Abortion In The News

[Suddenly]

Actually, I really am interested in knowing the technical questions of Roe v. Wade and how it was determined when a fetus is a human and and when it isn't and therefore okay to abort.

The first two articles I linked in the opening post also contained some rather interesting legal twists, in my opinion. Like, what does charging someone with murder if they attack a woman and kill the fetus inside of her have to do with "the right to choose" that is causing the pro-abortion people to get so upset over the Unborn Victims bill?

Unfortunately, Suddenly, the subject of abortion is as prone to a legal-morality intertwining as gun control and the death penalty.

I did let my emotions get away with me, and I was being snide to you, and I am very sorry about that.

I truly do not understand these questions about roe v. wade, though, and what sort of legal wrangling was used to draw the line of when life begins, and what sort of legal foundation it is based on. Rock or sand?

I'll give a good answer to that after I re-review Roe. It has been awhile since I read it. I'm a bit curious myself...

As far as the victim's rights bills go, I'm not a big fan. Many states have civil liability for injuring a fetus, and I do support that. It is just that I see criminal liability centering on the conduct of the criminal rather than the result of the action. More about punishment than vengance in other words.

I think the whole issue revolves around weighing different sets of rights and goals and working through them. I haven't really thought about the unborn rights laws, but my idea off the cuff is that I would support a law providing for penalties for someone intentionally harming a fetus in addition to the likely crime committed against the mother. I don't like the wholesale addition of any fetus as an additional victim. I think if I thought about it I'd wind up somewhere between those two extreme points.

I'd explain but I have to go meet my wife. Thanks for not letting this exchange spiral downward due to my little sarcastic outburst.

 

[Luke T.]

Although you seem like a nice person (and we've met, and I hope to buy you a beer at TAM3), I am not all that interested in your "feelings". I would much rather like to hear your evidence that banning abortion is better than not banning abortions.

How do you know how many abortions were done before Roe vs. Wade? At what cost? Shame, shunning, pain, deaths?

I doubt accurate records were kept of illegal abortions, don't you? So an estimate of the number is just that, an estimate. But I don't see 1.3 million a year occurring. That would have been noticed.

As for shame and shunning, I thought you weren't interested in "feelings."

Pain and death? I assume you are talking about the mothers and not the babies...

 

[Luke T.]

So you keep saying. I guess we just disagree.

So, just to make things perfectly clear, there are no circumstances in which you think an abortion is justified? Not a single exception?

Jeremy

Adolf Hitler.

But seriously, off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

I realize the potential for birth defects with incest, but that opens the door to all birth defects, and off we go again on the slippery slope.

 

[Grammatron]

Adolf Hitler.

But seriously, off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

I realize the potential for birth defects with incest, but that opens the door to all birth defects, and off we go again on the slippery slope.

What about cases in which a mother's life could be in danger?

 

[Luciana]

Population decemated???
We have a healthy population thanx in part to abortion. Who wants a bunch of unwanted rug rats running around. Look what its done for Brazil.

It has done nothing for Brazil. "Unwanted rug rats" have always existed, even before the pill was invented. We have poverty but I don't see its relation to the illegality of abortion, or, if it's a factor, it's a minimal one. Actually, our fertility rate is now 2,3, which is a healthy one.

Because, Tmy, abortion is performed anyway. Legal or illegal. I see women going to great lengths to get them done. Those who can, pay royally for it. Those who can't, risk their health inside dusty slum bedrooms. Illegality adds another stress factor to an already emotionally-charged situation, as well as increased health risks.

The problem we have is relgious based hangups on birth control.

The common wisdom is that abortions are prohibited in Brazil because of the strong lobby of the Catholic Church. It's not true. Abortion is prohibited because most Brazilians are against it, as multiple researches indicate. Why, you ask? Because the priests influence people's thoughts? If that were true, we would not have Carnival, a pagan celebration which the church abhors.

It is my feeling that a lot less abortions occur when abortions are illegal than when they are legal.

Luke: No reliable data, that's for sure. The best number I could find comes from a research conducted in 1999, by reputed IBASE institute, which indicated that, in ages 15-49, 38 out of 1,000 Brazilian women have had an abortion.

Do we have numbers to compare it to? In countries where abortion is legal, is the number higher or lower?

 

[Yahweh]

You seem to be okay with allowing the government to decide when a fetus is a human being and when it isn't, but not okay with them deciding on a "Very Good Reason"! Odd.

Exactly how does Roe v. Wade and the "due process" clause in the Constitution determine the line between not a human and a human anyway? Must take some real mental gymnastics.

Somehow they were able to determine, using the Constitution, when it was okay to abort and when it wasn't. Please explain that one to me.

Personally, I believe the "is a person/is not a person" is a terrible justification pro or anti abortion. I think it comes down to whether a woman's basic freedoms can be revoked, or whether her basic freedoms are criminalized. In any case, I will guarentee you that there are simply just some situations where a person's right to life can never be satisfied, as cynical as that may sound.

Consider this: Is the right to life so fundamental that it must be preserved at all costs?

Now I'll ask you this: If it the right life is so fundamental, should the government be obligated to raise taxes sharply and take away everything you make above minimum wage if it will save lives in other countries?

Clearly, it is difficult to answer both of those questions with a yes. In fact, answering yes to the above and no to the below is unjustified hypocrisy. The correct answer to the first question is "No". The reason: There is no intent to somehow portray life as "less valuable" or "worthless", but merely to illustrate that pragmatically the cynical world we live in cannot by any means protect all life at all costs.


My position is this: Abortion is a necessary evil.

I dont believe there is any justification in saying "You have no choice, you will become a mother whether you like it or not".

In cases of rape or incest, I would say forcing a mother to bear her rapists child is further torture on a woman who has suffered a heinous crime. 5.4% of all women who are raped get pregnant, and its terrible that many woman will never report a rape at all.

Even if a woman has sex for fun and finds herself pregnant, I could never imagine anyone saying "Well that's what she gets for fooling around, now she must suffer the consequences". That vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse.

 

[Suddenly]

Adolf Hitler.

But seriously, off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

I realize the potential for birth defects with incest, but that opens the door to all birth defects, and off we go again on the slippery slope.

Problem with the slippery slope is that if you go far enough up the "development" scale you wind up with a Monty Python song.

Anyway...

There is a reasonable argument that abortion in the case of rape is not crime but rather justifiable, even if all other abortion is considered murder.

It stems from the idea that in the case of rape the woman is put in the position of pregnancy through no choice her own, so her choosing to not continue a pregnancy isn't murder or even homicide, as legally she would owe no duty to the unborn child.

To analogize, imagine while you are sleeping someone for his own benefit hooks up an innocent third party to your body. The circumstances are that innocent party will die if unhooked, otherwise you must drag that person around for nine months and allow them to feed off your body's systems. Do you now have the right to unhook that person?

I would say morally it is a tough decision, but as a legal matter to do so is not a crime. You owe no duty of support to this third party, and unhooking this person is simply protecting your own body from invasion and withholding support.

This is different from a situation where you at some point knowingly choose a path of action where being hooked up to the 3rd party is a possibility. That act would create some duty that didn't exist before...

 

[Luke T.]

Personally, I believe the "is a person/is not a person" is a terrible justification pro or anti abortion. I think it comes down to whether a woman's basic freedoms can be revoked, or whether her basic freedoms are criminalized. In any case, I will guarentee you that there are simply just some situations where a person's right to life can never be satisfied, as cynical as that may sound.

Like I pointed out earlier, is it a woman's basic freedom to commit suicide, or take drugs, or mutilate herself? Those freedoms have been revoked.

 

[Luke T.]

Luke: No reliable data, that's for sure. The best number I could find comes from a research conducted in 1999, by reputed IBASE institute, which indicated that, in ages 15-49, 38 out of 1,000 Brazilian women have had an abortion.

Do we have numbers to compare it to? In countries where abortion is legal, is the number higher or lower?

Well, if 1.3 million abortions per year are any indication, with the total approaching 50 million, I would say it is highly unlikely illegal abortions would be anywhere near on par with that.

Also, thinking about it, 50 million abortions out of a population which is only now reaching around 280 million strongly suggests that a lot of women are having multiple abortions.

 

[Luke T.]

There is a reasonable argument that abortion in the case of rape is not crime but rather justifiable, even if all other abortion is considered murder.

It stems from the idea that in the case of rape the woman is put in the position of pregnancy through no choice her own, so her choosing to not continue a pregnancy isn't murder or even homicide, as legally she would owe no duty to the unborn child.

To analogize, imagine while you are sleeping someone for his own benefit hooks up an innocent third party to your body. The circumstances are that innocent party will die if unhooked, otherwise you must drag that person around for nine months and allow them to feed off your body's systems. Do you now have the right to unhook that person?

I would say morally it is a tough decision, but as a legal matter to do so is not a crime. You owe no duty of support to this third party, and unhooking this person is simply protecting your own body from invasion and withholding support.

This is different from a situation where you at some point knowingly choose a path of action where being hooked up to the 3rd party is a possibility. That act would create some duty that didn't exist before...

I would say you are morally responsible to stay hooked up to that person. It only highlights another of my points about abortion. Most are done out of convenience.

My wife and I discussed this a few weeks ago. My opinion is that if she were raped and was impregnated, I would raise the child as my own. I did not tell her this when I asked her what she would do. She said she would keep the kid. She was quite touched when I told her what I would do.

Reason number umpteen thousand that tells me I married the right woman.

 

[Luke T.]

Even if a woman has sex for fun and finds herself pregnant, I could never imagine anyone saying "Well that's what she gets for fooling around, now she must suffer the consequences". That vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse.

That is a strange outlook. Motherhood as punishment. It is a gift. A very precious one which many who can't have kids will tell you.

Sex has consequences. Can't get around that. And the consequences weren't determined by man's laws. It has been determined by nature.

Abortion has consequences, too. You would transfer the consequences of a woman's "fooling around" to a completely innocent person.

 

[Bjorn]

Luke: No reliable data, that's for sure. The best number I could find comes from a research conducted in 1999, by reputed IBASE institute, which indicated that, in ages 15-49, 38 out of 1,000 Brazilian women have had an abortion.

Do we have numbers to compare it to? In countries where abortion is legal, is the number higher or lower?

I tried to check numbers before and after abortion became legal in a number of countries, but it became very difficult.

On one side we don't have much reliable numbers on illegal abortions because they were kept a secret, on the other hand it was difficult to find any site that wasn't biased one way or the other. The number of abortions in the US right now, to mention one example, varied from around a million a year to about 1,4 million.

Going through the numbers, however, I think it is reasonable to say that we have more abortions after it was made legal. Which is not to say that we have more - or fewer - tragedies.

I don't like abortions, and I wish they weren't used as a form of birth control. On the other hand, I can't see who should be allowed to make the decision, if not the pregnant woman. And I can't see why a poor woman should be forced to have her baby, while a rich one could take a 'vacation' in the US or elsewhere and come home 'un-pregnant'.

 

[Suddenly]

I would say you are morally responsible to stay hooked up to that person. It only highlights another of my points about abortion. Most are done out of convenience.

My wife and I discussed this a few weeks ago. My opinion is that if she were raped and was impregnated, I would raise the child as my own. I did not tell her this when I asked her what she would do. She said she would keep the kid. She was quite touched when I told her what I would do.

Reason number umpteen thousand that tells me I married the right woman.

I'd agree with what you say w/r/t morality. I'd react the same way.

The question is whether you feel it is justified to force others by use of law into making the same choice. I have trouble with that one.

 

[Bjorn]

Like I pointed out earlier, is it a woman's basic freedom to commit suicide, or take drugs, or mutilate herself? Those freedoms have been revoked.

Where I come from, it is a freedom to commit suicide if that's what you want. And that's the way it should be, if you ask me - but that's another thread.

 

[Luke T.]

I tried to check numbers before and after abortion became legal in a number of countries, but it became very difficult.

I had the same problem trying to find data.

On one side we don't have much reliable numbers on illegal abortions because they were kept a secret, on the other hand it was difficult to find any site that wasn't biased one way or the other. The number of abortions in the US right now, to mention one example, varied from around a million a year to about 1,4 million.

Going through the numbers, however, I think it is reasonable to say that we have more abortions after it was made legal. Which is not to say that we have more - or fewer - tragedies.

Well, my personal feeling (pffft! to Claus ), is that each abortion is a tragedy.

I don't like abortions, and I wish they weren't used as a form of birth control. On the other hand, I can't see who should be allowed to make the decision, if not the pregnant woman. And I can't see why a poor woman should be forced to have her baby, while a rich one could take a 'vacation' in the US or elsewhere and come home 'un-pregnant'.

So instead of forcing the mother to have the baby, you are forcing the baby to die. What about its rights?

If slavery were legal elsewhere and rich people could go somewhere to have slaves serve them hand and foot, should we legalize slavery here? Rich people take advantage of a lot of laws elsewhere. That is no reason to make or not make something illegal here.

 

[Luke T.]

I'd agree with what you say w/r/t morality. I'd react the same way.

The question is whether you feel it is justified to force others by use of law into making the same choice. I have trouble with that one.

Yes, I feel it is justified. I can not think of any justification to allow the death of an innocent person.

 

[Bjorn]

Well, my personal feeling (pffft! to Claus ), is that each abortion is a tragedy.

I agree - I was just trying to remind myself that we saw some tragedies when it was prohibited as well. Illegal/dangerous abortions, children born into families/circumstances where they would not be taken properly care of, add some suicides among the mothers-to-be for good measure, add some drug addicted mothers and so on.

So instead of forcing the mother to have the baby, you are forcing the baby to die. What about its rights?

I clearly see the problem. I have no good answer. With the day-after pill available, would you prohibit it?

If slavery were legal elsewhere and rich people could go somewhere to have slaves serve them hand and foot, should we legalize slavery here? Rich people take advantage of a lot of laws elsewhere. That is no reason to make or not make something illegal here.

Eh, no. Rich people may go elsewhere and have an abortion. Or do it here. The baby is dead anyhow. Legalizing slavery here would make some people here slaves. Not a good comparison?

I see the point, however. My point was that with money, you have as many abortions as you want. Or, as it was, with a good lawyer, or a doctor friend. It wasn't like we didn't have American girls having abortions, they were just unevenly distributed.

 

[Boo]

So, I just read through this entire thread and now I have a question.

Where does someone like my sister fit in? At 20 weeks (the first date that in a routine pregnancy that ultrasounds are done) she was told the baby was anacephalic (brainstem only). The state she lived in had outlawed abortions after the first trimester (12 weeks). Her insurance company advised that they would partially pay for a 'medically necessary' abortion. By the time they had borrowed, etc, enough money to go out of state for the procedure the fetus had died in utero but did not spontaneously deliver. This was at 26 weeks. The procedure was done at 28 weeks. She spent an additional week in the hospital due to infection complications from the fetal demise.

If you want to outlaw late abortions then have a safety net in place. You can't tell a woman that her child will not survive to term or past birth and then tell her you have to carry it til term or it aborts on it's own, because it's too late for you to legally have the pregnancy ended.

Just another scree patch on that slippery slope.



Boo

 

[Cinorjer]

The whole abortion arguement is mired in sloppy thinking and language. First of all, it's stupid to ask "When does life start", because life only started once on Earth, in the distant past. From then on, life only continued.

Every culture defines the limits of personhood, the definition of what it takes to be eligible for the rights and priviliges of being a member of the tribe. There has to be limits, after all. And each culture has considered their own particular definition as sacred and fought over changes. At one time in the not so distant past in the USA, being of a different skin color meant you were not entitled to personhood, according to the people who were in charge of the definition. Criminals are often stripped of their personhood and declared outlaw, subject to being killed. For some people, personhood is extended to a fertilized egg in a mother's womb, while for others it's only with the first breath. It's all pretty arbitrary.

The extent of when a fertilized egg has reached a stage of development that qualifies as personhood is defined by the culture, and reflects ethical, religious and moral values that often come into conflict. In reality, women who get abortions and the people who support their right are not heartless baby killers. No woman wakes up one day and says "I've got nothing better to do, so I'll get an abortion. Might be fun". It's the least worst choice for them. And the people who see this as the ending of a process that produces a human being are not callous and blind to the rights of a woman to control her own life. They just see a greater right involved.

So the arguements will continue, with statistics and misinformation thrown about and emotions trumping logic, and neither side willing reexamine their own position. There's a principle involved, after all.

Jerry

 

[CFLarsen]

I doubt accurate records were kept of illegal abortions, don't you? So an estimate of the number is just that, an estimate. But I don't see 1.3 million a year occurring. That would have been noticed.

Really? Why? People were very good at keeping such scandals secret.

As for shame and shunning, I thought you weren't interested in "feelings."

Well, since you don't have any data from days of yonder we can look at... Do you agree that the social stigma in earlier days was quite devastating?

Pain and death? I assume you are talking about the mothers and not the babies...

Both. You think it was pleasant for either, in the days of hacks and quacks as abortionists?

Also, thinking about it, 50 million abortions out of a population which is only now reaching around 280 million strongly suggests that a lot of women are having multiple abortions.

Whoa, BAD skeptic! You can't do the math like that.

Sex has consequences. Can't get around that. And the consequences weren't determined by man's laws. It has been determined by nature.

Let me explain a seemingly new concept to you...

Abortion has consequences, too. You would transfer the consequences of a woman's "fooling around" to a completely innocent person.

It takes two, Luke. And there are plenty of birth control methods to choose from, for both parties.