I am pro-life. I have a lot of pro-choice friends. A lot of them read the blog. I have a few abortion questions that have just been nagging me, and I would like to generate a healthy discussion. So as long as this goes well, I am going to be posting a few abortion-related questions over the next few weeks and months.
Here is my first question. This question is a real question. It is not to be taken sarcastically or as if I have a hidden agenda. I really just don't understand this and have not been able to get a real answer from anyone.
Why is it considered legal for a mother to let a doctor kill her baby inutero when the baby would live outside the womb (23-40 weeks gestation) but it is considered murder if once the baby is delivered she chooses to end its life?
I would really appreciate if the only people who attempt to answer this question are pro-choice people. I am not looking for opinions from other pro-lifers. I can get that anywhere. I am really looking for an explanation from "the other side." And "other siders", you know I will always disagree with you but that we will always be friends. If you are really concerned, you can answer anonymously, just please do so nicely. And if the comments are in any way inappropriate, I'll just delete them. I really want to keep this healthy and educated.
47 comments:
I think the majority of pro choice people, myself included are aganist termination if my body is no longer needed to sustain its life. Partial birth abortion is something even pro choicers dont agree with. Not all of them but alot.
Anonymous,
Thanks. This makes sense. So my question, off of that is, what about when the child is even EARLIER than partial birth. Babies can survive outside the womb by 23 weeks. By 32, viability is incredibly high, but that is still not considered partial birth. It's just considered an abortion in many states. How is that viewed?
Thanks for your honest answer!
Can I ask a related question? Wendi...just delete this comment if you don't want me to!
What about before the baby is considered 'viable'? Even though a baby will not survive if born at 16 weeks (or 9 or 12 weeks), it has the potential to survive if left to develop. I don't see how that is different from an abortion at, say, 32 weeks. And I, also, mean this question respectfully.
Rachel
I disagree with Anonymous that "the majority of" pro lifers have that view (I am a professor who teaches health law, including reproductive health law, so I am very familiar with this literature). Rather there is a spectrum of opinions on this issue. I think the problem is that viability is such a difficult to define concept and there is no precise moment in time at which a baby is viable or not. By allowing doctors to decide what is viable, we take something that is supposed to be a woman's choice and put it in the hands of the medical profession (some of whom may be pro-life and whose decisions could thus be colored by their own biases).
With respect to your question...why does a fetus in utero not have legal rights but once it is born it does, it would be very difficult from a legal perspective for both the mother and a fetus to have legal rights. We could envision cases where babies sue their own mothers for drinking while pregnant or we could see child welfare authorities going to the court to have the fetus deemed a "child in need of protection" in order to get an order to compel a pregnant woman to eat a proper diet while pregnant, etc. These types of issues have been litigated before (i.e. in the context of mothers addicted to drugs while pregnant).
I think McKenzie said it best.
I am generally pro-choice, it just wouldn't be my choice.
My opinion on partial-birth abortion is slightly different though. I think if the partial birth abortion is elective on the mother's part that instead of killing the baby, labor should be induced and the child given up for adoption if it does in fact survive.
I am on the fence about medically necessary partial birth tho-if the mother can't carry the baby to term it should be given a chance to survive outside of the womb if inducing is at all an option; but if it is a medical issue because of disabilities in the child that the parents wouldn't be able to provide for I don't know if adoption is the best choice. Special needs children are the hardest children to adopt out--some stay in the sytem for years before finally being placed in a forever home.
Thank you for once again hosting an informative discussion.
1) The abortions you are referring to >23 weeks are the VAST minority (i.e. <1% of all abortions), so it's not fair to use that as the "reason" to make it illegal or morally wrong/reprehensible.
2) Most 23 weekers are NOT viable, and it is a stretch to say that. Few 24 weekers survive neurologically intact.
3) Barriers to contraception (including emergency contraception) are what often lead to abortions and not everyone (yet) has the money/access/insurance/transportation/family to let them have this option. Nor do they necessarily have the education and resources to support a healthy pregnancy (which is psychologically and physically dangerous) or adoption (also psychologically devastating)
4) Pregnancy is dangerous. Like parents who withhold immunizations from (live) children, which is medically negligent, a parent has the right to make all choices about an unborn baby regardless of the reason especially as it pertains to (her) own health
5) Most pro-choice people are NOT pro-abortion. Most would never have a abortion, advocate for an abortion, or perform an abortion on another woman. However, it is not the church's or the government's place to tell a woman that she can't have the choice-- that is between her, her family, her doctor, and her God.
One thing that I have always found very curious (probably partly because I am a Canadian who didn't live in the US until I was in my late 20s) is the fact that some of the religious right argues so strongly against insurance for contraception, funding planned parenthood (who does much more work in contraception than abortion counselling), etc. I am inclined to feel that people can't make these arguments and also expect policymakers to pass laws limiting abortion. If someone is going to take away a woman's right to choose an abortion, it would seem to me that there should be a commensurate responsibility to provide ready access to contraceptives. It just seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Hi Wendi - I am a pro-lifer but have done a lot of research and think I have something to add that could help clarify.
Someone already hinted at it - we really have two issues that everyone pushes together. We want to make it pro-life vs. pro-choice but really it is pro-life vs. anti-life and pro-choice vs. anti-choice. They are two options that happen to be contraindicative of each other and that's where our problems lie.
The first issue - pro-life - is whether or not you value and support life. As pro-lifers we are basically saying that the child in utero is alive and his/her life deserves to be protected. That is why it is hard for us to understand the issue you've brought up - if the life is protected after birth then why not in-utero? What makes it less valuable? Though there are some people who honestly do not value the life of the baby in utero, the vast majority are left with a different question - who's life is more valuable? That's why we hear a lot about viability and medical necessity which later expands to issues of quality of life. Whose life is more important? The mother's or the baby's? Is the threat to mother's quality of life (or baby's, frankly) worth saving the baby's life? Some people say since the baby will have a bad life (poverity, unwanted, medical issues, etc.) then if the quantity is shortened it will be less impactful. And on and on. That is the issue of pro-life. I would typically argue that the baby's life is equal to mine and therefore deserves a chance at life PLUS I would bring in my religious views and faith in God and all that which, I'd argue, further supports my position.
But I have that choice because it is MY choice - the government doesn't choose for mie.
Pro-choice vs. anti-choice is the argument against government interference in the choice about what happens in THEIR life. It isn't about the baby, it's about the government getting involved in what happens with their body. I could support that argument usually. I could see the flip-side argument in the government getting involved in my ability to give birth by saying I can only have so many children (limits) - it is not the government's right to say whether or not I can have kids and how many I can have! That is a choice I am free to make - if I want to have 25 kids (and could) then I don't want the government to have the ability to tell me otherwise! That is the consequence of "anti-choice". It's all about WHO gets to decide, the woman or the government.
.
So, I wish I could be pro-choice AND pro-life. In fact, we all are to some degree. Preference for one outweighs the other. I lean toward pro-life because I strongly value that life and believe as an innocent, otherwise unable-to-protect-itself human it is all of our responsibility to protect that life at all costs. With that being such a strong foundation in my life, I can't FULLY support pro-choice because it means that innocent life dies without a choice. They are incongruent at that point but I'd support pro-choice up until that point. Other people value the woman's right to make decisions about her own body as the primary value and to some degree values life less and would rather allow some life to end to protect the woman's freedom.
Another way to answer your question is to say that pro-choicers would say that they WOULD support the mother's right to end the life of the child if the child was posing harm to them. For example, let's say the 14 year-old mentally disturbed son came at them with a knife - many pro-choicers would say the mom would have the right to protect herself with lethal action, if needed, wouldn't she? We would say that - if someone came on my property I want the legal ability to protect my child and myself with lethal force, if necesary. What's the difference if it is my son vs. a stranger? The same right should exist right? Can a 25 year old son pose that risk? Can a 15 year old? Can a 12 year old? etc. It's hard for us to come up with a real scenario of how an hour old baby might pose a danger to the mother so that she could kill the baby after birth so it's hard to extend the argument that far, but the principle is the same. I don't agree, but I can understand the argument and I think as pro-lifers we do our cause a disservice when we spend so much time arguing why someone shouldn't fight for the right to keep the government out of the choice (which, to pro-choicer's is what we're arguing) instead of doing everything we can to fight for life including everything we can to help women who are in the position of wanting an abortion vs. bringing the pregnancy to term including taking those women in, adopting their babies, or whatever it took to help them protect the life of their child and support that child's life after birth too. If we focused on THAT as a movement I firmly believe we'd see less abortions, legal or not
Thank you for a very informed discussion!
I must discuss though the statement that two of you made in regards to contraception.
Condoms are free EVERYWHERE. My husband's clinic gives them out for free. Nearly every doctor's office in America will give them to ANYONE who asks.
I have trouble with the argument that "Barriers to contraception (including emergency contraception) are what often lead to abortions." I have witnessed countless pregnancies where the person HAD access to abortions. In fact, I would argue that MANY people who have abortions are people who had the resources to get contraception.
In addition, while I know it is not without psychological issues, I would have to argue that having an abortion is no less/more psychologically damaging then giving a child up for adoption. And, when a mother gives a child up for adoption, she is given access to LIMITLESS resources to help her deal with this -- absolutely free to her.
Wendi
As regards to abortions over, say 25 weeks or late term abortions in general, I recognize that they are low in number, but currently, they are allowed in Washington D.C. for ANY REASON up until the moment of birth. Whether a small minority choose to or not, to me, is not the issue, the issue is that our laws currently allow this. It is this that I cannot find a rationale for. This means that any woman in the USA, today, could kill her baby, perfectly viable (outside of the means of safety of the mother which is a different subject) and not be prosecuted. However, once the baby is outside the womb, the same choice, is murder. I really can't wrap my mind around this and would appreciate any further discussion on this.
Wendi
P.S. Again, so appreciate the patient, kind dialogue!
McKenzie,
In response to your question, if the government has no right to tell us what to do with our bodies, this is where I don't understand the rationale with late-term abortions. I understand the argument for that, but they do exercise a right for parents to protect children. I just don't get how the "womb" changes that? Does that make sense?
WEndi
And Rachel, I am fine with actual questions from pro-lifers.
This to me is obviously a question for me too. But I wanted to start with something broader and more diffciult for me to understand. As someone who is pro-life, I would obviously agree with you and argue that all life can be argued for.
Wendi
To clarify, by access to contraception, I was referring to medical insurance covering birth control pills.
Anonymous, this would be another topic entirely for us to get into ... Contraception and insurance.
Ok, Wendi, you've opened a can of worms, but I have to admit that I've wondered about similar things (albeit from the opposite perspective), so I can understand and appreciate the genuine curiosity.
First thing: My answer your specific question posed to "pro-choicers" is similar to what several of the other commenters pointed out. I believe late term abortions should be technically legal because sometimes they are medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother. (I actually had a friend who had to make such a choice. It was very much a wanted pregnancy, but the baby would never have made it to full term and efforts to see it through would have put her in significant danger. She had a four-year-old and a husband and aging parents to consider, but, still, the whole family mourned that loss *terribly.*) I, personally, do not believe in late term abortions simply as a form of birth control. But, those instances are very, very rare and are, in fact, illegal in 39 out of 50 states. If the U.S. went so far as to outlaw late-term abortions entirely, then tragedies such as this (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/15/165238731/pregnant-womans-death-sparks-abortion-debate-in-ireland) would be happening here as well.
So, that's how I feel about that, but I wanted to mention something else that I have been pondering. I think we all wonder why it's so difficult to discuss this issue. And, in the same vein, I think we all wonder how in the world the "other side" could possibly think what they think, right?? Well, here's my attempt at wrapping my brain around that predicament... I think that for many of those within certain denominations of Christianity, there truly is no real question, very little grey area, on this entire issue. If you, Wendi, ever had to face a medical situation where abortion was mentioned, I'm pretty sure that you would not likely prefer to face the risks rather than undergo the procedure--that you would stick to your convictions and assume that God has a plan for you and your family.
However, there are many of us who do not have the same type or level of faith that links religious convictions to moral behavior. We don't have an immediate answer that we can turn to, and so, when facing such scenarios, we have to mentally battle it out within grey area--who take priority? The mother, the child? Under what circumstances? It is, as someone said above, MESSY, and it is SUBJECTIVE and oh so dependent on the very, very specific context--each and every time. For us. But I can see how it doesn't feel subjective to many of you, and you guys probably think that we're nuts for not being able to understand how, in your minds, this matter is absolutely non-negotiable.
But, at the same time, I am trying to understand this about you, and I hope that some of your pro-life readers can also make the effort to sympathize with those of us who see this issue as *necessarily* one of choices--messy, complicated and often heartbreaking choices. Honestly, I think that's the crux of the disconnect. Pro-lifers, motivated by religious convictions, don't believe that there truly is a choice in the matter because of their Christian teachings. Whereas I, an entirely secular person, would feel a big question mark hanging over me if I were ever to find myself facing such a scenario. I *would* have choices to make, you see? Because I don't practice a faith that provides me with a clear directive on this matter. I can only hope, if ever such a thing were to happen, that the law would allow me to do what my own personal medical situation and moral convictions dictate--just as it allows for you to personally reject abortion as a potential treatment plan because of what you believe.
And... that's what I think. More than I expected to say, but I hope that there's some sense to be made in all of that.
~Mimi
I have many good friends who are both Christian and pro choice. When I have asked them about their beliefs, they have stated that while they themselves are pro-life, it is not the place of the government (at least at the national level) to enforce such a law on everyone. Medical decisions are between a woman and her doctor. Not a woman and the governnment.
Mind you, I don't agree....but I appreciated the explanation and can totally understand the rationale.
Also,I agree with what John said on his political post earlier this year. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. should be decided at a state level.
Just my 2 cents. And Mimi....very well thought out, articulate post. Again, although I don't agree, I appreciate the way you explained your views in a thoughtful and logical way without offending anyone who happens to see it differently.
Wendi,
To reiterate what many people have already commented, from those that I know, mainly pro-choice people, partial birth abortions are widely viewed as unacceptable and post 22-week abortions are looked down upon.
I think there are larger philosophical arguments, such as the existence of a soul, that the difference of opinion stems from. Without getting into that one too much, I'll go with a few factors regarding our society and legislation.
I think that many are of the opinion that while outlawing abortion may decrease the overall number of terminated fetuses, abortions would not be completely eliminated from our society and the risk of danger to those that undergo amateur abortions goes up exponentially.
Abortion rates tend to be higher among lower income neighborhoods, particularly among minorities. Foster care systems are currently overly-burdened and from what I understand, black and latino babies do not get adopted at anything close to the rate of white babies. I may be incorrect, you know adoption waaaaay better than me, I don't dispute that. But it seems that the largest abortion demographic, those who can not afford a child, is the demographic least likely to have their child adopted by a loving home and not the state, I don't believe that to be a coincidence.
The largest factor to me personally, is that ALL cells hold life. I'm not going to argue that an embryo is not life in the same way that I wont argue that bacteria is not life. The cells are alive, now what? The difference is that many people do not see an embryo or a fetus as a human, but rather, a less developed form of life that can not sustain on it's own (again, not talking about partial birth or late-term). Humans kill animals by the droves daily, largely without dispute. Humans kill one another daily, with not nearly enough dispute (see: Iraq war). Many people, myself included, feel that a fetus is a conglomeration of cells that will one day become human, but currently is not.
I applaud you for inviting this topic, and wish only the best.
-Rob K
Ryan and Sarah,
Your comment made me realize that I might have implied that I'm under the impression that all practicing Christians are pro-life and that all pro-choice folks are secular. That's not what I intended to say. I simply brought up religion because, from my perspective, it does seem as though many pro-lifers take their stance, at least in part, because of their faith. So, basically, if the abortion issue is a matter of faith for some and not so for others, it can sometimes be very hard to find common ground for true conversation and sharing.
But, it seems like Wendi has created a truly welcoming venue for discussion, and I'm definitely grateful for and impressed with *all* the comments here!
Mimi,
I always appreciate your very open and intelligent arguments -- written in a very "let's discuss" way.
I actually think that there are a LOT of grey areas. I do not disput that there are grey areas. I do not know what I would do if put in that grey area. There might a time that I would, and I would have to decide between my life and the life of my child (or the life of neither of us.)
But I actually have a dispute on a much SMALLER level. I am talking about levels where abortion is done for the other reasons. The 97% of the reasons. What then? That is where I don't understand that partial birth is only outlawed in MOST of our states. Why is it allowed anywhere outside of the health of the mother. THat's where I get confused.
An interesting statistic:
38% of these abortions are being done on people in the $30,000-$59,999 financial income bracket.
Nearly 14% are being done on women making over $60,000.
This means that abortions are not being done simply due to financial/poverty restrictions as implied by a few people above.
I did want to go back to my original question though. It seems that all of the pro-choice commenters on this blog are saying that:
1. Partial birth / late-term abortions are wrong apart from health of the mother.
And that the real reason we have to allow them is because it would be a slippery slope to not give the power to a woman. In other words, if a woman does not have the right to choose, she could be prevented from choosing at a moment they her health is really in jeopardy.
I just have to wonder if sliding down the other side (allowing women to have an abortion for any reason) isn't just moving to the opposite extreme? Because we are afraid of the slippery slope, we therefore go so far that we are losing children that are completely viable and who would be alive outside of the womb.
So my question is: if a mother, at 36 weeks, decides to have an abortion for an elective reason (not because of her health), she is allowed to do this in a minority of states. But she is never allowed to kill or even hurt the child after the second the child is outside of the womb.
I just can't reason this out as to how this would work. I concur that a slippery slope is, indeed, slippery, but would it not be possibly to simply say, "If a woman's health is in jeopardy" they can find a doctor to do an abortion. And allow this to be in the hands of the doctor? Surely there is a way to prevent elective late-term abortions?
Hi Wendi. Another pro choice anonymouse here, and first, thank you for hosting this very respectful discussion. I am pro choice, but do not think abortion would be my personal choice. As others have said before me, my rationale for being pro choice is that I don't think that I should get to decide what is right for others on such a subjective, complicated, personal issue based on my own beliefs. I had also intended to link to the article about the woman who died in Ireland that Mimi posted as exemplifying part of why I am pro choice, even regarding late term / partial birth abortions, which make me personally very uncomfortable.
You asked in your last comment, "would it not be possibly to simply say, "If a woman's health is in jeopardy" they can find a doctor to do an abortion. And allow this to be in the hands of the doctor? Surely there is a way to prevent elective late-term abortions?"
For me, how to define "if a woman's health is in jeopardy" is what starts that slippery slope you referred to. Some would look at numbers, and suggest that "in jeopardy" would refer to cases where the woman faced almost certain death if she were to carry to term (i.e. 99:1 odds). Others would probably say, well, "in jeopardy" should mean if the risks outweigh the possibility of success (maybe 51:49 odds or lower). Different doctors might predict different odds for the same condition. Another question for me is how would mental health issues factor into "in jeopardy"? (I can't currently think of a specific example, but if continuing with the pregnancy were to somehow become such a serious threat to the mother's mental health that it also threatened her physical safety).
All of that is to say that, I think leaving the decision up to individual doctors, or panels of doctors who have to agree on a particular case, would limit access to late term abortions for women in need, as seems to have happened in Ireland (though I don't pretend to understand the medical nuances of the case).
I hope this makes sense. I don't have perfectly coherent beliefs about this issue, and I really appreciate the forum to discuss such a contentious issue respectfully.
Hello
,
I am also pro-life, pro-choice. I would not choose an abortion for myself, but I don't think science provides enough evidence against abortion for the government to make it illegal at this time. In general, my view is that government laws should not be based on "beliefs" but rather unbiased facts.
Having said that, I wanted to point out an article I read today. In short a woman in Ireland was miscarrying, but because her baby still had a heartbeat she was denied an abortion. She died due to complications of the miscarriage which would have been prevented had a prompt abortion been performed.
My point is- if we allowed our government to make abortion illegal, are we running the risk of these types of things occuring? As someone stated above, it is very difficult to distinguish gray area abortion laws. Just imagine if a doctor had a potentially dying woman on the table, he was pretty sure the baby would die, but not 100%. He also knows the mother will most likely die if the baby is not aborted. Now the doctor must decide if they want to take on a life saving abortion that could possibly be interpreted later to be murder. The last thing we need to do is tie the hands of someone trying to save a life.
This may be the extreme minority of cases, but it is a real possibility if abortion is made illegal across the board.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/world/europe/ireland-abortion-controversy/index.html
Best wishes,
Sherrie
In the US, there is a separation between church and state and people have the freedom to practice their religion. Therefore, God does not belong in my government or in my laws - nor does Buddha, Allah or any other religious figure or being. I am grateful that people are able to practice their beliefs and religion and it is my belief that we do not have a right to meddle in the beliefs or lives of others.
There are certain Christian denominations, Christian Scientist's for example, that believe in the power of prayer to heal. There have been several cases recently in my area where newborns and children have died of perfectly treatable illnesses that never would have died had they received medical care. The parents believed that the power of prayer would heal the infant and child in this case and if the children did not heal and died, it was Gods will. Are the parents murderers? They are practicing their beliefs...while they are not my beliefs, and I believe they are negligent, etc. it is not my right as a human being to judge the choices they make in faith and ultimately, they have to live with their decision. Part of what makes America great is that we have the right to make choices for ourselves, about religion, beliefs, etc.
A child is a huge responsibility. I understand that the Christian viewpoint is that unwanted pregnancies should be taken to term and the baby adopted to a loving family. Adoption is mentally and psychologically difficult, so is abortion. I don't think that the impact of one outweighs the other. Who am I to tell a person that they need to have a child they are not at all prepared to have? It is easy for us who have the means, have the support, have the husband and have the insurance to judge others for their decision. But there are so many realities out there. I get it, there are many people who do have the income to support a child, but for a whole host of reasons (they already have a lot of children, they are single, they don't want children, whatever the reason) they chose not to have the child. Why should I be allowed to tell them they must have that child? If they do not have the desire to raise a child, then they have a right not to and they shouldn't be forced through laws to go through with it.
And what about the mother who very much wanted a baby and finds out thru amnio at 18 weeks that her baby has downs syndrome, or some other chromosomal or severe abnormality. Why should I, or the government or anyone else have the right to force that mother to have and raise that child? Having children is a difficult journey with healthy children, a husband and plenty of means to support the family without adding a severe disability. And like a poster said above, it is difficult to find people to adopt out children with severe disabilities and they often become the burden of society. It is no ones right to make a decision about this particular situation other than the mother.
Christians for the most part are conservative. Conservatives, on the whole, believe in pro life but also believe in a strong military. Why then, would it be considered murder to take the life of a fetus in utero regardless of the number of weeks gestation but it is not considered murder if a soldier fires a rocket that kills innocent people, men, women and children? Why is the president not a murderer for declaring war? A general for tactically waging that war, all of which ends in the loss of life by innocent people?
In closing, I believe that ultimately as human beings, you should be judged on whatever faith base you hold - if you are Christian and believe in God, God should be your judge and you should do things in such a way that allows you to answer to Him and feel good about the choices you make. This does not give you a right to impose your views and personal beliefs on people with different beliefs, especially through our secular government.
MB
Anonymous (before Sherrie), I totally get what you are saying and I agree it could be precarious. I just don't think that swinging so far the other way should be allowed.
You wrote (as many others have):
"my rationale for being pro choice is that I don't think that I should get to decide what is right for others on such a subjective, complicated, personal issue based on my own beliefs."
This is what I have trouble with. We tell parents that they CANNOT kill their children outside of the womb. I don't understand how we can tell them they CAN and then they CAN'T.
My big question here is: isn't that the same thing?
Wendi
Sherrie and MB (and others),
Thank you for keeping this so educated. When it's done kindly, it really works!
Again, I am just not talking about the minor cases of mother's health, etc. I am talking about elective abortions (I believe they are wrong at any point but for arguments sake, I am keeping it to viable elective (25-40 weeks.)
We keep (on this post) discussing the rare cases where mother's health is at risk. I am not arguing that point. But the only thing we can continue to say is "It's a slippery slope so we have to stay very far on the other end of slippery."
The fact remains though that babies do feel pain (proven after 20 weeks gestation but most likely earlier than this.) So to kill them, for an elective reason, would be the same as murder.
That is my question. My question is why a parent can't make the decision to kill a child outside the womb. (They have, actually, made decisions in parents who for religious beliefs withhold treatments for children.)
If the only argument is, "It's a slippery slope," then this can be argued for anything. We say, "Let's stay so far on the other side so we don't get close," but in the end, there are states in the USA who let a woman kill a baby for any old reason. To me, it would not be very difficult to make it simply a "slight" degree in defense of the child so that we cannot kill a child Just because.
I hope that makes sense. Thanks for the healthy discussion.
I don't think we will ever agree or be able to reconcile these beliefs with each others. The belief of choice versus life seems to be one of those things that is at the core of a persons belief system and while there may be several grey areas, it is mostly black or white for people.
I used the faith healing of children who didn't receive medical attention to try and make a point that I didn't make well because there was a word limit. Christian Scientists believe that it is Gods will to either save or not save the baby or child and that through the power of prayer, if the child is meant to be saved they will be saved. Yes, the USA prosecutes these parents, generally not for murder but for lesser charges. Would you say that the parent murdered the child? You are Christian and you believe that God has a plan for you. So are they and their belief system just happens not to include modern medicine. While you may see the death of the child as black and white murder, they see it as black and white faith and not murder at all. I just wanted to show with this that beliefs are something that really is at the core of a person, thus it is likely we will never see eye to eye on this issue. (and again, to me it is horrific that a parent would be negligent to this degree but then I do not believe it is my right to tell them how to practice their faith. Another slippery slope. What faith practices are ok and not ok...?)
While I wouldn't choose a late term abortion, I want the option. I want others to have the option. Even elective. Here is why, another point I made poorly earlier. Maybe to a Christian it is a gift to have a baby with a severe abnormality. Maybe to me it is not. Even a child with Downs, it would not be a gift. The raising of such child is a forever raising, until they are no longer on this earth. It is expensive. Insurance is expensive for them. I am not fortunate enough to have health insurance. Something goes wrong, I am out of pocket $20,000 a year x 26 years that child is on my insurance. Even if I make $60,000 a year, it can't be done easily and that doesn't even take into account that if I have other children my special needs child will alway end up taking more time and energy. It's a harsh reality and a harsh choice. A choice I want to be able to make for myself, at any time in my pregnancy, without any bars.
MB
That should have said, "I am not fortunate enough to have good health insurance" - if you work for yourself, insurance is astronomically expensive, because generally you have to purchase it on your own, not as a group. Even if you get an expensive "good" policy, your out of pocket max for a family if something big happens is $20,000/year. It just gets worse from there as you elect lower monthly premiums. People with good insurance (military, big companies, government) don't think about the reality that insurance is a very real problem for many of us, and while it may not be the Christian thing or the "right" thing, I won't lie, it is a BIG factor in decisions. Because a medical issue that spans 26 years at $20,000 a year will break most of us. Call it heartless. But for many of us, it is a harsh reality. Should insurance and money enter into this equation? No. But we are being honest here and this is not some warm fuzzy fairy tale, its very real, and it does factor. It factors a lot.
I think the big difference between killing a child inside and outside of the womb is that forcing a woman to carry a child to term has significant psychological and physical consequences for her (i.e. infringes on her rights). In other words, there is a tension between two interests. When the child is outside the womb, there isn't a tension between the two interests. In other words, killing the child would only infringe on the child's rights.
Yes! Well said anonymous regarding infringement of rights.
I agree that we may never agree but I appreciate the attempt to understand. I can appreciate what you are saying most recent anonymous. Even in the case of children with severe disabilities (although, I believe all states have free health coverage available to children born with disabilities), I can understand the reasons some people might choose to have a late-term abortion.
However, again, I am not even talking about children with a birth defect. I am talking about late-term abortions done for no other reason at all except elective. Every example you all have given me has been spot-on. I can appreciate health of the mother or because of a birth defect etc. But I am talking about these late-term abortions done simply for convenience. That is what I cannot reconcile.
If we lived in a country that allowed parents to murder children, it would make sense to me. But we don't. People who hurt children are seen as the worst kind of criminals.
Dr. Martin Haskell, who is credited with inventing partial birth abortion was credited in an interview with American Medical News with saying:
"I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range…. In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective…."
This is what concerns me.
Planned Parenthood then stated, in response:
"partial-birth abortions are performed only in cases when the woman’s life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.”
But this was not true.
Ronald Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, stated that partial-birth abortions are “primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses….”
Two doctors at a New Jersey abortion clinic independently stated that their clinic was performing roughly 1,500 partial-birth abortions per year, most of which are elective and not for medical reasons.
While partial-birth abortions are now prohibited except if “necessary to save the life of a mother,” late-term abortions are still performed for elective reasons.
This is what I just can't understand. If you want to say for health reasons for baby or for mother, I can "understand" that argument. In other words, the arguments that all of you are presenting me with, make sense. And I respect them.
But what I would really like clarification on is, how it can be allowed on a healthy baby with a healthy mother if the baby is viable or nearly viable. It is that point that I just can't make sense in my mind.
In other words, I can respect all of your examples except this one. I would like someone to tell me how it could ever be okay to hurt a perfectly human baby being born of a perfectly healthy mother, when if that same baby were born alive, the mother would go to prison. This I can't understand.
I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the only reason it is allowed is to prevent a slippery slope. In my opinion then, no one can ever tell me, ever, what to do with my children ever. Does that make sense?
Again, appreciate the opportunity to make my point heard.
I want to discuss three things: timing, exceptions, and a statement on the fact that we are interdependent people.
Timing: I would say that I am pro-choice, but so long as that choice is at the proper time...before intercourse. Abortion is about removing consequences for a choice. One consequence of intercourse is the potential to reproduce. I could expound on this, but I can see there is extreme depth in this dialogue and you are all capable of developing that train of thought.
Exceptions: much like some of the earlier posts referring to partial birth and late term abortions as a small percentage of total cases, the most common response to pro-life arguments is the issues of rape and incest. I believe this would be a very small percentage of the total number of abortions.
Making a social statements: we are, by nature, an interdependent species. We rely on one another and the group often makes statements, sets laws, and determines what is right and wrong.
I am struggling to understand why one would say, I wouldn't have an abortion myself but I think women should be allowed to choose. At some point, we have to make a statement about what is right and wrong for our culture and our society. We, as a people, set the cultural norms and morals. To say that you would not abort because you respect life and then say you think others should be allowed to choose seems counterintuitive.
We would never say, "well, I would never steal, but I think others should choose if they want to."
We have said, as a society, that stealing is wrong. Our society, on the issue of abortion however, has said everyone can choose for themselves?
We, as interdependents, need society to tell what is right and wrong in all areas so we can have help on areas we are not sure about. I, for one, would err on the side of life...just to be safe.
I wanted to weigh in on anonymous 7:00's comments and share my own abortion story.
With stealing, there is a high degree of consensus that it is wrong and so it makes sense to pass laws to reflect this. There is no such consensus with abortion so we really aren't able to collectively make a statement about what is right/wrong for society. Accordingly, we leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves.
Given that there are methods of birth control that are 99.9% effective and that the modern reality is that most people no longer wait until they are ready to have children before having sex, I think it is completely unrealistic to take the view that people should just accept unwanted pregnancy as a consequence for a choice that they made.
I was using birth control religiously and I got pregnant. I wasn't sleeping around or using abortion as some alternate form of birth control that was necessary due to my own carelessness. It wasn't a situation where a condom broke and so I had some other recourse (like the morning after pill). Unfortunately, I was on a birth control pill that enables you to skip your period, so I didn't find out until somewhat late. Not viability late, but too late for a medical abortion, so I had to have a surgical abortion.
I am an atheist and I don't consider a fetus a "life" or a "person", so I wasn't troubled by the ethical or moral aspects of it, but it was hardly something I would do if I didn't feel that it was absolutely necessary. I was doing my PhD at the time, so I was working 70 hour weeks between school/teaching classes and I had recently broken up with my boyfriend becayse he had cheated on me. I hardly would have been a fit mother, given that I basically hated the child's father (and even if I made an effort not to say anything negative, children can certainly sense these things, and if he had stayed in the child's life I'm sure we would have fought lots).
My story is certainly not as compelling as someone who suffered rape/incest, but I was still happy to have the choice open to me (anc actually expected that the choice would be open to me), given that I had been completely careful.
Just to clarify...I wouldn't have denied the choice to people who hadn't been completely careful. I don't think it is up to any doctor to determine whether you had been sufficiently careful (and thus deserving of an abortion).
Anonymous at 10:20, I appreciate the honesty of your comment. You are obviously a very intelligent and well-spoken individual who has given much thought to things.
I have two questions that I'd love you to answer (if you feel comfortable).
My ask you, will all this in mind, if anything could have 'convinced' you to consider giving the child up for adoption? Being as you would not have had any financial issues with doing so (the adoption agency handles all of that), I wonder if it entered your mind (or if anything could have helped it enter your mind?)
Secondly, I wonder if you do have any regrets? If has been difficult for you to deal with in any fashion?
These are simply curiousity questions. I have had three very close friends, myself, who have had abortions. All three of them have dealt with great emotional grief and turmoil over their decisions and all felt deep regret. I wondered if the fact that you were an atheist chanegd that?
@ MB
In the third paragraph of your 3:39 post, you asked, "who am I to tell a person..."
We, as a society, tell people what to do all the time, and we have several possible outcomes.
Murder, for example.
First degree, second degree, manslaughter, self-defense, etc. our culture is willing to have that discussion and debate every time a person kills another.
My biggest fear and frustration is that we have changed definitions of words. I believe this has been done to either soften the impact at best or to outright deceive at worst.
Examples:
Baby to Fetus
Kill or destroy to abort or terminate
Words are important. Definitions are too.
I could never "kill" a "baby" but I could "abort" a "fetus." We call it a fetus.
When we had our children, our ob referred to our "baby" even though we knew he was pro-choice. Is this because of our intent to have the child? Were we to say we were considering terminating, would he have changed his terminology to fetus until we had made a decision?
Here is another important thing to consider:
One of our children was diagnosed with a very rare condition in utero. When i say rare, most OBs will not see it in their career, but This was diagnosed by a specialist who might see one case every three or four years. He was very clear that it could resolve itself or it could take the life of the child. I went home and, after crying with my wife, researched for hours. All my research only showed worst case scenarios as those were the cases where surgical intervention was required.
When we went to see our normal OB, he started to discuss termination. It left us extremely confused and emotional all over again. It took another visit to the specialist to realize that our OB, while well intentioned, knew very little about the condition, but what he did know was only the worst case scenario.
In our case, we were fortunate and the condition resolved itself. After meeting our little one, I did get a bit upset at the fact that a highly educated and professional physician would make a professional recommendation without fully understanding or discussing the condition with the specialist. How often does this happen?
No, nothing would have made me consider adoption. It didn't even enter my mind. Not only was I not ready to raise a baby, but I wasn't prepared to carry a baby to term and birth a baby.
No, I did not experience any difficulty dealing with my decision. I feel no regrets. Of course, if I was not able to have kids now for some reason, I might regret it, but for now, no feelings of regret.
Obviously, I would have preferred not to undergo an uncomfortable medical procedure, but I didn't have any emotional turmoil. In fact, the weird counselling session where they try to ask you about your feelings made me uncomfortable and annoyed (because if I had these sorts of feelings, I certainly wouldn't want to discuss them with some random stranger).
I simply don't consider a fetus a "life" or a "human being" and I am an atheist, so there was no moral/ethical/religious aspect to it that would have triggered these emotional feelings. And, to be completely honest, I'm not sure that I would feel differently if the fetus had, theoretically, been viable (if I recall, it was 16 weeks).
I have always been pro-life, I am adopted after all! Always very thankful for a birthmother who chose a difficult path, but I do question my stance in the case of rape. Here is an interesting thought provoking article.
http://us.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/frum-abortion-reality/index.html?sr=sharebar_facebook
@ anonymous 10:20
Stealing has been possible for a millennia. Abortion has only recently become an option for people as modern medicine has made that a possibility. I suppose my question would be:
If it is possible for us to eventually come to the conclusion, as a society or species, that abortion is inappropriate, unacceptable, or whatever word you choose, wouldn't it be wise to err on the side of caution until research has made a definitive statement?
I have seen comments above that say things to the effect that research is not developed enough to fully explain the physical, psychological, social, and emotional impacts of abortion on individual people and humans collectively.
To analogize this, it would be comparable to driving a car off the lot and being told the price later. I would much rather know the whole cost before committing to the purchase.
I suppose the the return thought would be that the costs of carrying to term are known and it is a calculated risk, right?
I don't really understand how you can say that the "research is not developed enough to fully explain the...emotional impacts of abortion" but that "the costs of carrying to term are known." If we don't have enough data on the psychological effects of abortion, surely we also don't have enough data on the effects of being forced to carry a baby to term against your will.
Even if one accepts that there isn't a lot of data at the societal level (which I disagree with), I think people are informed enough about themselves and their own personal goals/aspirations/feelings/circumstances to decide what the effect would be on their own life of either having an abortion or being forced to carry a baby to term. And I think the impact that individuals believe it would have on their own life should be valued above some sort of hypothetical negative impact that is yet to be proven.
Also, the history of abortion is much longer than merely being recently available. Attempts to have abortions (with mixed success) date back to the ancient times and we have had the modern procedure for about 50 years. That is a fairly long data collection period. Many policy decisions rely on a much shorter period.
I also don't think it is fair to complare theft and abortion. Theft only violates the rights of the victim, while abortion engages the rights of the mother and, if you are inclined to believe that a fetus has rights, the fetus.
I don't think this is like not being told the price of a car until after the fact. I know exactly what the price to me would be for being forced to carry a baby to term that I didn't want.
I also don't think that it is possible for us to eventually decide as a society that abortion is inappropriate. In the medical context, we have seen dramatic advances in individual autonomy and reproductive rights over the past 50 or so years (informed consent, health privacy, some jurisdictions loosening the restrictions on assisted suicide, to name a few examples). It is pretty difficult to take rights away from people once you have given them. If anything, society is going in the opposite direction. For political reasons, I also don't think it would be feasible for this to occur (which is part of the reason why we see things like "fetal pain laws" and other indirect restrictions on abortions rather than policymakers trying to outlaw abortion directly). I also don't think it is leagally feasible for this to occur. The courts have said certain things about the status of a fetus as a person and I think it would be very difficult for them to turn around and say the complete opposite thing. In particular, to the extent to which these conclusions are grounded in constitutional rights, they would be nearly impossible to change.
Post a Comment