage of abortions have side effects requiring hospitalization, so I would think a few such would have come to light if the rate is non-negligible.
To expand slightly, I would expect most elective-late-term abortions to be sought by women in desperate circumstances – overwhelmed by poverty, suffering emotional problems, or being coerced by the father or other relation (one unlikely to be of good standing in society) – and that’s the profile of someone I would expect to find great difficulty in convincing a doctor to perform an act which is considered by some grounds for assassination when done under legal and much less controversial circumstances.
Ok, say there are women in such circumstances who managed to find a willing doctor – I would expect that we’d hear from them (selling their story of repentance to CBN, telling their therapist when lucid or not, telling the police when the boyfriend’s in the drunk tank). Or we’d hear from the doctor’s disgruntled secretary or from the IRS or …
To be fair, if you come up with such testimony I’ll probably argue that much or all of it is expected from confabulation.
To expand slightly, I would expect most elective-late-term abortions to be sought by women in desperate circumstances – overwhelmed by poverty, suffering emotional problems, or being coerced by the father or other relation (one unlikely to be of good standing in society) – and that’s the profile of someone I would expect to find great difficulty in convincing a doctor to perform an act which is considered by some grounds for assassination when done under legal and much less controversial circumstances.
Ok, say there are women in such circumstances who managed to find a willing doctor – I would expect that we’d hear from them (selling their story of repentance to CBN, telling their therapist when lucid or not, telling the police when the boyfriend’s in the drunk tank). Or we’d hear from the doctor’s disgruntled secretary or from the IRS or …
To be fair, if you come up with such testimony I’ll probably argue that much or all of it is expected from confabulation.
“Ok, people apparently convince doctors to amputate healthy limbs because of body-image issues, but I at least have never heard so much as a rumor of a late-term abortion done for non-medical reasons in this country.”
I’ve heard of a number of late term abortions for cleft palate and Down’s Syndrome, neither or which are so debilitating as to necessitate death.
We had a discussion about a nurse who reported elective late term abortion in I think Indiana about two years ago but since she had joined Operation Rescue afterwards you all didn’t consider her reliable. Hmm, what search term could dredge that thread up. Was it Dr. Death or something.
It was the state that they were trying to subpoena records in….or am I getting discussions confused?
“Ok, people apparently convince doctors to amputate healthy limbs because of body-image issues, but I at least have never heard so much as a rumor of a late-term abortion done for non-medical reasons in this country.”
I’ve heard of a number of late term abortions for cleft palate and Down’s Syndrome, neither or which are so debilitating as to necessitate death.
We had a discussion about a nurse who reported elective late term abortion in I think Indiana about two years ago but since she had joined Operation Rescue afterwards you all didn’t consider her reliable. Hmm, what search term could dredge that thread up. Was it Dr. Death or something.
It was the state that they were trying to subpoena records in….or am I getting discussions confused?
All this back and forth seems to overlook the fundamental potential for common ground here: early and mid-term abortions being legal while late-term abortions are not. One side of course will argue that this is unacceptable because murder is murder while the other will argue that it’s just the legal camel’s nose, an level to completely pry reproductive rights from women’s hands.
The majority of Americans realize that it is rather monstrous to pretend that an infant moments from birth is, legally, a nonperson who should be able to be killed without legal penalty. On the flip side, though, the majority of people realize that it is just as absurd and monstrous in its repercussions to pretend that a cluster of cells is deserving of legal personhood because its genetic code can be classified as ‘human,’ while its living mother is SOL.
The damage wrought by both extremes should be obvious: our cultural landscape is polarized, cratered with the aftermath of decades of frenzied rhetorical and legal battles. Still, the majority understands that the difficult answer lies somewhere in the middle, and that no amount of chest-thumping, sign-waving, and slogan-chanting will change the fact. Even the church, for the vast majority of its history, understood and embraced this: the concept of “Quickening” was fundamental to the idea of life.
It seems that accepting this compromise and working to marginalize both extremes is wiser than conducting a bitterly fought ‘culture war’ in which only the most absurd and extreme position is considered Righteous And Acceptable.
All this back and forth seems to overlook the fundamental potential for common ground here: early and mid-term abortions being legal while late-term abortions are not. One side of course will argue that this is unacceptable because murder is murder while the other will argue that it’s just the legal camel’s nose, an level to completely pry reproductive rights from women’s hands.
The majority of Americans realize that it is rather monstrous to pretend that an infant moments from birth is, legally, a nonperson who should be able to be killed without legal penalty. On the flip side, though, the majority of people realize that it is just as absurd and monstrous in its repercussions to pretend that a cluster of cells is deserving of legal personhood because its genetic code can be classified as ‘human,’ while its living mother is SOL.
The damage wrought by both extremes should be obvious: our cultural landscape is polarized, cratered with the aftermath of decades of frenzied rhetorical and legal battles. Still, the majority understands that the difficult answer lies somewhere in the middle, and that no amount of chest-thumping, sign-waving, and slogan-chanting will change the fact. Even the church, for the vast majority of its history, understood and embraced this: the concept of “Quickening” was fundamental to the idea of life.
It seems that accepting this compromise and working to marginalize both extremes is wiser than conducting a bitterly fought ‘culture war’ in which only the most absurd and extreme position is considered Righteous And Acceptable.
“All this back and forth seems to overlook the fundamental potential for common ground here: early and mid-term abortions being legal while late-term abortions are not.”
I thought this was called “Roe v. Wade”?
To be sure, I’ve pretty much skipped doing more than the lightest skim of this thread as it has progressed, but I’m not clear that that’s relevant to my observation.
“All this back and forth seems to overlook the fundamental potential for common ground here: early and mid-term abortions being legal while late-term abortions are not.”
I thought this was called “Roe v. Wade”?
To be sure, I’ve pretty much skipped doing more than the lightest skim of this thread as it has progressed, but I’m not clear that that’s relevant to my observation.
Roe vs. Wade in theory or as applied?
Roe vs. Wade in theory or as applied?
The legal details of Roe have long since been eclipsed by its totemic BIG MEANING for both camps.
The legal details of Roe have long since been eclipsed by its totemic BIG MEANING for both camps.
There is already another situation in which people do not have an absolute legal right to decide what to do with their own body IF they require a doctor to be involved: assisted suicide. (This is therefore different from cases involving e.g. masochistic consensual sex, where there is no medical intervention required). I don’t think even those who support euthenasia argue that it should be available in every circumstance: that if you feel suicidal (but are otherwise healthy) you should be able to expect a doctor to help you die.
In other words, very few people think that bodily autonomy which makes demands on doctors is an absolute right under all circumstances and those who make that pro-choice argument are not going to win much support.
To get to a specific example. The current English system has a number of loosely worded criteria for abortion before 24 weeks, that in practice come near to allowing abortion on demand. The procedure is also widely available and cheap/free, although there are still debates about whether the mechanics of the procedure are right. Abortion after 24 weeks is allowed if there is risk of severe permanent injury or death to the mother or the child if born is likely to be severely handicapped. How many pro-choicers on this blog think that these restrictions on late abortions are excessively harsh? I certainly wouldn’t and I gather dutchmarbel wouldn’t. What about others here?
There is already another situation in which people do not have an absolute legal right to decide what to do with their own body IF they require a doctor to be involved: assisted suicide. (This is therefore different from cases involving e.g. masochistic consensual sex, where there is no medical intervention required). I don’t think even those who support euthenasia argue that it should be available in every circumstance: that if you feel suicidal (but are otherwise healthy) you should be able to expect a doctor to help you die.
In other words, very few people think that bodily autonomy which makes demands on doctors is an absolute right under all circumstances and those who make that pro-choice argument are not going to win much support.
To get to a specific example. The current English system has a number of loosely worded criteria for abortion before 24 weeks, that in practice come near to allowing abortion on demand. The procedure is also widely available and cheap/free, although there are still debates about whether the mechanics of the procedure are right. Abortion after 24 weeks is allowed if there is risk of severe permanent injury or death to the mother or the child if born is likely to be severely handicapped. How many pro-choicers on this blog think that these restrictions on late abortions are excessively harsh? I certainly wouldn’t and I gather dutchmarbel wouldn’t. What about others here?
I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.
Jeff: The majority of Americans realize that it is rather monstrous to pretend that an infant moments from birth is, legally, a nonperson who should be able to be killed without legal penalty.
Pro-lifers tend to do a bait-and-switch, though. You can point out that there is no evidence that anyone ever has a late-term abortion without medical need: that the claim that people have abortions “moments from birth” is such nonsense one wonders even pro-lifers can bear to repeat it. This makes no difference to people who really are locked into the fantasy that women are evil and must be stopped, but I’ve seen pro-lifers, arguing that “babies minutes from birth ought not to be killed”, respond to the available evidence that late-term abortions are carried out only for medical reasons, not as a spontaneous “I just don’t want to be pregnant” choice with the argument that the vast majority of abortions are carried out just because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. True, and the vast majority of abortions are carried out in the first trimester – indeed, given how fast a woman can find out she’s pregnant these days, a large majority at >6 weeks.
But that women should have the right to decide for themselves at any stage in their pregnancy: this should be uncontroversial. This isn’t a demand for abortions “moments from birth” – this is a demand that women are treated as humans and not as incubators.
Now, the interesting points that make clear that the goal of the pro-life movement is not to prevent abortions:
Where access to early abortion is immediately available on demand and either free or low-cost to anyone, most women who just don’t want to be pregnant will go for an early abortion. Where access to contraception is free or low cost and immediately available on demand without having to justify it, no matter what your age, fewer women become pregnant without planning it, especially where access to contraception is backed up by sensible and informative sex education in schools.
Obvious, common-sense points. No pro-life organization in the US supports any of them, and pro-lifers in general line up against all of them. It is not the pro-choice side that radicalizes the debate: it is people who expect their pretended concern for “babies being killed” to be taken seriously, while actively working to ensure that the abortion rate in the US remains high and that women have later abortions because they cannot access medical services early.
I note in passing that Sebastian has once again brought forth his Secret Abortions Conspiracy Theory. As this point is not amenable to rational discourse, I will not attempt to reason with him about it.
Jeff: The majority of Americans realize that it is rather monstrous to pretend that an infant moments from birth is, legally, a nonperson who should be able to be killed without legal penalty.
Pro-lifers tend to do a bait-and-switch, though. You can point out that there is no evidence that anyone ever has a late-term abortion without medical need: that the claim that people have abortions “moments from birth” is such nonsense one wonders even pro-lifers can bear to repeat it. This makes no difference to people who really are locked into the fantasy that women are evil and must be stopped, but I’ve seen pro-lifers, arguing that “babies minutes from birth ought not to be killed”, respond to the available evidence that late-term abortions are carried out only for medical reasons, not as a spontaneous “I just don’t want to be pregnant” choice with the argument that the vast majority of abortions are carried out just because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. True, and the vast majority of abortions are carried out in the first trimester – indeed, given how fast a woman can find out she’s pregnant these days, a large majority at >6 weeks.
But that women should have the right to decide for themselves at any stage in their pregnancy: this should be uncontroversial. This isn’t a demand for abortions “moments from birth” – this is a demand that women are treated as humans and not as incubators.
Now, the interesting points that make clear that the goal of the pro-life movement is not to prevent abortions:
Where access to early abortion is immediately available on demand and either free or low-cost to anyone, most women who just don’t want to be pregnant will go for an early abortion. Where access to contraception is free or low cost and immediately available on demand without having to justify it, no matter what your age, fewer women become pregnant without planning it, especially where access to contraception is backed up by sensible and informative sex education in schools.
Obvious, common-sense points. No pro-life organization in the US supports any of them, and pro-lifers in general line up against all of them. It is not the pro-choice side that radicalizes the debate: it is people who expect their pretended concern for “babies being killed” to be taken seriously, while actively working to ensure that the abortion rate in the US remains high and that women have later abortions because they cannot access medical services early.
Touching post, but a tad naive. The anti-choice movement is based on the control of female sexuality. If you remove the control part, there’s not really anything to get them out of bed in the mornings, right? I do realize that there’s a widespread, non-active “abortion is icky” crowd, but the anti-choice movement, at its core, doesn’t have a whit of respect for those people, who they rightly see as contracepting, fornicating freedom-lovers.
Touching post, but a tad naive. The anti-choice movement is based on the control of female sexuality. If you remove the control part, there’s not really anything to get them out of bed in the mornings, right? I do realize that there’s a widespread, non-active “abortion is icky” crowd, but the anti-choice movement, at its core, doesn’t have a whit of respect for those people, who they rightly see as contracepting, fornicating freedom-lovers.
Reading back through scroll, I’m suddenly struck by the phrase “If you think . . .”
People talk a lot about various perspectives on what the fetus is, etcetera.
But, you know, we choose how we conceptualize the fetus. It’s not a matter of “well, if we decide that it’s one thing, we really can’t help it, you know?”
Deciding that the fetus is a person is a political act. Deciding that the fetus *might* be a person is a political act. It’s part of defining a theory of personhood and natural rights. It’s not a scientific statement or the personal solution to a philosophical and existential dilemma.
We can ask empirically about stuff like the feeling of pain (sort of), or the level of brain development, or the ability to survive outside the womb. We can imagine backwards from babies or imagine forwards from little parasites latching onto the uterine wall. But we don’t get to just kind of *think* that, you know, what if it’s “alive” or what if it’s “a person” or whatever?
Personhood is created by consciousness—it is in the eye of the beholder, even when that beholder is the self. Deciding that a fetus in somebody else’s womb is a person has *consequences*.
And, yes, this cuts both ways. I *decide* not to categorize fetuses in other people’s wombs as independent people. I *decide* not to tell my story of the world such that they are people. It is not a matter of proof but of choice. And I make that decision because I think that doing so leaves me better equipped to fight the suffering in this world. I think that it is better to want to see female-bodied human beings prosper and have autonomy and opportunities than to eclipse or shatter that potential in the name of the life, liberty, and personal power of an undifferentiated agencyless potential that is growing within them. That is my decision.
I remember the first time I saw a woman post on how offended she was that someone would think more highly of a zygote than of herself. And I thought at the time, being young and having a rather unformed picture of the world, that she was pushing the point a bit strongly—that nobody was trying to prize zygotes above women, they were just wrestling with what personhood meant. I later realized I was wrong; wrestling with what personhood means, in this context, is exactly an attempt to value the pregnancy (the split cell, the zygote, the fetus, the embryo, the condition, the potential human, the pregnancy, the heir, the unborn baby, the future life) in the same coin as the woman, and to her detriment.
Reading back through scroll, I’m suddenly struck by the phrase “If you think . . .”
People talk a lot about various perspectives on what the fetus is, etcetera.
But, you know, we choose how we conceptualize the fetus. It’s not a matter of “well, if we decide that it’s one thing, we really can’t help it, you know?”
Deciding that the fetus is a person is a political act. Deciding that the fetus *might* be a person is a political act. It’s part of defining a theory of personhood and natural rights. It’s not a scientific statement or the personal solution to a philosophical and existential dilemma.
We can ask empirically about stuff like the feeling of pain (sort of), or the level of brain development, or the ability to survive outside the womb. We can imagine backwards from babies or imagine forwards from little parasites latching onto the uterine wall. But we don’t get to just kind of *think* that, you know, what if it’s “alive” or what if it’s “a person” or whatever?
Personhood is created by consciousness—it is in the eye of the beholder, even when that beholder is the self. Deciding that a fetus in somebody else’s womb is a person has *consequences*.
And, yes, this cuts both ways. I *decide* not to categorize fetuses in other people’s wombs as independent people. I *decide* not to tell my story of the world such that they are people. It is not a matter of proof but of choice. And I make that decision because I think that doing so leaves me better equipped to fight the suffering in this world. I think that it is better to want to see female-bodied human beings prosper and have autonomy and opportunities than to eclipse or shatter that potential in the name of the life, liberty, and personal power of an undifferentiated agencyless potential that is growing within them. That is my decision.
I remember the first time I saw a woman post on how offended she was that someone would think more highly of a zygote than of herself. And I thought at the time, being young and having a rather unformed picture of the world, that she was pushing the point a bit strongly—that nobody was trying to prize zygotes above women, they were just wrestling with what personhood meant. I later realized I was wrong; wrestling with what personhood means, in this context, is exactly an attempt to value the pregnancy (the split cell, the zygote, the fetus, the embryo, the condition, the potential human, the pregnancy, the heir, the unborn baby, the future life) in the same coin as the woman, and to her detriment.
I’ve heard of a number of late term abortions for cleft palate and Down’s Syndrome, neither or which are so debilitating as to necessitate death.
Can you provide a citation demonstrating that either has happened? I’ve also heard of a number of alien landings, but I somehow doubt that they really occurred. Even so, DS, while not usually lethal in the first years of life, can be associated with fatal and sometimes uncorrectable cardiac defects which can cause death within days. Cleft palate in itself is not lethal, but can be associated with other defects, including neurological defects, that are. Was the abortion you heard about really for cleft palate or was cleft palate just the most obvious external sign of a complex and fatal congenital abnormality?
I’ve heard of a number of late term abortions for cleft palate and Down’s Syndrome, neither or which are so debilitating as to necessitate death.
Can you provide a citation demonstrating that either has happened? I’ve also heard of a number of alien landings, but I somehow doubt that they really occurred. Even so, DS, while not usually lethal in the first years of life, can be associated with fatal and sometimes uncorrectable cardiac defects which can cause death within days. Cleft palate in itself is not lethal, but can be associated with other defects, including neurological defects, that are. Was the abortion you heard about really for cleft palate or was cleft palate just the most obvious external sign of a complex and fatal congenital abnormality?
Dianne: Can you provide a citation demonstrating that either has happened?
Well, there was certainly one incident in England in 2000 where an abortion was carried out on or after the 24th week (no other information could be released, to protect the privacy of the patient) because the fetus had a cleft palate. A Church of England curate attempted to have the two doctors responsible prosecuted for unlawful killing. BBC. The incident evidently was more famous on pro-life sites in North America than it ever was here. While the curate – who had herself been born with mild, and surgically remedied, facial deformities – seemed not to understand that a cleft palate can be extremely serious and unfixable, the medical evidence seems to have convinced the courts that when a fetus has a disability that the pregnant woman and two doctors agree is serious, the law allows a post-24 week abortion.
Dianne: Can you provide a citation demonstrating that either has happened?
Well, there was certainly one incident in England in 2000 where an abortion was carried out on or after the 24th week (no other information could be released, to protect the privacy of the patient) because the fetus had a cleft palate. A Church of England curate attempted to have the two doctors responsible prosecuted for unlawful killing. BBC. The incident evidently was more famous on pro-life sites in North America than it ever was here. While the curate – who had herself been born with mild, and surgically remedied, facial deformities – seemed not to understand that a cleft palate can be extremely serious and unfixable, the medical evidence seems to have convinced the courts that when a fetus has a disability that the pregnant woman and two doctors agree is serious, the law allows a post-24 week abortion.
Dianne: Can you provide a citation demonstrating that either has happened?
Well, there was certainly one incident in England in 2000 where an abortion was carried out on or after the 24th week (no other information could be released, to protect the privacy of the patient) because the fetus had a cleft palate. A Church of England curate attempted to have the two doctors responsible prosecuted for unlawful killing. BBC. The incident evidently was more famous on pro-life sites in North America than it ever was here. While the curate – who had herself been born with mild, and surgically remedied, facial deformities – seemed not to understand that a cleft palate can be extremely serious and unfixable, the medical evidence seems to have convinced the courts that when a fetus has a disability that the pregnant woman and two doctors agree is serious, the law allows a post-24 week abortion.
Dianne: Can you provide a citation demonstrating that either has happened?
Well, there was certainly one incident in England in 2000 where an abortion was carried out on or after the 24th week (no other information could be released, to protect the privacy of the patient) because the fetus had a cleft palate. A Church of England curate attempted to have the two doctors responsible prosecuted for unlawful killing. BBC. The incident evidently was more famous on pro-life sites in North America than it ever was here. While the curate – who had herself been born with mild, and surgically remedied, facial deformities – seemed not to understand that a cleft palate can be extremely serious and unfixable, the medical evidence seems to have convinced the courts that when a fetus has a disability that the pregnant woman and two doctors agree is serious, the law allows a post-24 week abortion.
Abortion after 24 weeks is allowed if there is risk of severe permanent injury or death to the mother or the child if born is likely to be severely handicapped. How many pro-choicers on this blog think that these restrictions on late abortions are excessively harsh?
As a practical matter, no. In theory, however, I do worry about the implications of saying that one person (assuming that the fetus is something that can reasonably be called a person) is allowed to use the organs and tissues of another for his/her support against the will of the “host”. If it is allowed, why not also allow forced blood donation and forced bone marrow donation? Both are potentially saving and both are far safer than completing a pregnancy. Yet at least one commenter on this thread responded with absolute horror at the idea. Why do people not respond with equal horror to the idea of restricting abortion, i.e. forcing a woman to allow a fetus to parasitize off of her body, at moderate risk to her health and life?
Abortion after 24 weeks is allowed if there is risk of severe permanent injury or death to the mother or the child if born is likely to be severely handicapped. How many pro-choicers on this blog think that these restrictions on late abortions are excessively harsh?
As a practical matter, no. In theory, however, I do worry about the implications of saying that one person (assuming that the fetus is something that can reasonably be called a person) is allowed to use the organs and tissues of another for his/her support against the will of the “host”. If it is allowed, why not also allow forced blood donation and forced bone marrow donation? Both are potentially saving and both are far safer than completing a pregnancy. Yet at least one commenter on this thread responded with absolute horror at the idea. Why do people not respond with equal horror to the idea of restricting abortion, i.e. forcing a woman to allow a fetus to parasitize off of her body, at moderate risk to her health and life?
Jes: Thanks. I would guess that in that case the cleft palate was associated with other problems that were more serious since the courts were apparently convinced that it was not an unlawful killing and I doubt that they would have been if it were simply a case where the mother was afraid of what people would think if she had a “deformed” baby or whatever. However, it does seem that SH is right and there has been at least one incident of third trimester abortion for a cleft palate in the last 8 years. Quite the epidemic.
Jes: Thanks. I would guess that in that case the cleft palate was associated with other problems that were more serious since the courts were apparently convinced that it was not an unlawful killing and I doubt that they would have been if it were simply a case where the mother was afraid of what people would think if she had a “deformed” baby or whatever. However, it does seem that SH is right and there has been at least one incident of third trimester abortion for a cleft palate in the last 8 years. Quite the epidemic.
On this relatively uncontroversial (in any sane world) point, we can most certainly agree, Jes.
On this relatively uncontroversial (in any sane world) point, we can most certainly agree, Jes.
Dianne: In theory, however, I do worry about the implications of saying that one person (assuming that the fetus is something that can reasonably be called a person) is allowed to use the organs and tissues of another for his/her support against the will of the “host”.
The organs were used for more than 24-27 weeks by the time I start to worry about wether an elective abortion ought to be limited. That is not forced organdonation, that is giving your kidney away and demanding it back after 7 months.
Rebecca: And, yes, this cuts both ways. I *decide* not to categorize fetuses in other people’s wombs as independent people. I *decide* not to tell my story of the world such that they are people. It is not a matter of proof but of choice. And I make that decision because I think that doing so leaves me better equipped to fight the suffering in this world.
Yes it is a political choice to decide when a new life becomes a person. There were (and maybe still are) cultures where they only do it after the father accepts it. Or after it survived the first year. If I had a discussion with any of those people they might feel that the position of the woman improves enormously if she can just decide to kill her baby before it became an official person.
In the Netherlands a fetus actually becomes a person after 24 weeks. It has to be officially registered in the communal administration, it has to be officially burried if it is born death and when it dies forms will be filled in and sent to the health inspectors.
I don’t have a problem agreeing that women in the US, due to the circumstances there, should have less limits and more freedom – as I’ve repeatedly said I think it is a matter of weighing the intrests of the woman against those of the fetus/baby. I *do* have a problem with people who assume that the fetus/baby even in third trimester is comparable to a myoma untill it leaves the womb.
Dianne: In theory, however, I do worry about the implications of saying that one person (assuming that the fetus is something that can reasonably be called a person) is allowed to use the organs and tissues of another for his/her support against the will of the “host”.
The organs were used for more than 24-27 weeks by the time I start to worry about wether an elective abortion ought to be limited. That is not forced organdonation, that is giving your kidney away and demanding it back after 7 months.
Rebecca: And, yes, this cuts both ways. I *decide* not to categorize fetuses in other people’s wombs as independent people. I *decide* not to tell my story of the world such that they are people. It is not a matter of proof but of choice. And I make that decision because I think that doing so leaves me better equipped to fight the suffering in this world.
Yes it is a political choice to decide when a new life becomes a person. There were (and maybe still are) cultures where they only do it after the father accepts it. Or after it survived the first year. If I had a discussion with any of those people they might feel that the position of the woman improves enormously if she can just decide to kill her baby before it became an official person.
In the Netherlands a fetus actually becomes a person after 24 weeks. It has to be officially registered in the communal administration, it has to be officially burried if it is born death and when it dies forms will be filled in and sent to the health inspectors.
I don’t have a problem agreeing that women in the US, due to the circumstances there, should have less limits and more freedom – as I’ve repeatedly said I think it is a matter of weighing the intrests of the woman against those of the fetus/baby. I *do* have a problem with people who assume that the fetus/baby even in third trimester is comparable to a myoma untill it leaves the womb.
“However, it does seem that SH is right and there has been at least one incident of third trimester abortion for a cleft palate in the last 8 years. Quite the epidemic.”
Yup, and exactly one case of homosexual sodomy in Texas in the years it was illegal.
And probably almost no marital rape before the early 20th century.
Heck, I note an extreme uptick in rape reporting in the 1960s and 1970s. That must be because rape was incredibly rare before then.
You believe all that right?
“However, it does seem that SH is right and there has been at least one incident of third trimester abortion for a cleft palate in the last 8 years. Quite the epidemic.”
Yup, and exactly one case of homosexual sodomy in Texas in the years it was illegal.
And probably almost no marital rape before the early 20th century.
Heck, I note an extreme uptick in rape reporting in the 1960s and 1970s. That must be because rape was incredibly rare before then.
You believe all that right?
Yup, and exactly one case of homosexual sodomy in Texas in the years it was illegal.
And probably almost no marital rape before the early 20th century.
Heck, I note an extreme uptick in rape reporting in the 1960s and 1970s. That must be because rape was incredibly rare before then.
You believe all that right?
Do you actually think you’re making a legitimate argument here, Sebastian? Do you think you’re making an accurate analogy? I don’t think you’re stupid, so I have to come to the conclusion that you’re incredibly dishonest when it comes to this issue.
Yup, and exactly one case of homosexual sodomy in Texas in the years it was illegal.
And probably almost no marital rape before the early 20th century.
Heck, I note an extreme uptick in rape reporting in the 1960s and 1970s. That must be because rape was incredibly rare before then.
You believe all that right?
Do you actually think you’re making a legitimate argument here, Sebastian? Do you think you’re making an accurate analogy? I don’t think you’re stupid, so I have to come to the conclusion that you’re incredibly dishonest when it comes to this issue.
Incertus (Brian), check the posting rules. You can say you think SH‘s analogy is wrong, but the above is in my view over the line here.
E.g., I think you’re committing an obvious logical fallacy, but I have no reason to think you’re dishonest.
Incertus (Brian), check the posting rules. You can say you think SH‘s analogy is wrong, but the above is in my view over the line here.
E.g., I think you’re committing an obvious logical fallacy, but I have no reason to think you’re dishonest.
That is not forced organdonation, that is giving your kidney away and demanding it back after 7 months.
The kidney, once donated, is out of your body and no longer yours any more than the Christmas presents you bought and gave to someone else are still yours. A closer analogy and one that could actually occur, might be this: People who require chronic platelet transfusions for one reason or another often develop antibodies against the transfusions. This problem can be limited by giving platelets from a single donor (a typical platelet transfusion contains platelets pooled from 8-10 donors, each of whom donated a pint of whole blood, whereas a single donor unit comes from a single person who was pheresed for platelets–an ultra-low risk procedure but one that is time consuming). Quite frequently, platelets from one particular donor produce much better results than platelets from any other donor. As far as I know, no one’s really sure why: it doesn’t correlate with blood or tissue type particularly well. Anyway, suppose a person with a chronic need for platelets has one donor who has been willing to give platelets as needed for 7 months. Does that imply that the donor has agreed to give platelets for life? Does the recipient have the right to force the donor legally if he/she refuses? What if the patient had a terminal illness such as MDS and had a life expectancy of 2 months? Would it be ok to force the donor for just the next two months (the recipient would die within days, probably from internal bleeding, without the platelets)? If it should be acceptable (legally, if not morally) for the donor to refuse, then why should a woman not have the same right to refuse to share her uterus?
That is not forced organdonation, that is giving your kidney away and demanding it back after 7 months.
The kidney, once donated, is out of your body and no longer yours any more than the Christmas presents you bought and gave to someone else are still yours. A closer analogy and one that could actually occur, might be this: People who require chronic platelet transfusions for one reason or another often develop antibodies against the transfusions. This problem can be limited by giving platelets from a single donor (a typical platelet transfusion contains platelets pooled from 8-10 donors, each of whom donated a pint of whole blood, whereas a single donor unit comes from a single person who was pheresed for platelets–an ultra-low risk procedure but one that is time consuming). Quite frequently, platelets from one particular donor produce much better results than platelets from any other donor. As far as I know, no one’s really sure why: it doesn’t correlate with blood or tissue type particularly well. Anyway, suppose a person with a chronic need for platelets has one donor who has been willing to give platelets as needed for 7 months. Does that imply that the donor has agreed to give platelets for life? Does the recipient have the right to force the donor legally if he/she refuses? What if the patient had a terminal illness such as MDS and had a life expectancy of 2 months? Would it be ok to force the donor for just the next two months (the recipient would die within days, probably from internal bleeding, without the platelets)? If it should be acceptable (legally, if not morally) for the donor to refuse, then why should a woman not have the same right to refuse to share her uterus?
In the Netherlands a fetus actually becomes a person after 24 weeks. It has to be officially registered in the communal administration, it has to be officially burried if it is born death and when it dies forms will be filled in and sent to the health inspectors.
Really? Do you get an income tax credit for the “baby” starting at 24 weeks gestation as well (do you even get income tax credit for kids in the Netherlands)? (Not particularly related to the debate at hand, I’m just curious.) Does that also imply a hard line at 24 weeks, i.e. if a 23 week premie is born alive does it get full NICU treatment or comfort care only? I’ve heard people claim that in the Netherlands no premie under 27 weeks gets NICU care, but your comment strongly implies that that is not true.
In the Netherlands a fetus actually becomes a person after 24 weeks. It has to be officially registered in the communal administration, it has to be officially burried if it is born death and when it dies forms will be filled in and sent to the health inspectors.
Really? Do you get an income tax credit for the “baby” starting at 24 weeks gestation as well (do you even get income tax credit for kids in the Netherlands)? (Not particularly related to the debate at hand, I’m just curious.) Does that also imply a hard line at 24 weeks, i.e. if a 23 week premie is born alive does it get full NICU treatment or comfort care only? I’ve heard people claim that in the Netherlands no premie under 27 weeks gets NICU care, but your comment strongly implies that that is not true.
At some point, I find the analogies to pregnancy/abortion tiresome. It’s not as if we don’t know what pregnancy is and need the kind of clarification such analogies might provide. The situations analogized, as always, are different and distinct. It’s entirely possible and legitimate to think diffrently about pregnancy than about some absurd organ donation scenario or whatever one might come up with.
I suppose we could spend lots of time discussing all the ways each analogized situation is different, but why? We know what it means to be pregnant. Why not simply talk about that?
At some point, I find the analogies to pregnancy/abortion tiresome. It’s not as if we don’t know what pregnancy is and need the kind of clarification such analogies might provide. The situations analogized, as always, are different and distinct. It’s entirely possible and legitimate to think diffrently about pregnancy than about some absurd organ donation scenario or whatever one might come up with.
I suppose we could spend lots of time discussing all the ways each analogized situation is different, but why? We know what it means to be pregnant. Why not simply talk about that?
“Do you actually think you’re making a legitimate argument here, Sebastian?”
Yes.
Crimes are often underreported. Things that aren’t crimes and which aren’t likely to be reported by the fetus don’t strike me as likely to be well reported. If marital rapes are underreported by women who survive them–and all signs point to the fact that they are–how much less likely to be reported are abortions which kill the most likely person to report?
“Do you actually think you’re making a legitimate argument here, Sebastian?”
Yes.
Crimes are often underreported. Things that aren’t crimes and which aren’t likely to be reported by the fetus don’t strike me as likely to be well reported. If marital rapes are underreported by women who survive them–and all signs point to the fact that they are–how much less likely to be reported are abortions which kill the most likely person to report?
But, Sebastian, as has been pointed out before, a woman can’t simply sneak into a dark alley alone and give herself an undetected, late-term abortion. It requires a team of qualified people and proper facilities, thus the “conspiracy theory” label that been applied to this particular argument of yours.
But, Sebastian, as has been pointed out before, a woman can’t simply sneak into a dark alley alone and give herself an undetected, late-term abortion. It requires a team of qualified people and proper facilities, thus the “conspiracy theory” label that been applied to this particular argument of yours.
how much less likely to be reported are abortions which kill the most likely person to report?
Fetuses report crimes against them? How? Is there good cell phone reception in the uterus? Do you also think that infants are the most likely people to report child abuse against themselves or are you of the view that fetuses have special powers that allow them to talk until they are born?
Ok, now that the snark is out of the way…If I understand correctly, we’re talking about ostensibly legal abortions being performed for minor birth defects or no birth defects and no maternal risk at all. Since these are at least presumably legal procedures, they won’t be being performed in back allies or even, given the complexity of a 3rd trimester abortion, in offices, but in hospitals. Where huge numbers of people can get access to the information. Why have no OB residents, nurses, u/s techs, receptionists, aides, or janitors reported the presumably numerous abortions for minor birth defects? Surely some of them are pro-life and horrified by the operation. Don’t bother citing HIPPA or other confidentiality regulations: if a celebrity goes into the hospital for any reason, you can read all about it down to the results of his prostate exam in the National Inquirer within hours. That many people simply can’t keep a secret. Especially when some of them probably feel that they have a moral obligation to blow the whistle. Even if we assume (HAH) that the hospital personnel are completely discrete and would never betray a patient confidence, why has no husband, boyfriend, spiritual advisor, neighbor, parent, coworker, etc of the patient ever tell the world? A 6 month pregnancy is hard to hide and at least some of the patient’s confidants probably already knew that the fetus was basically healthy. And none of them, ever, reported her and/or her doctor to the police? I find it hard to believe.
how much less likely to be reported are abortions which kill the most likely person to report?
Fetuses report crimes against them? How? Is there good cell phone reception in the uterus? Do you also think that infants are the most likely people to report child abuse against themselves or are you of the view that fetuses have special powers that allow them to talk until they are born?
Ok, now that the snark is out of the way…If I understand correctly, we’re talking about ostensibly legal abortions being performed for minor birth defects or no birth defects and no maternal risk at all. Since these are at least presumably legal procedures, they won’t be being performed in back allies or even, given the complexity of a 3rd trimester abortion, in offices, but in hospitals. Where huge numbers of people can get access to the information. Why have no OB residents, nurses, u/s techs, receptionists, aides, or janitors reported the presumably numerous abortions for minor birth defects? Surely some of them are pro-life and horrified by the operation. Don’t bother citing HIPPA or other confidentiality regulations: if a celebrity goes into the hospital for any reason, you can read all about it down to the results of his prostate exam in the National Inquirer within hours. That many people simply can’t keep a secret. Especially when some of them probably feel that they have a moral obligation to blow the whistle. Even if we assume (HAH) that the hospital personnel are completely discrete and would never betray a patient confidence, why has no husband, boyfriend, spiritual advisor, neighbor, parent, coworker, etc of the patient ever tell the world? A 6 month pregnancy is hard to hide and at least some of the patient’s confidants probably already knew that the fetus was basically healthy. And none of them, ever, reported her and/or her doctor to the police? I find it hard to believe.
“Fetuses report crimes against them? How? Is there good cell phone reception in the uterus? Do you also think that infants are the most likely people to report child abuse against themselves or are you of the view that fetuses have special powers that allow them to talk until they are born?”
It is funny that you can be snarky while exactly making my point. I’m well aware of how reports of pre-verbal children go through the system. As it happens, in my legal education I worked in the dependency section of the public defender’s office as a child advocate. I can tell you right now that reports of infant abuse typically take place in one of two ways: first a positive drug test at birth which triggers an investigation or second the mother brings the baby in to the hospital for an injury and the investigation starts from there. Neither of these methods are very likely in a not-strictly-necessary abortion.
Reports come in to child services all the time, but unless they are from someone who already has children in the system it is very unlikely to have anything come of it.
I don’t know anything more about this case than this report, but if true it would make a rather ugly and probably elective 32 week gestation abortion in Australia.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_be_sad_for_jessicas_lost_life/
“And none of them, ever, reported her and/or her doctor to the police? I find it hard to believe.”
Sure they have, and we’ve even seen some of the cases. But how would you investigate? States like Texas just require a verification signature from the aborting doctor. It would be like asking the guard if prisoners ever get beaten.
“Fetuses report crimes against them? How? Is there good cell phone reception in the uterus? Do you also think that infants are the most likely people to report child abuse against themselves or are you of the view that fetuses have special powers that allow them to talk until they are born?”
It is funny that you can be snarky while exactly making my point. I’m well aware of how reports of pre-verbal children go through the system. As it happens, in my legal education I worked in the dependency section of the public defender’s office as a child advocate. I can tell you right now that reports of infant abuse typically take place in one of two ways: first a positive drug test at birth which triggers an investigation or second the mother brings the baby in to the hospital for an injury and the investigation starts from there. Neither of these methods are very likely in a not-strictly-necessary abortion.
Reports come in to child services all the time, but unless they are from someone who already has children in the system it is very unlikely to have anything come of it.
I don’t know anything more about this case than this report, but if true it would make a rather ugly and probably elective 32 week gestation abortion in Australia.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_be_sad_for_jessicas_lost_life/
“And none of them, ever, reported her and/or her doctor to the police? I find it hard to believe.”
Sure they have, and we’ve even seen some of the cases. But how would you investigate? States like Texas just require a verification signature from the aborting doctor. It would be like asking the guard if prisoners ever get beaten.
It is funny that you can be snarky while exactly making my point
Hey, you’re the one that said that a fetus was the most likely person to report an abortion, not me. I was being snarky because it was perfectly obvious what you meant, but what you said came out sounding strange.
I can tell you right now that reports of infant abuse typically take place in one of two ways: first a positive drug test at birth which triggers an investigation or second the mother brings the baby in to the hospital for an injury and the investigation starts from there.
And who makes the reports of suspected abuse after an injury? The doctors and nurses who treat the child. It is left up to their discretion whether to report an injury or consider it a typical injury of childhood. (Kids do injure themselves fairly frequently.) If hospitals are full of rabid baby-killing people, how do these reports get made?
But how would you investigate? States like Texas just require a verification signature from the aborting doctor.
Reports from nurses, suspicious patterns of verification signature use, anonymous complaints, that sort of thing. All getting a prescription for enough narcotics to keep the average user happy for months requires is a signature from a doctor. Unexpectedly enough, some doctors abuse that privilege and become, effectively, recreational drug dealers. According to your argument, we should never see them get caught because everyone else would be covering for them. Yet the DEA catches a number of these pushers every year. How do the doctors who abuse their privileges with approving abortion avoid getting caught in the same way?
It is funny that you can be snarky while exactly making my point
Hey, you’re the one that said that a fetus was the most likely person to report an abortion, not me. I was being snarky because it was perfectly obvious what you meant, but what you said came out sounding strange.
I can tell you right now that reports of infant abuse typically take place in one of two ways: first a positive drug test at birth which triggers an investigation or second the mother brings the baby in to the hospital for an injury and the investigation starts from there.
And who makes the reports of suspected abuse after an injury? The doctors and nurses who treat the child. It is left up to their discretion whether to report an injury or consider it a typical injury of childhood. (Kids do injure themselves fairly frequently.) If hospitals are full of rabid baby-killing people, how do these reports get made?
But how would you investigate? States like Texas just require a verification signature from the aborting doctor.
Reports from nurses, suspicious patterns of verification signature use, anonymous complaints, that sort of thing. All getting a prescription for enough narcotics to keep the average user happy for months requires is a signature from a doctor. Unexpectedly enough, some doctors abuse that privilege and become, effectively, recreational drug dealers. According to your argument, we should never see them get caught because everyone else would be covering for them. Yet the DEA catches a number of these pushers every year. How do the doctors who abuse their privileges with approving abortion avoid getting caught in the same way?
I don’t know anything more about this case than this report, but if true it would make a rather ugly and probably elective 32 week gestation abortion in Australia.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen
I couldn’t find the report you mention. It doesn’t seem to be in the first 3 pages of the blog. However, I do note that the author of the blog is a global warming denialist and apologist for racism, so I’m not sure I’d take what he writes at face value anyway.
I don’t know anything more about this case than this report, but if true it would make a rather ugly and probably elective 32 week gestation abortion in Australia.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen
I couldn’t find the report you mention. It doesn’t seem to be in the first 3 pages of the blog. However, I do note that the author of the blog is a global warming denialist and apologist for racism, so I’m not sure I’d take what he writes at face value anyway.
Yes.
Crimes are often underreported. Things that aren’t crimes and which aren’t likely to be reported by the fetus don’t strike me as likely to be well reported. If marital rapes are underreported by women who survive them–and all signs point to the fact that they are–how much less likely to be reported are abortions which kill the most likely person to report?
Others have touched on this, but I’ll put it more succinctly. If you were comparing apples and oranges, at least you’d be in the same general category. You, however, are comparing apples to Jar Jar Binks, and apparently, consider that legitimate. That’s you’re comparing fairly common crimes to third trimester abortions–which even anti-choice claim acknowledge are rare–shows how weak your argument is.
Yes.
Crimes are often underreported. Things that aren’t crimes and which aren’t likely to be reported by the fetus don’t strike me as likely to be well reported. If marital rapes are underreported by women who survive them–and all signs point to the fact that they are–how much less likely to be reported are abortions which kill the most likely person to report?
Others have touched on this, but I’ll put it more succinctly. If you were comparing apples and oranges, at least you’d be in the same general category. You, however, are comparing apples to Jar Jar Binks, and apparently, consider that legitimate. That’s you’re comparing fairly common crimes to third trimester abortions–which even anti-choice claim acknowledge are rare–shows how weak your argument is.
SH‘s link above as a link.
ACHLAN de Crespigny has at last outed himself as the doctor who killed baby Jessica. Yet even after seven years he doesn’t seem to understand quite what he did.
“It was de Crespigny, an obstetrician and associate professor, who told a mother from a very different culture that the child she was carrying could be a dwarf.
The woman was deeply superstitious and, it seems, not mentally strong. She believed giving birth to a dwarf would bring her terrible luck and was so distraught that she threatened suicide if the girl was not aborted.
But the girl, later named Jessica, was already 32 weeks old in the womb, and healthy. She could have been born alive and adopted out.”
etc.
SH‘s link above as a link.
ACHLAN de Crespigny has at last outed himself as the doctor who killed baby Jessica. Yet even after seven years he doesn’t seem to understand quite what he did.
“It was de Crespigny, an obstetrician and associate professor, who told a mother from a very different culture that the child she was carrying could be a dwarf.
The woman was deeply superstitious and, it seems, not mentally strong. She believed giving birth to a dwarf would bring her terrible luck and was so distraught that she threatened suicide if the girl was not aborted.
But the girl, later named Jessica, was already 32 weeks old in the womb, and healthy. She could have been born alive and adopted out.”
etc.
Sloppy quoting above, oh well.
Sloppy quoting above, oh well.
I suppose from a pro-lifer’s point of view it would have been altogether better if the pregnant woman had been denied an abortion and had committed suicide.
Controversial abortion case that brought a doctor years of anguish for an actual news article about it rather than an angry pro-lifer column.
I have to admit, when I think about how on earth you would – as Andrew Bolt blithely advocates – force a woman who is suicidally distraught to give birth against her will, I can’t imagine how the hell anyone with any ounce of human feeling could bring themselves to do it. Have security guards drag her to the maternity ward, then chain her to the bed?
I suppose from a pro-lifer’s point of view it would have been altogether better if the pregnant woman had been denied an abortion and had committed suicide.
Controversial abortion case that brought a doctor years of anguish for an actual news article about it rather than an angry pro-lifer column.
I have to admit, when I think about how on earth you would – as Andrew Bolt blithely advocates – force a woman who is suicidally distraught to give birth against her will, I can’t imagine how the hell anyone with any ounce of human feeling could bring themselves to do it. Have security guards drag her to the maternity ward, then chain her to the bed?
hairshirthedonist: We know what it means to be pregnant. Why not simply talk about that?
I suppose because so many pro-lifers discuss pregnancy as if they don’t know what it means to be pregnant. Which would explain why they keep coming up with analogies that compare a woman’s body to some non-living thing, like a ship or a house.
hairshirthedonist: We know what it means to be pregnant. Why not simply talk about that?
I suppose because so many pro-lifers discuss pregnancy as if they don’t know what it means to be pregnant. Which would explain why they keep coming up with analogies that compare a woman’s body to some non-living thing, like a ship or a house.
“Hey, you’re the one that said that a fetus was the most likely person to report an abortion, not me. I was being snarky because it was perfectly obvious what you meant, but what you said came out sounding strange.”
What a great reason to be snarky.
But what I meant is exactly that. A fetus is the most likely person to report an elective abortion–which is to say that no one is likely to report it.
Incertus, “That’s you’re comparing fairly common crimes to third trimester abortions–which even anti-choice claim acknowledge are rare–shows how weak your argument is.”
Rape is commonly underreported even *by the person who was injured*. You are asking me to be shocked that the reasons for late term abortions are not underreported *by the people doing them*. The analogy there would be to be shocked by the fact that rape is underreported *by the rapist*.
If a woman gets a late term abortion for reasons that many people would be unhappy with, I’m completely unshocked to find that the woman doesn’t report, that the fetus doesn’t report it, and that the professionals involved in the procedure don’t report it. And the ‘conspiracy’ need go no further than that. I’m not suggesting that NARAL knowingly is orchestrating things. I’m saying that two or three people can do something bad and not talk about it again. It used to happen all the time with frat-boy rapes, and the woman wouldn’t come forward so know one else would know. Since the fetus isn’t likely to come forward…
“Hey, you’re the one that said that a fetus was the most likely person to report an abortion, not me. I was being snarky because it was perfectly obvious what you meant, but what you said came out sounding strange.”
What a great reason to be snarky.
But what I meant is exactly that. A fetus is the most likely person to report an elective abortion–which is to say that no one is likely to report it.
Incertus, “That’s you’re comparing fairly common crimes to third trimester abortions–which even anti-choice claim acknowledge are rare–shows how weak your argument is.”
Rape is commonly underreported even *by the person who was injured*. You are asking me to be shocked that the reasons for late term abortions are not underreported *by the people doing them*. The analogy there would be to be shocked by the fact that rape is underreported *by the rapist*.
If a woman gets a late term abortion for reasons that many people would be unhappy with, I’m completely unshocked to find that the woman doesn’t report, that the fetus doesn’t report it, and that the professionals involved in the procedure don’t report it. And the ‘conspiracy’ need go no further than that. I’m not suggesting that NARAL knowingly is orchestrating things. I’m saying that two or three people can do something bad and not talk about it again. It used to happen all the time with frat-boy rapes, and the woman wouldn’t come forward so know one else would know. Since the fetus isn’t likely to come forward…
“I have to admit, when I think about how on earth you would – as Andrew Bolt blithely advocates – force a woman who is suicidally distraught to give birth against her will, I can’t imagine how the hell anyone with any ounce of human feeling could bring themselves to do it.”
Using the method of abortion described, and at 32 weeks, there was going to be a delivery one way or another. The only question is live or dead.
“I have to admit, when I think about how on earth you would – as Andrew Bolt blithely advocates – force a woman who is suicidally distraught to give birth against her will, I can’t imagine how the hell anyone with any ounce of human feeling could bring themselves to do it.”
Using the method of abortion described, and at 32 weeks, there was going to be a delivery one way or another. The only question is live or dead.
Using the method of abortion described, and at 32 weeks, there was going to be a delivery one way or another.
Well, not if the woman committed suicide. No delivery then.
The only question is live or dead.
The only question is: will a doctor order security guards to drag a suicidally distraught woman to the maternity ward and chain her to the bed so that she could not resist induced delivery? If the answer to that is yes, you can have a live delivery.
If you won’t do that, the only other option would be to agree to perform the abortion.
Using the method of abortion described, and at 32 weeks, there was going to be a delivery one way or another.
Well, not if the woman committed suicide. No delivery then.
The only question is live or dead.
The only question is: will a doctor order security guards to drag a suicidally distraught woman to the maternity ward and chain her to the bed so that she could not resist induced delivery? If the answer to that is yes, you can have a live delivery.
If you won’t do that, the only other option would be to agree to perform the abortion.
The abortion was essentially the same procedure as a birth, but with the added initial step of killing the fetus. The baby didn’t just vanish from the woman right after the doctor killed it. It still had to be delivered.
The abortion was essentially the same procedure as a birth, but with the added initial step of killing the fetus. The baby didn’t just vanish from the woman right after the doctor killed it. It still had to be delivered.
The difference between the two situations, however, was that the solution that Andrew Bolt advocated – forced childbirth – would have required multiple hospital staff to force a suicidally distraught woman to give birth against her will while preventing her from killing herself. You do keep trying to avoid that issue, Sebastian: why is that? Are you not willing to face the consequences?
The difference between the two situations, however, was that the solution that Andrew Bolt advocated – forced childbirth – would have required multiple hospital staff to force a suicidally distraught woman to give birth against her will while preventing her from killing herself. You do keep trying to avoid that issue, Sebastian: why is that? Are you not willing to face the consequences?
Was she unsedated during the abortion? Seems unlikely.
Was she unsedated during the abortion? Seems unlikely.
Was she unsedated during the abortion? Seems unlikely.
What relevance does this have? Again: what Andrew Bolt advocated was forcing the woman to give birth when she was so unwilling to do so that the doctors involved considered it likely she would kill herself. If you want to force her to give birth under those circumstances, the unpleasant consequences of that decision are that you must order security guards to take her to the maternity ward and chain her to the bed, or otherwise prevent her from killing herself or resisting inducing labor. Those consequences are far more unpleasant for the woman than for you, assuming you are the person who takes responsibility for so forcing her.
Are you willing to take those consequences? Yes, no, another evasion?
Was she unsedated during the abortion? Seems unlikely.
What relevance does this have? Again: what Andrew Bolt advocated was forcing the woman to give birth when she was so unwilling to do so that the doctors involved considered it likely she would kill herself. If you want to force her to give birth under those circumstances, the unpleasant consequences of that decision are that you must order security guards to take her to the maternity ward and chain her to the bed, or otherwise prevent her from killing herself or resisting inducing labor. Those consequences are far more unpleasant for the woman than for you, assuming you are the person who takes responsibility for so forcing her.
Are you willing to take those consequences? Yes, no, another evasion?
“or otherwise prevent her from killing herself”
We do this with suicidal people *all the time*.
“or otherwise prevent her from killing herself”
We do this with suicidal people *all the time*.
We do this with suicidal people *all the time*.
Again with the evasion! You really don’t like thinking clearly about this, do you? Pangs of conscience?
1. The woman wants to kill herself rather than go through childbirth.
2. You want to force her through childbirth.
This is not something that people do “all the time”. (Perhaps it’s something that pro-lifers who would kidnap pregnant woman and hold them prisoner until they give birth would do all the time. But no one else would.)
We do this with suicidal people *all the time*.
Again with the evasion! You really don’t like thinking clearly about this, do you? Pangs of conscience?
1. The woman wants to kill herself rather than go through childbirth.
2. You want to force her through childbirth.
This is not something that people do “all the time”. (Perhaps it’s something that pro-lifers who would kidnap pregnant woman and hold them prisoner until they give birth would do all the time. But no one else would.)
The woman has a healthy 32 week gestated fetus/baby.
She is told that the child as it grows up might have dwarfism, which is not immediately life threatening (I understand that they have shorter lifespans but measured well into decades).
She freaks out about that and becomes (for the sake of argument) genuinely suicidal (though it is possible that she hates the idea of having a dwarf so much that she is going to make it seem that way to get an abortion–what, that would be irrational? So is aborting a child after 32 weeks for dwarfism).
At 32 weeks she is going to have to go through a delivery. That is not in question. The only question is whether the child will be delivered dead or alive.
She can’t avoid a delivery. She is going to be having a delivery one way or another.
What should you do? Go through the delivery, alive. Treat her for serious suicidal tendencies afterwards.
We treat people (very often involuntarily) for suicidal tendencies *all the time*.
“Perhaps it’s something that pro-lifers who would kidnap pregnant woman and hold them prisoner until they give birth would do all the time. But no one else would.”
This has NOTHING to do with the situation we are talking about. Either way she can have a delivery RIGHT AWAY. She won’t have to go through any more time with a child in her womb than she would have with an abortion. With or with out an abortion, she can have a delivery now.
The woman has a healthy 32 week gestated fetus/baby.
She is told that the child as it grows up might have dwarfism, which is not immediately life threatening (I understand that they have shorter lifespans but measured well into decades).
She freaks out about that and becomes (for the sake of argument) genuinely suicidal (though it is possible that she hates the idea of having a dwarf so much that she is going to make it seem that way to get an abortion–what, that would be irrational? So is aborting a child after 32 weeks for dwarfism).
At 32 weeks she is going to have to go through a delivery. That is not in question. The only question is whether the child will be delivered dead or alive.
She can’t avoid a delivery. She is going to be having a delivery one way or another.
What should you do? Go through the delivery, alive. Treat her for serious suicidal tendencies afterwards.
We treat people (very often involuntarily) for suicidal tendencies *all the time*.
“Perhaps it’s something that pro-lifers who would kidnap pregnant woman and hold them prisoner until they give birth would do all the time. But no one else would.”
This has NOTHING to do with the situation we are talking about. Either way she can have a delivery RIGHT AWAY. She won’t have to go through any more time with a child in her womb than she would have with an abortion. With or with out an abortion, she can have a delivery now.
Sebastian: What should you do? Go through the delivery, alive.
There is a curious absence of personal pronouns from that second sentence. (I noticed this on another recent pro-life/pro-choice debate, too: pro-lifers tend to avoid pronouns in these discussions, because using the correct pronouns would acknowledge directly that they are talking about forcing someone else, and pro-lifers never like to talk about that.)
It’s very late where I am, and you have been consistently evasive throughout the discussion: it really doesn’t seem worthwhile continuing in an attempt to get you to actually be explicit and truthful in a pro-life debate, just for once.
Sebastian: What should you do? Go through the delivery, alive.
There is a curious absence of personal pronouns from that second sentence. (I noticed this on another recent pro-life/pro-choice debate, too: pro-lifers tend to avoid pronouns in these discussions, because using the correct pronouns would acknowledge directly that they are talking about forcing someone else, and pro-lifers never like to talk about that.)
It’s very late where I am, and you have been consistently evasive throughout the discussion: it really doesn’t seem worthwhile continuing in an attempt to get you to actually be explicit and truthful in a pro-life debate, just for once.
In the interview with the doctor he does not mention that he gave a wrong diagnosis (which caused the distress) and he doesn’t seem to care at all that he was responsible for the death of a perfectly healthy and viable fetus/baby. I wonder what learning that did for the mentally unstable mother.
If the onborn child is in a life threatening situation, the doctor usually orders an emergency-ceasarian. If she doesn’t want to go through labour or wants to kill herself during that would seem the proper procedure, but rather not.
In Dutch law a fetus should be treated as a born person as from viability if that is in the intrest of the fetus. To answer your earlier question; children are entitels to child support as from the first Quarter after their birth, not from day of birth or day of viability.
We’ve actually made some English FAQ’s about some of the social issue’s we get lots of questions about from foreigners. In the extensive one about abortion you’ll read about “Article 82a of the Criminal Code:
“Taking a person’s life or the life of an infant at birth or shortly afterwards” includes the destruction of a
fetus which might reasonably be presumed capable of surviving independently of the mother.”
Because of that clause it was the person performing the abortion who was seen as responsible and who would be prosecuted. End of last year, for the first time, they charged a woman who went to Spain for a late term abortion. Charge is probabely murder/childslaughter – most attention is now for the fact that she is criminally accused at all (Dutch link). They can only prosecute her if the abortion was illegal in Spain *and* in the Netherlands which will be hard to prove.
According het boyfriend (the father of the child) she was more than 27 weeks pregnant with a healthy baby and had told him that she had a stillbirth in hospital. He alerted the police when he discovered she’d been to Ginemedex in Spain.
In the interview with the doctor he does not mention that he gave a wrong diagnosis (which caused the distress) and he doesn’t seem to care at all that he was responsible for the death of a perfectly healthy and viable fetus/baby. I wonder what learning that did for the mentally unstable mother.
If the onborn child is in a life threatening situation, the doctor usually orders an emergency-ceasarian. If she doesn’t want to go through labour or wants to kill herself during that would seem the proper procedure, but rather not.
In Dutch law a fetus should be treated as a born person as from viability if that is in the intrest of the fetus. To answer your earlier question; children are entitels to child support as from the first Quarter after their birth, not from day of birth or day of viability.
We’ve actually made some English FAQ’s about some of the social issue’s we get lots of questions about from foreigners. In the extensive one about abortion you’ll read about “Article 82a of the Criminal Code:
“Taking a person’s life or the life of an infant at birth or shortly afterwards” includes the destruction of a
fetus which might reasonably be presumed capable of surviving independently of the mother.”
Because of that clause it was the person performing the abortion who was seen as responsible and who would be prosecuted. End of last year, for the first time, they charged a woman who went to Spain for a late term abortion. Charge is probabely murder/childslaughter – most attention is now for the fact that she is criminally accused at all (Dutch link). They can only prosecute her if the abortion was illegal in Spain *and* in the Netherlands which will be hard to prove.
According het boyfriend (the father of the child) she was more than 27 weeks pregnant with a healthy baby and had told him that she had a stillbirth in hospital. He alerted the police when he discovered she’d been to Ginemedex in Spain.
(part 2 – typepad thought I was Gary)
Ginemedex is the controversial clinic that performs late abortions. I’ve linked to cases before, I ought to bookmark them because searching for them is hard; I usually read news in Dutch. But there is for instance the case of the British MP who accompagnied a woman there to abort a healthy 32 week fetus/baby.
In 2004 a journalist from the Telegraph allready wrote about the easy way to get a late abortion in Ginemedex, but she focussed mainly on the role of the Britisch charity referring people to the clinic. An investigation was ordered “to investigate the British Pregnancy Advisory Service over its role in helping hundreds of women obtain illegal late abortions in Spain” but found that the referring was not illegal. AFAIK It didn’t dispute the numbers of referrals though.
In 2006 the Danish television had a documentary with video’s about how they didn’t have a problem with aborting healty third trimester fetusses.
Last month they raided the clinic, maybe we’ll get more information soon.
Now I’m off to bed, it’s an hour later here than where Jes is.
(part 2 – typepad thought I was Gary)
Ginemedex is the controversial clinic that performs late abortions. I’ve linked to cases before, I ought to bookmark them because searching for them is hard; I usually read news in Dutch. But there is for instance the case of the British MP who accompagnied a woman there to abort a healthy 32 week fetus/baby.
In 2004 a journalist from the Telegraph allready wrote about the easy way to get a late abortion in Ginemedex, but she focussed mainly on the role of the Britisch charity referring people to the clinic. An investigation was ordered “to investigate the British Pregnancy Advisory Service over its role in helping hundreds of women obtain illegal late abortions in Spain” but found that the referring was not illegal. AFAIK It didn’t dispute the numbers of referrals though.
In 2006 the Danish television had a documentary with video’s about how they didn’t have a problem with aborting healty third trimester fetusses.
Last month they raided the clinic, maybe we’ll get more information soon.
Now I’m off to bed, it’s an hour later here than where Jes is.
Was she unsedated during the abortion?
Sedating someone and performing a surgical procedure for which they did not consent is illegal and unethical. Are you seriously suggesting that doctors should have the right to perform any procedure they want on a patient once he or she is sedated as long as they think that it is necessary?
Was she unsedated during the abortion?
Sedating someone and performing a surgical procedure for which they did not consent is illegal and unethical. Are you seriously suggesting that doctors should have the right to perform any procedure they want on a patient once he or she is sedated as long as they think that it is necessary?
“Sedating someone and performing a surgical procedure for which they did not consent is illegal and unethical. Are you seriously suggesting that doctors should have the right to perform any procedure they want on a patient once he or she is sedated as long as they think that it is necessary?”
Anything at all? No. But you are forgetting to be specific.
She has to go through delivery abortion or no abortion.
Do you disagree with that statement?
If she is going to have to go through a delivery, there is no reason why should be able to insist on the delivery of a dead baby instead of a live one.
“Sedating someone and performing a surgical procedure for which they did not consent is illegal and unethical. Are you seriously suggesting that doctors should have the right to perform any procedure they want on a patient once he or she is sedated as long as they think that it is necessary?”
Anything at all? No. But you are forgetting to be specific.
She has to go through delivery abortion or no abortion.
Do you disagree with that statement?
If she is going to have to go through a delivery, there is no reason why should be able to insist on the delivery of a dead baby instead of a live one.
In the interview with the doctor he does not mention that he gave a wrong diagnosis (which caused the distress)
Was Doctor de Crespigny responsible for the diagnosis? The Age news article doesn’t mention either who diagnosed the fetal dwarfism, or if the diagnosis turned out to be correct or mistaken.
and he doesn’t seem to care at all that he was responsible for the death of a perfectly healthy and viable fetus/baby.
And neither you nor Sebastian seem to care at all that his choices were death of a perfectly healthy and viable woman with the fetus for which the two of you show such concern – or death of the fetus.
I wonder what learning that did for the mentally unstable mother
If true. Andrew Bolt claims one of the nurses attending said she thought the diagnosis was wrong: the Age news article doesn’t mention it at all.
But certainly the hospital should never have called a news conference. What a disgusting and irresponsible thing for them to do, to discuss any patient’s tragic situation in such a public way, still less with a patient who was mentally unstable.
If the unborn child is in a life threatening situation, the doctor usually orders an emergency-ceasarian.
Forcing someone to undergo a serious operation against their will is not something that’s usually done in my country. Yours?
According het boyfriend (the father of the child) she was more than 27 weeks pregnant with a healthy baby and had told him that she had a stillbirth in hospital. He alerted the police when he discovered she’d been to Ginemedex in Spain.
Good grief. What a horrible man. On the list of “101 Ways To Get Dumped By Your Partner” “informing the police because you think she’s had an illegal abortion” has to be one of the slimiest.
An investigation was ordered “to investigate the British Pregnancy Advisory Service over its role in helping hundreds of women obtain illegal late abortions in Spain” but found that the referring was not illegal. AFAIK It didn’t dispute the numbers of referrals though.
Did it say over how many years the numbers added up?
In the UK, doctors have – understandably – refused to perform abortions past the 20-week time limit, for fear of what doing so will do to their jobs, without any concern for the health or well-being of their patients. (There was an infanticide a couple of years ago in the UK: a young woman who was denied an abortion at 20 weeks, who went home, concealed her pregnancy from everyone, gave birth in her bedroom in her parents house, and wrapped the newborn infant in the soiled sheets from her bed and put it in a cupboard where at some point it died.) As Dr de Crespigny says:
In the interview with the doctor he does not mention that he gave a wrong diagnosis (which caused the distress)
Was Doctor de Crespigny responsible for the diagnosis? The Age news article doesn’t mention either who diagnosed the fetal dwarfism, or if the diagnosis turned out to be correct or mistaken.
and he doesn’t seem to care at all that he was responsible for the death of a perfectly healthy and viable fetus/baby.
And neither you nor Sebastian seem to care at all that his choices were death of a perfectly healthy and viable woman with the fetus for which the two of you show such concern – or death of the fetus.
I wonder what learning that did for the mentally unstable mother
If true. Andrew Bolt claims one of the nurses attending said she thought the diagnosis was wrong: the Age news article doesn’t mention it at all.
But certainly the hospital should never have called a news conference. What a disgusting and irresponsible thing for them to do, to discuss any patient’s tragic situation in such a public way, still less with a patient who was mentally unstable.
If the unborn child is in a life threatening situation, the doctor usually orders an emergency-ceasarian.
Forcing someone to undergo a serious operation against their will is not something that’s usually done in my country. Yours?
According het boyfriend (the father of the child) she was more than 27 weeks pregnant with a healthy baby and had told him that she had a stillbirth in hospital. He alerted the police when he discovered she’d been to Ginemedex in Spain.
Good grief. What a horrible man. On the list of “101 Ways To Get Dumped By Your Partner” “informing the police because you think she’s had an illegal abortion” has to be one of the slimiest.
An investigation was ordered “to investigate the British Pregnancy Advisory Service over its role in helping hundreds of women obtain illegal late abortions in Spain” but found that the referring was not illegal. AFAIK It didn’t dispute the numbers of referrals though.
Did it say over how many years the numbers added up?
In the UK, doctors have – understandably – refused to perform abortions past the 20-week time limit, for fear of what doing so will do to their jobs, without any concern for the health or well-being of their patients. (There was an infanticide a couple of years ago in the UK: a young woman who was denied an abortion at 20 weeks, who went home, concealed her pregnancy from everyone, gave birth in her bedroom in her parents house, and wrapped the newborn infant in the soiled sheets from her bed and put it in a cupboard where at some point it died.) As Dr de Crespigny says:
“And neither you nor Sebastian seem to care at all that his choices were death of a perfectly healthy and viable woman with the fetus for which the two of you show such concern – or death of the fetus.”
For someone who accuses me of avoiding direct confrontation of the facts, you seem to be avoiding a rather obvious option that doesn’t involve the death of either of the parties.
“And neither you nor Sebastian seem to care at all that his choices were death of a perfectly healthy and viable woman with the fetus for which the two of you show such concern – or death of the fetus.”
For someone who accuses me of avoiding direct confrontation of the facts, you seem to be avoiding a rather obvious option that doesn’t involve the death of either of the parties.
Dutchmarbel,
I am not so much concerned with “official” personhood as our individual concepts of it.
It says something about *what it means to be a person* when we extend that to any given group. That is the harm I’m concerned about—the reason I would be morally wrong to choose to think of fetuses as people.
If I did that I would be crippling the power I have—which is already a very difficult and troubling power—to recognize that others have rights deriving from their individual and personal experience, entirely separate from what I might believe about them. That this is what they have *before* and *more importantly than* rights granted by some official process of a culture.
In this world, our greatest task is to love others—to see beauty into them with our eyes, to be humbled and to make ourselves humble before what is there. But we also cannot fall into the trap of thinking that because we must offer devotion to the sacredness of others’ consciousness, that we are the *source* of that sacredness, of their autonomy and their beauty and their existence and their rights.
What honor do we do to a person’s internal experience—to the profound and terrible truth that they see the world as we do but in a different light, trapped in a different flesh in a different place in a different life than our own—if we’re willing to separate a pregnant woman into two parts and treat the unconscious potential growing in her womb as qualitatively equivalent to the woman battered and enriched by years of life, capable (o great wonder!) of seeing the world in a manner that is her own? And what honor *can* we do to that experience if we use this choice of ours—to see her into parts—as an excuse to ever elevate the interests of the new life our imagination projects into her womb over the interests of the person whose actions can speak for themselves?
This answer isn’t just given to us—what we must grapple with in this debate *isn’t* some abstract and definite nature of the fetus. What we must grapple with is the implications of *our choice* to see something there or not to see something there. What does that choice allow us to do for the world? When is that choice courage and when is it cowardice?
For courage, look you, is love for the objects of experience as they are, but cowardice is love for willful ignorance—for the objects we perceive.
And I think this ties back to Mr. Holsclaw’s question a long time ago about the toughness of abortion.
The moral landscape is different when you’re the person acting. The pro-choice position is centered in the idea that choices *are* tough, and we must honor that difficulty as much by being aware and thoughtful in our own lives as by respecting the human dignity of others. If abortion weren’t a tough choice—choosing between two vastly different worlds—then nobody would bother being pro-choice. We’d just make a seatbelt law, as a society, and move on.
Rebecca
Dutchmarbel,
I am not so much concerned with “official” personhood as our individual concepts of it.
It says something about *what it means to be a person* when we extend that to any given group. That is the harm I’m concerned about—the reason I would be morally wrong to choose to think of fetuses as people.
If I did that I would be crippling the power I have—which is already a very difficult and troubling power—to recognize that others have rights deriving from their individual and personal experience, entirely separate from what I might believe about them. That this is what they have *before* and *more importantly than* rights granted by some official process of a culture.
In this world, our greatest task is to love others—to see beauty into them with our eyes, to be humbled and to make ourselves humble before what is there. But we also cannot fall into the trap of thinking that because we must offer devotion to the sacredness of others’ consciousness, that we are the *source* of that sacredness, of their autonomy and their beauty and their existence and their rights.
What honor do we do to a person’s internal experience—to the profound and terrible truth that they see the world as we do but in a different light, trapped in a different flesh in a different place in a different life than our own—if we’re willing to separate a pregnant woman into two parts and treat the unconscious potential growing in her womb as qualitatively equivalent to the woman battered and enriched by years of life, capable (o great wonder!) of seeing the world in a manner that is her own? And what honor *can* we do to that experience if we use this choice of ours—to see her into parts—as an excuse to ever elevate the interests of the new life our imagination projects into her womb over the interests of the person whose actions can speak for themselves?
This answer isn’t just given to us—what we must grapple with in this debate *isn’t* some abstract and definite nature of the fetus. What we must grapple with is the implications of *our choice* to see something there or not to see something there. What does that choice allow us to do for the world? When is that choice courage and when is it cowardice?
For courage, look you, is love for the objects of experience as they are, but cowardice is love for willful ignorance—for the objects we perceive.
And I think this ties back to Mr. Holsclaw’s question a long time ago about the toughness of abortion.
The moral landscape is different when you’re the person acting. The pro-choice position is centered in the idea that choices *are* tough, and we must honor that difficulty as much by being aware and thoughtful in our own lives as by respecting the human dignity of others. If abortion weren’t a tough choice—choosing between two vastly different worlds—then nobody would bother being pro-choice. We’d just make a seatbelt law, as a society, and move on.
Rebecca
With or with out an abortion, she can have a delivery now.
Isn’t that simply false? Inducing substantially early delivery without medical justification sounds to me like something that no responsible doctor would do; the potential for significant medical repurcussions is too great. (While 32 weeks is a very survivable level of prematurity, it’s my understanding that you would still expect associated medical problems.)
This is nitpicking — your argument is about the same if you say “She can have an abortion that will be very much like a delivery now, or a live birth in eight weeks, and the difference between the two is insignificant” — but it was bothering me.
With or with out an abortion, she can have a delivery now.
Isn’t that simply false? Inducing substantially early delivery without medical justification sounds to me like something that no responsible doctor would do; the potential for significant medical repurcussions is too great. (While 32 weeks is a very survivable level of prematurity, it’s my understanding that you would still expect associated medical problems.)
This is nitpicking — your argument is about the same if you say “She can have an abortion that will be very much like a delivery now, or a live birth in eight weeks, and the difference between the two is insignificant” — but it was bothering me.
“Inducing substantially early delivery without medical justification sounds to me like something that no responsible doctor would do; the potential for significant medical repurcussions is too great.”
Significant medical repurcussions for the mother or the baby? It will certainly have significant repurcussions for the baby, but better than being killed.
Significant medical repurcussions for the mother? Not significantly *different* because the next step after the abortion will be induction of labor to deliver the dead fetus.
“Inducing substantially early delivery without medical justification sounds to me like something that no responsible doctor would do; the potential for significant medical repurcussions is too great.”
Significant medical repurcussions for the mother or the baby? It will certainly have significant repurcussions for the baby, but better than being killed.
Significant medical repurcussions for the mother? Not significantly *different* because the next step after the abortion will be induction of labor to deliver the dead fetus.
Significant medical repurcussions for the mother? Not significantly *different* because the next step after the abortion will be induction of labor to deliver the dead fetus.
You don’t see any “significant difference” in the woman wanting to die or wanting to live?
Is there anything you would rather die than do, Sebastian? Can you try to imagine what it would be like to choose death over that action, and to be in the hands of people with power to force you to commit the action you would rather die than do – unless you can manage to commit suicide before they force you?
For someone who accuses me of avoiding direct confrontation of the facts, you seem to be avoiding a rather obvious option that doesn’t involve the death of either of the parties.
I outlined that “rather obvious option” two or three times on this thread already: the first occasion on which I outlined it was here.
Significant medical repurcussions for the mother? Not significantly *different* because the next step after the abortion will be induction of labor to deliver the dead fetus.
You don’t see any “significant difference” in the woman wanting to die or wanting to live?
Is there anything you would rather die than do, Sebastian? Can you try to imagine what it would be like to choose death over that action, and to be in the hands of people with power to force you to commit the action you would rather die than do – unless you can manage to commit suicide before they force you?
For someone who accuses me of avoiding direct confrontation of the facts, you seem to be avoiding a rather obvious option that doesn’t involve the death of either of the parties.
I outlined that “rather obvious option” two or three times on this thread already: the first occasion on which I outlined it was here.
It will certainly have significant repurcussions for the baby, but better than being killed.
Okay, we’re talking about what the mother’s actual options are here, right? I do not believe that there is any substantial number of doctors who would perform a surgical operation likely to injure one of the patients involved without medical justification. If the intent is a live delivery, a live delivery highly likely to cause injury to the baby born by that means would be malpractice.
You can believe that under the highly unlikely circumstance described, the doctors involved should weigh the possible injury from an artificially premature delivery against the alternative of abortion, and accept the likelihood of injury as the lesser of two evils. But in practice, they’re not going to, and saying that artificially early delivery actually is an available alternative to abortion is not true.
It really doesn’t have a whole lot of effect on the force of your argument, but you’re still insisting on a falsehood.
It will certainly have significant repurcussions for the baby, but better than being killed.
Okay, we’re talking about what the mother’s actual options are here, right? I do not believe that there is any substantial number of doctors who would perform a surgical operation likely to injure one of the patients involved without medical justification. If the intent is a live delivery, a live delivery highly likely to cause injury to the baby born by that means would be malpractice.
You can believe that under the highly unlikely circumstance described, the doctors involved should weigh the possible injury from an artificially premature delivery against the alternative of abortion, and accept the likelihood of injury as the lesser of two evils. But in practice, they’re not going to, and saying that artificially early delivery actually is an available alternative to abortion is not true.
It really doesn’t have a whole lot of effect on the force of your argument, but you’re still insisting on a falsehood.
Wanting to die (being suicidal) under the care of a doctor is not the same as actually *being dead*. You keep talking as if her actual death was inevitable or even likely. Suicidal people find themselves involuntarily under the care of doctors all the time. They get treated, and for the most part they don’t actually kill themselves. And sometimes suicidal people kill themselves even if their alleged trigger never occurs. None of that is any reason to kill another human being.
She has to go through the physical consequences of having labor because of the abortion anyway. Medically her body is going to have to do that whether the baby is born alive or dead. So we aren’t forcing her to go through a physical process that she can avoid. And mentally she can be treated after the delivery–just like suicidal people are all the time.
Wanting to die (being suicidal) under the care of a doctor is not the same as actually *being dead*. You keep talking as if her actual death was inevitable or even likely. Suicidal people find themselves involuntarily under the care of doctors all the time. They get treated, and for the most part they don’t actually kill themselves. And sometimes suicidal people kill themselves even if their alleged trigger never occurs. None of that is any reason to kill another human being.
She has to go through the physical consequences of having labor because of the abortion anyway. Medically her body is going to have to do that whether the baby is born alive or dead. So we aren’t forcing her to go through a physical process that she can avoid. And mentally she can be treated after the delivery–just like suicidal people are all the time.
“You can believe that under the highly unlikely circumstance described, the doctors involved should weigh the possible injury from an artificially premature delivery against the alternative of abortion, and accept the likelihood of injury as the lesser of two evils. But in practice, they’re not going to, and saying that artificially early delivery actually is an available alternative to abortion is not true.”
What are you talking about? Doctors make decisions like that in an ER all the time. Cutting ‘here’ has a serious risk of death, but not cutting makes it a certainty. That is a normal medical problem.
“I do not believe that there is any substantial number of doctors who would perform a surgical operation likely to injure one of the patients involved without medical justification.”
And you are confusing the argument when you fail to identify which patient you are talking about. Are you talking about the mother or child in this sentence? The mother is having induced labor in either scenario. So you can’t be talking about her. But if you are talking about the baby, it reduces to the extremely common scenario of taking high-risk action *for the baby* rather than take an action which is certain to kill it.
Be clear. You are talking about killing a baby rather than taking normal medical risks with normal medical procedures (induced labor) that are done in hospitals on a routine basis and this particular procedure is going to be done to the mother anyway.
“You can believe that under the highly unlikely circumstance described, the doctors involved should weigh the possible injury from an artificially premature delivery against the alternative of abortion, and accept the likelihood of injury as the lesser of two evils. But in practice, they’re not going to, and saying that artificially early delivery actually is an available alternative to abortion is not true.”
What are you talking about? Doctors make decisions like that in an ER all the time. Cutting ‘here’ has a serious risk of death, but not cutting makes it a certainty. That is a normal medical problem.
“I do not believe that there is any substantial number of doctors who would perform a surgical operation likely to injure one of the patients involved without medical justification.”
And you are confusing the argument when you fail to identify which patient you are talking about. Are you talking about the mother or child in this sentence? The mother is having induced labor in either scenario. So you can’t be talking about her. But if you are talking about the baby, it reduces to the extremely common scenario of taking high-risk action *for the baby* rather than take an action which is certain to kill it.
Be clear. You are talking about killing a baby rather than taking normal medical risks with normal medical procedures (induced labor) that are done in hospitals on a routine basis and this particular procedure is going to be done to the mother anyway.
Wanting to die (being suicidal) under the care of a doctor is not the same as actually *being dead*.
Successfully committing suicide, however, is actually being dead. If she’s still pregnant, death for both herself and for her fetus.
She has to go through the physical consequences of having labor because of the abortion anyway.
You keep repeating that as if you really don’t understand that she convinced several doctors that she would rather die than give birth. The doctors were medically trained and actually examined her: you weren’t there, and you’re not. Why do you consider your opinion of more weight than theirs?
Wanting to die (being suicidal) under the care of a doctor is not the same as actually *being dead*.
Successfully committing suicide, however, is actually being dead. If she’s still pregnant, death for both herself and for her fetus.
She has to go through the physical consequences of having labor because of the abortion anyway.
You keep repeating that as if you really don’t understand that she convinced several doctors that she would rather die than give birth. The doctors were medically trained and actually examined her: you weren’t there, and you’re not. Why do you consider your opinion of more weight than theirs?
Be clear. You are talking about killing a baby
No, Sebastian. No one is talking about killing a baby. What is being discussed is the abortion of a 32-week fetus. Be clear!
Be clear. You are talking about killing a baby
No, Sebastian. No one is talking about killing a baby. What is being discussed is the abortion of a 32-week fetus. Be clear!
Sebastian, an artificially early delivery is only safer for the baby if the alternative actually under consideration is the woman’s unhindered ability to choose to abort. If you support the woman having that unhindered ability, I don’t know what you’re arguing about. Under circumstances where the woman doesn’t have that unhindered ability, then a doctor is not weighing the options “Should I perform an artificially early delivery likely to injure the baby born by that means, or allow the fetus to be aborted?” The doctor is weighing the options “Should I perform an artificially early delivery likely to injure the baby born by that means, or do nothing, allowing the pregnancy to proceed to a normal delivery.” At which point it’s obviously malpractice.
Artificially early delivery is only medically reasonable, in your framework, if abortion is a genuinely available alternative. Once abortion is not available, artificially early delivery is unambiguously malpractice. You can’t argue that artificially early delivery is, or would be under any circumstances using our current medical technology, an available alternative that justifies the unavailability of late-term abortion because it is not true.
As I keep saying, this isn’t a major part of your argument. It’s just annoying me because it is patently false.
Sebastian, an artificially early delivery is only safer for the baby if the alternative actually under consideration is the woman’s unhindered ability to choose to abort. If you support the woman having that unhindered ability, I don’t know what you’re arguing about. Under circumstances where the woman doesn’t have that unhindered ability, then a doctor is not weighing the options “Should I perform an artificially early delivery likely to injure the baby born by that means, or allow the fetus to be aborted?” The doctor is weighing the options “Should I perform an artificially early delivery likely to injure the baby born by that means, or do nothing, allowing the pregnancy to proceed to a normal delivery.” At which point it’s obviously malpractice.
Artificially early delivery is only medically reasonable, in your framework, if abortion is a genuinely available alternative. Once abortion is not available, artificially early delivery is unambiguously malpractice. You can’t argue that artificially early delivery is, or would be under any circumstances using our current medical technology, an available alternative that justifies the unavailability of late-term abortion because it is not true.
As I keep saying, this isn’t a major part of your argument. It’s just annoying me because it is patently false.
Jesurgislac: “Successfully committing suicide, however, is actually being dead. If she’s still pregnant, death for both herself and for her fetus.”
She is already in the hospital. She is already going through a medical procedure involving delivery.
“No, Sebastian. No one is talking about killing a baby. What is being discussed is the abortion of a 32-week fetus. Be clear!”
Nope, at that age it can live outside the womb. It is a baby.
Lizardbreath: “Artificially early delivery is only medically reasonable, in your framework, if abortion is a genuinely available alternative. Once abortion is not available, artificially early delivery is unambiguously malpractice. You can’t argue that artificially early delivery is, or would be under any circumstances using our current medical technology, an available alternative that justifies the unavailability of late-term abortion because it is not true.”
What kind of logic is this? You are arguing that if abortion is not available, the doctor must then abort. How do you pull off that trick? Or are you seriously offering the ‘let her kill herself’ option?
All of the available choices are: 1) do nothing, let the mother kill herself and the baby. 2) Kill the baby, the mother goes through induced labor to get rid of the body, she goes in for treatment for suicidal tendencies. 3) Don’t kill the baby, the mother goes through induced labor to get it out of her body, she goes in for treatment for suicidal tendencies. 4) Hold her until she has the baby.
Option 4 seems to give lots of time for her to figure out how to kill herself, which doesn’t seem ideal. Furthermore, it is likely that you can treat her suicidal tendencies better (with different drugs and dosages for example) if she is no longer pregnant. So that doesn’t seem ideal.
I think we can all agree that Option 1 isn’t ideal. So the doctors won’t choose 1 or 4.
In terms of physical outcomes on the mother’s body, 2 and 3 are pretty much the same for the mother—induced labor in either case. In either case she clearly needs serious mental help right away. So for the mother’s health the doctors have little to choose from between 2 and 3.
In terms of outcomes for the baby—2 and 3 are obviously very different. Under 2, it is certainly killed. Under 3 it most probably lives a healthy life. In terms of the baby’s health 3 is clearly better.
I can clearly argue that among those 4 options, number 3 is the best. If you think there are other options, please present them.
Jesurgislac: “Successfully committing suicide, however, is actually being dead. If she’s still pregnant, death for both herself and for her fetus.”
She is already in the hospital. She is already going through a medical procedure involving delivery.
“No, Sebastian. No one is talking about killing a baby. What is being discussed is the abortion of a 32-week fetus. Be clear!”
Nope, at that age it can live outside the womb. It is a baby.
Lizardbreath: “Artificially early delivery is only medically reasonable, in your framework, if abortion is a genuinely available alternative. Once abortion is not available, artificially early delivery is unambiguously malpractice. You can’t argue that artificially early delivery is, or would be under any circumstances using our current medical technology, an available alternative that justifies the unavailability of late-term abortion because it is not true.”
What kind of logic is this? You are arguing that if abortion is not available, the doctor must then abort. How do you pull off that trick? Or are you seriously offering the ‘let her kill herself’ option?
All of the available choices are: 1) do nothing, let the mother kill herself and the baby. 2) Kill the baby, the mother goes through induced labor to get rid of the body, she goes in for treatment for suicidal tendencies. 3) Don’t kill the baby, the mother goes through induced labor to get it out of her body, she goes in for treatment for suicidal tendencies. 4) Hold her until she has the baby.
Option 4 seems to give lots of time for her to figure out how to kill herself, which doesn’t seem ideal. Furthermore, it is likely that you can treat her suicidal tendencies better (with different drugs and dosages for example) if she is no longer pregnant. So that doesn’t seem ideal.
I think we can all agree that Option 1 isn’t ideal. So the doctors won’t choose 1 or 4.
In terms of physical outcomes on the mother’s body, 2 and 3 are pretty much the same for the mother—induced labor in either case. In either case she clearly needs serious mental help right away. So for the mother’s health the doctors have little to choose from between 2 and 3.
In terms of outcomes for the baby—2 and 3 are obviously very different. Under 2, it is certainly killed. Under 3 it most probably lives a healthy life. In terms of the baby’s health 3 is clearly better.
I can clearly argue that among those 4 options, number 3 is the best. If you think there are other options, please present them.
I don’t understand why you can’t understand this, Sebastian. You’re arguing for a legal regime in which the mental health of the woman is not a justification for late term abortion, right? (If I’ve misunderstood that, and you think danger to the mental health of the mother should be sufficient to allow a late term abortion, I don’t know what you’re arguing about.)
So the legal alternatives are: (A) The mental health of the woman is a justification for late term abortion. The woman and her doctors decide on the appropriate course of action, and this argument doesn’t happen — in the case under consideration, the system worked appropriately. (B) The mental health of the woman is not a justification for late term abortion. In this regime, doctors making medical decisions are not considering late term abortion as an available alternative for a woman like the one in this case because it isn’t an available alternative. They know that there will be no legal abortion because it is not a legally available option. Under this legal regime, the one I understand you to advocate, the alternatives that a doctor is actually considering are artificially inducing early delivery, or not artificially inducing early delivery. Abortion is not an available third alternative. And of the two available alternatives under this legal regime, artificially inducing early delivery would clearly be medical malpractice due to the potential for injury to the baby born through that artificial induction.
You can’t set up abortion and artificially induced early delivery as alternatives which a doctor would be weighing for their medical outcomes if the doctor knows that abortion is not actually a possible outcome.
I don’t understand why you can’t understand this, Sebastian. You’re arguing for a legal regime in which the mental health of the woman is not a justification for late term abortion, right? (If I’ve misunderstood that, and you think danger to the mental health of the mother should be sufficient to allow a late term abortion, I don’t know what you’re arguing about.)
So the legal alternatives are: (A) The mental health of the woman is a justification for late term abortion. The woman and her doctors decide on the appropriate course of action, and this argument doesn’t happen — in the case under consideration, the system worked appropriately. (B) The mental health of the woman is not a justification for late term abortion. In this regime, doctors making medical decisions are not considering late term abortion as an available alternative for a woman like the one in this case because it isn’t an available alternative. They know that there will be no legal abortion because it is not a legally available option. Under this legal regime, the one I understand you to advocate, the alternatives that a doctor is actually considering are artificially inducing early delivery, or not artificially inducing early delivery. Abortion is not an available third alternative. And of the two available alternatives under this legal regime, artificially inducing early delivery would clearly be medical malpractice due to the potential for injury to the baby born through that artificial induction.
You can’t set up abortion and artificially induced early delivery as alternatives which a doctor would be weighing for their medical outcomes if the doctor knows that abortion is not actually a possible outcome.
Commiting suicide isn’t just a mental health problem, it actually causes physical death.
You are trying to set up a catch-22 situation where the only options are “allow the abortion” or “let the woman kill herself and the baby”. I don’t see any logical reason to abstract into just those options when a perfectly good option could be “don’t allow the abortion, have the delivery she wants except with a live baby, and treat the woman for suicidal tendencies”.
This baby is physically healthy
This mother is physically healthy.
This mother clearly has deep seated problems that are going to need treatment no matter what happens next.
Her killing herself despite mental treatment is not a certainty. Her avoiding killing herself if she gets an abortion is likewise not a certainty especially if she was seriously disturbed enough to actually kill herself over not getting the abortion even when the baby isn’t in her body anymore.
Suicidal people feel lots of things in the moment that won’t lead to suicide if you get them through the moment. That is why we have involuntary commitment. It happens hundreds of times a day all across the US.
Aborting the baby means a near certainty of its death. Delivering the baby now (at 8 months) offers a very normal chance of a very normal life.
Pretending that isn’t one of the options is pure excluded middle argumentation.
Commiting suicide isn’t just a mental health problem, it actually causes physical death.
You are trying to set up a catch-22 situation where the only options are “allow the abortion” or “let the woman kill herself and the baby”. I don’t see any logical reason to abstract into just those options when a perfectly good option could be “don’t allow the abortion, have the delivery she wants except with a live baby, and treat the woman for suicidal tendencies”.
This baby is physically healthy
This mother is physically healthy.
This mother clearly has deep seated problems that are going to need treatment no matter what happens next.
Her killing herself despite mental treatment is not a certainty. Her avoiding killing herself if she gets an abortion is likewise not a certainty especially if she was seriously disturbed enough to actually kill herself over not getting the abortion even when the baby isn’t in her body anymore.
Suicidal people feel lots of things in the moment that won’t lead to suicide if you get them through the moment. That is why we have involuntary commitment. It happens hundreds of times a day all across the US.
Aborting the baby means a near certainty of its death. Delivering the baby now (at 8 months) offers a very normal chance of a very normal life.
Pretending that isn’t one of the options is pure excluded middle argumentation.
Delivering the baby now (at 8 months)
Seven, actually. 8 would be 36 weeks.
You are trying to set up a catch-22 situation where the only options are “allow the abortion” or “let the woman kill herself and the baby”.
No. You are advocating for a legal regime in which the woman’s desire to die rather than give birth is not a consideration that justifies the availability of abortion. (I’ve said this a couple of times. While I believe it to be an accurate statement of your beliefs, if I’ve got it wrong do straighten me out — it means that we’re arguing at cross-purposes.) That’s great. You can advocate for that, given that that’s what you believe in.
But once you set up that legal regime, the doctors making medical decisions on behalf of the woman and her probable future child (assuming that a live birth occurs) are not going to be making those medical decisions with the understanding that one of the options is abortion, because it won’t be one of the options. Right?
The medical options will be (1) end the pregnancy through artificial early delivery with a substantial chance of injury to the child born through that delivery, or (2) allow the pregnancy to progress to a natural delivery. Given that the health benefits of artificial early delivery to the woman are dubious (that is, she’s distressed by the prospect of giving birth, not by the date on which the delivery is likely to take place), and the risk of injury to the future child is objectively measurable, the obstetrician that would have to induce early labor or do a c-section would be actively injuring one of their patients without medical justification. That’s malpractice.
Your argument depends on the existence of an actual situation in which the available options were (1) abortion, (2) artificially induced early delivery, or (3) no action, allowing the pregancy to progress to a natural delivery. While generally I hate arguments of the form “Answer my questions or I won’t talk to you anymore,” and apologize that I’m being obnoxious in a similar way here, I’d really like to know from you whether I’m wrong about that. Do you believe your argument for the medical justifiability of artificially induced early delivery makes sense in a legal regime where late term abortion is not available in order to preserve the mental health of the mother, and if so, how does it work? (2)
Delivering the baby now (at 8 months)
Seven, actually. 8 would be 36 weeks.
You are trying to set up a catch-22 situation where the only options are “allow the abortion” or “let the woman kill herself and the baby”.
No. You are advocating for a legal regime in which the woman’s desire to die rather than give birth is not a consideration that justifies the availability of abortion. (I’ve said this a couple of times. While I believe it to be an accurate statement of your beliefs, if I’ve got it wrong do straighten me out — it means that we’re arguing at cross-purposes.) That’s great. You can advocate for that, given that that’s what you believe in.
But once you set up that legal regime, the doctors making medical decisions on behalf of the woman and her probable future child (assuming that a live birth occurs) are not going to be making those medical decisions with the understanding that one of the options is abortion, because it won’t be one of the options. Right?
The medical options will be (1) end the pregnancy through artificial early delivery with a substantial chance of injury to the child born through that delivery, or (2) allow the pregnancy to progress to a natural delivery. Given that the health benefits of artificial early delivery to the woman are dubious (that is, she’s distressed by the prospect of giving birth, not by the date on which the delivery is likely to take place), and the risk of injury to the future child is objectively measurable, the obstetrician that would have to induce early labor or do a c-section would be actively injuring one of their patients without medical justification. That’s malpractice.
Your argument depends on the existence of an actual situation in which the available options were (1) abortion, (2) artificially induced early delivery, or (3) no action, allowing the pregancy to progress to a natural delivery. While generally I hate arguments of the form “Answer my questions or I won’t talk to you anymore,” and apologize that I’m being obnoxious in a similar way here, I’d really like to know from you whether I’m wrong about that. Do you believe your argument for the medical justifiability of artificially induced early delivery makes sense in a legal regime where late term abortion is not available in order to preserve the mental health of the mother, and if so, how does it work? (2)
As Jesus-loving, homo-hating, condom-condemning, pro-life, pro-war, supporter of all that George W. Bush has done to cultivate a culture of life, I applaud subversive sneak attack on the baby killing industrial complex.
If we are to continue to fight these evil Islamo-fascists in Iraq (& elsewhere!) for the next 50 years we need to do some serious multiplying. I think we should give all adoptive parents vouchers for Christian-Military school/orphanages where rescued babies will be taught to love Jesus and kill for Christ’s sake.
Onward!
J.S.
As Jesus-loving, homo-hating, condom-condemning, pro-life, pro-war, supporter of all that George W. Bush has done to cultivate a culture of life, I applaud subversive sneak attack on the baby killing industrial complex.
If we are to continue to fight these evil Islamo-fascists in Iraq (& elsewhere!) for the next 50 years we need to do some serious multiplying. I think we should give all adoptive parents vouchers for Christian-Military school/orphanages where rescued babies will be taught to love Jesus and kill for Christ’s sake.
Onward!
J.S.
I’m sorry but I can’t read all the comments right now, so in case someone has just made the following remark just delete my comment. I guess you’re a man, Publius. I would be very surprised to find out your masculine name hides a feminine identity. You say that being a new parent has shown you depths of affection etc. etc. True. A father’s experience can be as deep as a mother. But it’s diverse. Carrying a fetus, which at some point will going to be a baby, and will always be your baby even if you give it in adoption, is something that a man can’t experience. For the good and for the bad things, of course. For the sense of rejection of an alien mass invading your own body, and for the exciting sense of carrying your beloved child. So, whereas I agree with you that adoption is a beautiful gesture, I remind you that there are many unwanted children already born, and that a mother who had to give her daughter in open adoption- and considers her daughter’s adoptive parents part of an extended family, has commented (on one of Juno’s many reviews I have recently read) that she would not wish this experience to her worst enemy. And this is a happy case.
I’m sorry but I can’t read all the comments right now, so in case someone has just made the following remark just delete my comment. I guess you’re a man, Publius. I would be very surprised to find out your masculine name hides a feminine identity. You say that being a new parent has shown you depths of affection etc. etc. True. A father’s experience can be as deep as a mother. But it’s diverse. Carrying a fetus, which at some point will going to be a baby, and will always be your baby even if you give it in adoption, is something that a man can’t experience. For the good and for the bad things, of course. For the sense of rejection of an alien mass invading your own body, and for the exciting sense of carrying your beloved child. So, whereas I agree with you that adoption is a beautiful gesture, I remind you that there are many unwanted children already born, and that a mother who had to give her daughter in open adoption- and considers her daughter’s adoptive parents part of an extended family, has commented (on one of Juno’s many reviews I have recently read) that she would not wish this experience to her worst enemy. And this is a happy case.