Alex R. | April 18, 2007 02:22 PM

Well, being LDS, I am obviously against abortion. Being rational, I am also obviously against abortion. Anyone who says that abortion is not the taking of a life is lying to themselves. Period. Here are some lyrics from a rapper named Piper that put it better than I can.

[deleted due to the amount of lyrics being clearly beyond what is acceptable for fair use -- js]

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 02:27 PM

Alex R.:

"Being rational, I am also obviously against abortion."

That's not the only rational position regarding abortion, Alex, and thinking so is, well, irrational. Please avoid making that sort of irrational blanket statement again, unless you want it shoved down your neck, hard.

I've deleted your lyrics on the grounds of copyright violation, Alex. Try to get clearance for those next time.

Bensdad00 | April 18, 2007 02:32 PM

What's that I smell, a conspiracy theory? The Goverbnment purposely let a lunatic loose on the V-Tech campus so that we would be to distracted to notice this ruling? You better watch your back John, publishing the gummint's secrets like this. Black Helicopters will be landing at Casa De Scalzi any day now.

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 02:38 PM

It's sad, but the VT shootings are over, and all that's left is the media circus and some politicians blowing some hot air around.
It's a damned shame about the SC ruling. For or against it, abortion should be a personal choice, and the government's only role should be to make sure that if they are carried out (at the discretion of the woman in question, and absolutely no one else- no, not even parents), that they are carried out safely. Sorry for the rant, it's a bit of a hot-button topic with me. Thanks for giving this the attention it needs, John.

Christian | April 18, 2007 02:38 PM

> Anyone who says that abortion is not the
> taking of a life is lying to themselves.

No disagreements from me here.

On the other hand, the planet is getting mighty full, and humans beings simply love to kill - either in utero, or anywhere else for that matter. It's that whole semi-sentient, opposable thumb thing we have going. We're the best and most efficient predator on the planet (that coincidentally kills it's own kind, but never for food)

Even though John was a bit snarky regarding Agent's Smith's poignant soliloquies in The Matrix (The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies), they bear repeating here:

I'd like to share a...revelation I had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to...classify your species. I realized that you're not _actually_ mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but...you humans do _not_. You move to an area..._and_ you _multiply_...until every natural resource is _consumed_. The only way you can survive is to..spread to _another_ area.

John H | April 18, 2007 02:39 PM

Alex R., no -- abortion is the taking of a potential life. Show me a fetus that can survive outside the womb and I might consider your argument...

Kate | April 18, 2007 02:42 PM

Wow.

I've always been pro-choice. I don't know if it is ignorance on my part, but reading the opinion and having children of my own, I got sick to my stomach when detailing the procedures.

While I won't preach on what other women should do, I don't think I could ever bring myself to do something which I find so disturbing.

In my personal case - pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion. If that makes any sense what-so-ever.

Steve Buchheit | April 18, 2007 02:49 PM

Alex R, being rational you have an opinion. I have a dissenting opinion.

Being rational, some SE Asian cultures don't accept that a child who has been born is really of this plane of existance until about ten days after their birth. Until then the child is not allowed to touch the ground. This is a rational response to high infant mortality in those cultures.

Alex R. | April 18, 2007 02:49 PM

Why does it have to survive outside of the womb? That makes absolutely no sense.

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 02:49 PM

Kate- your stance makes sense to me... There are too many different circumstances under which abortion would be an option that to legislate it outright seems a crass oversimplification of the issue. Better to let people come to their own conclusions, and let the government's role be limited to making sure that that decision can be carried out safely.

As for your reaction to the details of the procedure, the same could be said of any medical procedure. By that logic, then, all invasive surgical procedures that create some gore are suspect- tracheotomies, open-heart surgery, hell, even caesarean sections.

Andy | April 18, 2007 02:53 PM

Wow. Alex=pwnt.


Kate, I'm with you on that. There's a difference between encouraging a behavior and simply accepting it in some circumstances. I think too many people make the distinction of pro-choice as meaning pro-abortion in all cases.

Kero aka Kevin | April 18, 2007 02:53 PM

Meh. Until the question of when life begins is answered it is matter of personal opinion of whether abortion is murder or not. Until that point I would rather not have the government or radicals like Alex deciding what a woman can or can't do with her body.

Kate | April 18, 2007 02:54 PM

Strangely, I don't get sick to my stomach when reading or watching other medical procedures.

I guess that my experiences of having a life grow inside of me, feeling it move and respond to my voice, and finally holding it in my arms after difficult and painstaking deliveries has possibly tainted me from making any judgments regarding what other people should do with their bodies.

While I'm glad women have a choice...it's not a choice I would necessarily make. I'm terribly upset at my own fence sitting here, so I apologize in advance, but there is really no other way of looking at it for me.

Alex R. | April 18, 2007 02:56 PM

Pablo, I agree that I want as little government in my life as possible. However, letting someone come to their own conclusions just doesn't work when it involves someone else dying.
Just to clarify, I am ok with abortions if the mother will die. I am slightly less ok with abortion when they think they baby will have lots of problems. Before I was born, the docs told my parents I had Down's and probably wouldn't live past 10. I'm pretty glad they didn't abort me, even though I couldn't have survived outside the womb at the time.
I'll give Piper's lyrics another try. "Choosing our life over your life meant your death." - Happy Birthday

I think that explains the rationale behind most abortions...people don't want they baby (oh, I'm sorry, fetus), or don't feel like they are ready, or it would hamper their lifestyle. There are other reasons, but they don't appear as frequently.

Rob Davies | April 18, 2007 02:57 PM

In my experience, some (not all) anti-abortionists are hypocritical. While they get up in arms about a cluster of cells, they don't seem to complain much about the death penalty, and they don't seem to flinch every time a cluster bomb is dropped in the desert.

Steve Buchheit | April 18, 2007 02:57 PM

Kate, then please don't have this kind of abortion. Still makes you Pro-Choice, you choose not to have one.

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 02:58 PM

Kate- Fair enough. As a guy, I have absolutely zero frame of reference for looking at it as anything other than a medical procedure, so maybe I should STFU. ;)

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 03:04 PM

Pablo Defendini:

"As a guy, I have absolutely zero frame of reference for looking at it as anything other than a medical procedure, so maybe I should STFU. ;)"

Well, see. There are lots of other guys who won't shut up just because they can't have an abortion, and many of them are the sort who believe no one should have one.

Alex R.:

"Just to clarify, I am ok with abortions if the mother will die."

You ought not be cheered about this particular ruling then, as the law in this case does not provide for a medical exception. There's a possibility that mothers will die because of it.

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 03:05 PM

Alex R.- That all depends on what your definition of life is. I think I'm gonna side with Kero/Kevin on this one: short of being psychic, and sensing some sort of consciousness in that fetus, there's no way for us to know whether life begins at conception, or whether a fetus is nothing more than a developing parasite until the mother gives birth (or even later than that, if you take into account the development of self-consciousness, or semi-mystical beliefs, such as Steve outlined above). Hence, in my opinion, the need for ample legal latitude, and for women to make their own choice.

Tor | April 18, 2007 03:09 PM

Aww, Scalzi... who knows, some lyrics from a song could have changed my mind! I mean, clearly this isn't a position that has been debated at length, and I think Alex R. is of course right to assume that the wisdom of his position would immediately become clear from such a short post, and of course those life changing lyrics.

I've now tracked down the lyrics. The imagery in the playground. Oh. My. God. (no offense meant).

I mean, all of those pro-choicers like I *used* to be, just picked a position almost at random - without considering issues like whether the fetus is alive, or when is it ensouled, or the value of a potential life and when life actually begins.

That's what made the effervescent logic of his (her?) post so compelling.

And now Alex, since I have demonstrated my open mindedness, I assume that you would be open to some questions and criticism on some of the past and present policies of the LDS church. I would post the lyrics that pose my questions much better than I could ever manage, but Scalzi is so anal about copyright. So post your email address and I'll send them to you. I think it might change your mind!

Alex R. | April 18, 2007 03:11 PM

Pablo...I just can't understand that. I think its rather obvious that those "bundle of cells" will eventually become a human being. Does it honestly matter that it can't survive on its own?
Should we then allow parents with severely disabled children to off them because they are inconvenient? They don't have any concept of self.
I also don't understand why I'm radical for believing its no ok to kill because its not convenient.
Oh wait, yes I do. Its an easy way to go around the debate...paint me as a loony, and then you don't have to answer my questions.

Radicals are those who blow up abortion centers, or stand at high school street corners and hand full color pictures of abortions to females, while tell them they are going to hell for wearing a short skirt.

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 03:15 PM

Tor:

"I assume that you would be open to some questions and criticism on some of the past and present policies of the LDS church."

Yes, please, take those into e-mail if you choose to have that discussion. It'll no doubt be an interesting discussion, just not one I want to have here, now.

Alex R. | April 18, 2007 03:20 PM

Indeed...we're talking here about abortion - not religion, war, or the death penalty.
I'm unsure as to why I've been called radical, been made fun of, etc. for stating my opinion. I have made no judgements of women who have had abortions, those who provide abortions, or those who believe in a woman's right to choose.
I did state my religion, simply because it helps to understand why I think the way I do.

Sam | April 18, 2007 03:20 PM

Not being a woman its hard for me to dictate what a pregnant woman should do with her body. I personally am Pro-Life, but what someone else does with their own body (no matter how dispicable I believe it to be) is their business.

Prove to me that a fetus in the womb is not a living thing, conversely I also know its hard to prove that it is a living conscius entity inside of the womb, and I will say its okay to kill "it." Because this is such a gray area its not right to say that "abortion is the taking of a potential life."

What ever happened to cautioning on the side of error. This is not a peace of wood its a human being why is it so hard to believe that something that was created from a sperm and a ovam is a living thing, I'm not even talking about God, I'm talking about just basic level human descency.

Steve Buchheit | April 18, 2007 03:20 PM

Alex R., since you came to your decision rationally, I would really like to hear your rational thought process that led you to hold that life, with all the rights and priveledges, begins at conception. I would especially like to hear your rationalization of equating, say the acorn to the full oak, and how then you feel about not charging women who have still births or those who lose their pregnancy (aka. spontaneous abortion) with a crime.

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 03:21 PM

"I think its rather obvious that those "bundle of cells" will eventually become a human being."

I don't think it's that obvious at all, actually. It goes back to your personal belief. So many things could happen: the fetus could fail to develop correctly, and could be flushed out of the system very early on (sometimes without the mother even realizing it), she could miscarry (and possibly take the mother with it), and so on.

You believe that as soon as an egg is fertilized, the spark of life is struck. I happen to believe otherwise. Science can't tell, as of yet. So I guess we're stuck with your belief, and my belief. Yours is no better than mine, or vice versa, but that certainly doesn't mean that either is a solid basis upon which to legislate, which is all I'm sayin'.

nisleib | April 18, 2007 03:23 PM

I have had two women close to me get pregnant through rape. If my wife got pregnant I would, of course, not want her to abort it. That being said we should all admit that bad things can happen to good people and if they choose not to keep a child conceived through rape that is their choice. I know, many people say “what are the chances of that.” In these days of ruffies and date rape probably worse than you think. Many women who are raped don’t want to admit it and don’t tell anyone. Therefore the true number of rapes is unknown.

Let’s step away from the rape (and incest and condition of the mother and viability of the embryo) exception and address the larger question of limits. What limits are we willing put on our freedom? Can we legislate who is born? Can we legislate when life begins? No, we can’t. Those are theological questions which our country should not meddle in - ever. The founding fathers were quite explicit about that. If you think (like Alex R does) that you know the absolute truth you are wrong. Period.

Let me leave you with a joke my (Jewish) wife told me.

A Baptist Preacher an Episcopalian Minister and a Rabbi are sitting around discussing when life begins.

Baptist: Life begins at inception.

Episcopalian: No, Life begins at birth.

Rabi: No, you’re both wrong. Life begins when the kid goes to college.

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 03:23 PM

Alex R:

"I'm unsure as to why I've been called radical"

Possibly because you got off on the wrong foot by implying that the only "rational" position to have re: abortion is yours. That's a pretty radical position to hold.

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 03:26 PM

Hey, look! Sam is a guy after all!

Alex R. | April 18, 2007 03:27 PM

Well, considering that fact that every human being alive came from those same circumstances, I think its safe to say there's no need for the debate as to when a fetus is actually "alive". I myself don't know. I don't know when it begins thinking, feeling, when they have a soul, or anything else. Does it matter? Its going to become a human being. That should count for something.
Why should they be prosecuted for something they had no direct control over? Still births and miscarriages are generally not the fault of the mother...if anything, they need counseling for the grief they will be going through. Try telling one of them that what they lost was just a bundle of cells.

nisleib | April 18, 2007 03:28 PM

Sorry, one other point I forgot to make above.

In no way shape or form will illegalizing abortion make it go away any more than illegalizing drugs have made them go away. It will just make it more dangerous.

Don’t believe me? Look no further than a history book and you will see I am correct.

Amanda | April 18, 2007 03:30 PM

Alex R: Your reasons for being against abortion are your own reasons, and when presented to someone else in a logical manner, that other person may not think your reasons are rational. That all depends on the person and their own experiences.

I think I'm Pro Choice, like Kate. I haven't thought on it too much, but I do know that if there are certain valid reasons behind wanting or needing the procedure, then fine. A friend of mine had to have an abortion because of an ectopic pregancy. If she hadn't she would have died and left her two daughters without a mother. I believe that if a woman is raped and is impregnated, she should have the choice whether or not she wants to go through with it or not.

I do not believe it should be used for birth control methods, though. Just because a baby won't fit in your lifestyle, I don't think that's a valid excuse for wanting an abortion.

But that is just what I believe.

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 03:30 PM

Alex, you're right. It should count for something. But what it should count for is not for the government to decide.

Espana Sheriff | April 18, 2007 03:31 PM

I don't care much for the opinions of anti-abortionists unless they are vegetarian pacifists. Most other positions seem to have too many inherent contradictions.

They also seem to ignore how incredibly frequent spontaneous abortions are. Nature handles this all the time, often without the potential mothers even knowing it. There is no disturbance in the Force.

But then I have issues with religion and rationality and the relationship between those two, so I try to bit my tounge. A lot :)

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 03:34 PM

Alex R.:

"Well, considering that fact that every human being alive came from those same circumstances, I think its safe to say there's no need for the debate as to when a fetus is actually 'alive.'"

Logical fallacy. Every human was a once a bundle of cells, not every fertilized bundle of cells becomes a human being. So, no, it's not "safe to say."

Alex, just as a warning, every time you make a statement that includes a rhetorical influencer like "Obviously" or "safe to say," you're going to end up having your legs kicked out from under you. Some of us have degrees in language. If you want to make your argument, argue from facts, not rhetoric.

Sam | April 18, 2007 03:36 PM

nisleib:

I do agree that woman who are pregnant through forced means (ie. rape), or who have the potential to die as a result to pregnancy have a right to then abort the fetus (one would hope during the first trimester).

What I find disturbing are people who have sex consensually, get pregant and decide to abort. First of all this isnt the middle ages where there arent contraceptive means to prevent this. Second of all it really isnt the fault of the fetus, baby, whatever to have such a gruesome death.

It's not that I'm agaisn't all of abortion its that I'm against abortion for woman (and men, I've known guys to pressure their girlfriends to do it) as a convenient way to get rid of a problem.

Sue | April 18, 2007 03:36 PM

Interesting, no one has responded to Rob Davies' comments about the disconnect between those against abortion as murder and those (often same folks) who have no trouble with either death penalty or bombs killing civilians.



Clearly, I'm in the pro-choice camp. I believe it is a choice, not a life/death issue, because I believe it's a "potential life" not a "life"



And that's what's really at the crux of this whole thing -- it's legislation based on what we "believe." As we don't seem to be able to prove this "start of life" thing, it becomes a very emotional argument based on beliefs, which makes legislating it very messy. Not the way we like our laws to develop.



Murder, state sanctioned or otherwise, is clearly the taking of life -- the arguments about death penalties at least have that to agree upon.



oh yea -- anti death penalty for those keeping count at home.

nisleib | April 18, 2007 03:36 PM

Nice critical thinking Mr. Scalzi!

Ah, college. It is amazing how much one four month course can change your outlook on everything, isn't it?

PeterP | April 18, 2007 03:36 PM

This is one of those discussions that is difficult to have because it is based so firmly in emotion.

For me, abortion is usually bad because it implies a failure further up the chain. Someone didn't use birth control, it didn't work, or something beyond their control (rape) caused them to get pregnant. If people really wanted to lower the rate of abortion, they would address those issues. Make birth control easier and cheaper to get, etc.

But the reality is that many of those that oppose abortion also appose sex in general, unless its specifically for procreation in a room with the lights out and the door locked in the missionary position between two happily married Christians. This tends to muddy the issue further by making it a religious debate, instead of a social policy debate.

I'm pro choice, myself, simply because i don't think its a good idea to let the government dictate personal choice, and absent a compelling social reason for banning abortion, i'd prefer they not stick their nose in. Anything else seems to be yet more pandering to the religious right on a hot button issue, that is really a non-issue, but does get votes. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Volunteer to council pregnant teens or something. But don't legislate my decisions for me.

Alex R. | April 18, 2007 03:36 PM

Looking through the post, I see that it is basically me, with others posting in response. As I'm sure its not what Scalzi had in mind, I'll bow out of the discussion so that it may continue.
If you wish to show me the error of my backward thinking, feel free to email me at aprobinson15@hotmail.com

Sue | April 18, 2007 03:37 PM

Interesting, no one has responded to Rob Davies' comments about the disconnect between those against abortion as murder and those (often same folks) who have no trouble with either death penalty or bombs killing civilians.



Clearly, I'm in the pro-choice camp. I believe it is a choice, not a life/death issue, because I believe it's a "potential life" not a "life"



And that's what's really at the crux of this whole thing -- it's legislation based on what we "believe." As we don't seem to be able to prove this "start of life" thing, it becomes a very emotional argument based on beliefs, which makes legislating it very messy. Not the way we like our laws to develop.



Murder, state sanctioned or otherwise, is clearly the taking of life -- the arguments about death penalties at least have that to agree upon.



oh yea -- anti death penalty for those keeping count at home.

cathy | April 18, 2007 03:38 PM

Alex R. - I would argue that you are confusing actuality with potentiality.

I don't hold the belief that life begins at conception and I believe pregnancy should not reduce me to an incubator.

I am troubled by the fact that the Court did not overturn the law because of the lack of a mother's health exemption, which would have been in keeping with past decisions. I'm not surprised, given the current make-up of the Court, but I am disapointed. It furthers my resolve to be a near-single-issue voter in virtually all elections, since I think we may very well end up back at the really bad place we were in pre-Roe when the law varied from state to state.

Kristen | April 18, 2007 03:38 PM

It seems to me that what gets missed in this thread (and other debates on the issue) is that the procedure banned by this law that the SCOTUS just upheld isn't used by a woman who "doesn't want to have a baby." These women (and there aren't very many) are women who face an agonizing decision about what to do about pregnancies that have no good outcomes: the death of the child, the birth of a child who will only suffer and die, the death or loss of fertility of the mother.

This is the first time that the court has given a thumbs up to a provision that makes no exception for the health of the mother, and it may represent a slippery judicial slope to the complete loss of the right.

There was an essay, years ago, that told the story of a woman who had to make this choice when carrying very sick twins. You can find it here: http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html

Fedge | April 18, 2007 03:40 PM

I was thinking I might make some comments about how I feel about abortion. But, anytime that happens on the net, my comments get lost in the other comments, or misunderstood. Then people keep getting called stupid on both sides of the fence.

So many people get so angry over this topic.

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 03:41 PM

Alex R.:

"As I'm sure its not what Scalzi had in mind, I'll bow out of the discussion so that it may continue."

Don't use me an excuse for backing out, Alex. What's actually happening here is that you've made a bunch of assertions based on what you think are perfectly logical points of view, and you've run up against a bunch of people who want you to explain yourself. If you feel you can make a go of it (and be reasonably polite as you do so), then by all means, you have leave to continue. What I have in mind around here is interesting conversation, not conversation in which everyone agrees with me.

nisleib | April 18, 2007 03:42 PM

Sam:

I agree about not using abortion as birth control. Almost.

I used to live in a ghetto. I’d see drunks and drug addicts running around messed up on drugs constantly. I’d hear from other’s that that same junkie had been pregnant numerous times and had half a dozen brain damaged children running around.

Sad, no?

They lacked the ability or will power or intelligence or whatever you want to call it to control their reproductive cycle.

Should they be allowed to have abortions?

Where do we draw the line?

Pete | April 18, 2007 03:42 PM

I get "tired head" when people equate taking a moral stance as a personal attack on their belief system(s). Standing up for what you believe in isn't and shouldn't be labeled intolerance.

If you can read the text of the opinion on the partial birth abortion (espeically what the nurse said about the clenching fingers and wiggling feet in the intact D&E procedure) and not feel as though the described procedure is homicide, then I really pity your lack of conscience. We might as well take all the pre-mature babies that are born prior to the "magical" seven month mark and give the parents an opportunity to choose euthanasia.

That being said, it is terrible that there is no verbiage in there allowing a doctor to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of a mother in distress. A situation like that never presents an easy ethical dilemma for doctors, but they should be free to make a call that poses the best chance of saving lives.

Alex R. | April 18, 2007 03:45 PM

Scalzi, I wouldn't have left my email address had I wanted to just back out.

Emily | April 18, 2007 03:46 PM

Thanks for that link, Kristen.

You're right that it's a very small percentage of women who have to do this horrible thing. (I think we can all agree that it is not a walk in the park, or fun.)

This procedure is done to save the lives of women, whether it be their actual physical lives or their ability to reproduce again, or saving them from the pain of watching an infant live a very short, pain-filled life.

When I see people, in reference to this particular case, talk about "abortion as birth control", it just shows to me that the conversations that are going on are on such different planes that they may never meet. And that makes me sad.

(I also would like to cause physical pain to the idiotic young men on places like digg and slashdot who claim that having a baby is not a big deal and that women who have sex have implicitly taken on that responsibility. It isn't simple, and it wrecks your body, and I want to throttle them. Ahem. That is all.)

Sam | April 18, 2007 03:48 PM

To me abortion is murder. Isn't murder defined as taking a life, in my opinion that fetus is alive (again in my opinion), the word murder may seem ugly and gruesome to some but it is what it is. The difference between killing the fetus and injecting a criminal with a blue liquid is that the criminal (assuming he/she really is guilty) made a choice to get themselves put in that position, a fetus can't claim the same thing.

PeterP,

I was born baptist, you cant get more hardcore than that. Honestly my reason for being pro-clife has nothing to do with God, my mom can attest that as a kid i was always the last one into church and the first one out. My reason for being pro-life isnt even about morals, its about a sense of justice that if something that didn't asked to be put into this world has no rights. Just doesnt seem fair as overly simplistic as it may sound.

Emily | April 18, 2007 03:53 PM

nisleib: Should they be allowed to have abortions?

Where do we draw the line?

We don't draw a line. Careless women who are addicted to drugs and already lost to the system that is supposed to be helping them deserve to have the right to an abortion just as much as the young honor student whose boyfriend puts the condom on wrong and causes it to break.

Every woman deserves the right to have an abortion. It is not our place to judge her circumstances, and it is not our right to deem her "unworthy".

Tor | April 18, 2007 03:57 PM

Alex R - "That should count for something" - no one is saying that getting an abortion is a decision that should be made lightly. I have debated and discussed this issue at length with both pro-choice as well as anti-choice people. I have never heard anyone who is pro-choice even imply that this decision should be made lightly.

The main reasons that partial birth abortions are performed in this country are:

The fetus is dead.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

The Bill which was upheld by SCOTUS contains exceptions for none of these circumstances, and in addition, there is no exception for rape or incest.

So rather than trusting physicians, we are trusting politicians to make medical decisions. Sounds brilliant - they haven't screwed anything else up recently.

And for those who claim to care about life - compared to a D&X ('Partial Birth Abortion'), there is a far higher risk of the death of the mother in birth and in a hysterotomy (the two other options to a D&X). So women will now be subject to a significantly higher risk of death because of this bill.

Women are now given the options of surgery (to remove the already dead fetus, in many cases) and birth, to give birth to a fetus that is already dead, or will die soon after birth.

D&X is a grusome procedure, but I can't even begin to imagine the effect to carrying around a dead fetus, or to give birth to a child who will immediately die, having experienced nothing but suffering. Nor can I imagine watching my wife die in childbirth or on an operating table because the doctor was not allowed to perform the safer proceedure.

nisleib | April 18, 2007 03:58 PM

Emily -

That is my point exactly. We should not draw a line. It should be safe, legal and rare. Emphasis should be placed on education and prevention.

If you don't want an abortion DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION! That way we are all pro-choice.

Don't try to legislate morality. This is a free country and Freedom is never Free. You have to fight for it and have to accept that others will be allowed to do things you don't think are moral.

Jeri Merrell | April 18, 2007 04:00 PM

For those keeping count, it would be interesting to assess how many women are pro-choice vs. men.

I am also pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. Not at all. I wouldn't do it. But I feel that neither I nor the government gets to make that choice for other women. It's very personal and gut-wrenching and difficult and no one-size-fits-all set of rules will work.

The pro-life side of the debate seems to forget that the woman's life is a valuable and equal part of the equation too - she's not just a breeding animal.

I have long thought a controversial solution to the issue might add some clarity. I propose that only women should be allowed to vote on abortion rights issues. In my personal experience, some men can get irrational on the subject, and indeed feel the value of the woman's life, especially an unwed pregnant woman who could consider abortion, is less than that of the precious little bundle of cells.

Just tossing it in the ring.

Tim Elliott | April 18, 2007 04:03 PM

As I understand it, the late-term procedure represented in the following medical illustration remains unrestricted and far more common than the one before the court today.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html

The difference between recently-fertilized bundles of cells and fetuses that would be otherwise viable at late term seems important to such discussions.

Emily | April 18, 2007 04:04 PM

nisleib: If you don't want an abortion DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION! That way we are all pro-choice.

Actually, I'd like to refine that further. If you are against abortion, help educate young men and women about ways in which they can have sex safely without the fear of pregnancy or disease. Help fund research into birth control methods that do not involve the ingestion of hormones for one's entire reproductive life. Etc.

You know? Make the crappy solution less necessary for one group of people, not harder to get, and not illegal for anyone.

Jeri Merrell | April 18, 2007 04:04 PM

If you want to get well and truly pissed off on the subject - I recommend Sheri Tepper's SF book Gibbons' Decline and Fall. She's virulently feminist, but always a good read.

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 04:06 PM

Jeri, that's a very interesting proposition, but I don't think women are necessarily more or less rational about this than men (although that would be an interesting survey to run as well). I would think that being a woman would make you that much closer to the issue, and thus more prone to personal and emotional bias.

But ultimately, I would have to agree with nisleib- it should be safe, available, rare and and educated decision (as in, not a form of birth control).

Emily | April 18, 2007 04:13 PM

Jeri wrote: The pro-life side of the debate seems to forget that the woman's life is a valuable and equal part of the equation too - she's not just a breeding animal.

I don't think that they have forgotten that at all. I think that they don't CARE. I do not believe that "pro-life" advocates are that, else they would be pro-the-mother's-life as well. I believe that they are, by and large, hypocritical as they define their own position.

(Being hopeful that abortions are less necesary is not, imo, that faux hypocritical "pro-life" crap. I'm talking about the people who want to make it illegal.)

Pete | April 18, 2007 04:17 PM

Emily,

We're not asking the right questions. I think the question shouldn't be: "Should women be allowed to have abortions?" I think the question should be "Under what circumstances should women be allowed to have abortions?" or should our government be allowed to legislate this type of situation? I honestly don't know. I have half-formed, contradictory opinions on this that may never be reconciled.

My personal opinion is that the cases of rape, incest/child abuse, and danger to the mother are all acceptable reasons to have abortions.

Making abortion a matter of convenience, such as an after-the-fact method of birth control, is reprehensible. It is tantamount to refusing to take responsibility for your actions. I have no problem with labeling this reason for the procedure as murder.

Suzanne M | April 18, 2007 04:19 PM

I'm always sort of amused by people who say that abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control. Regardless of the reason for the abortion, that's precisely what it is. It's preventing a birth. Thus, birth control.

At any rate, the "abortion as birth control" debate is pretty much irrelevant to this case, as Tor's post so clearly stated. Women who are getting IDX abortions aren't getting them because sometime in the middle of the 7th month they decided they didn't want to be pregnant anymore. They're getting them because there is something very wrong. This ruling will kill women.

Sam | April 18, 2007 04:23 PM

Emily,

I think you are misunderstaing the pro-lifers who are willing to bomb an abortion clinic and those who just don't want it to become another means of convenient contraceptives.

I am not trying to imply that the mother is not less important than the unborn child, what I am arguing is that the unborn child is just as important as the mother.

I and some others have stated that there are gray areas and that there definately are circumstances where a woman does most definately have a choice to terminate said fetus.

I don't think I'm being hypocritical, I think, I am well aware that there is no black and white about this. Trust me I do care about the mother its just that I also care about a clump of cells.

Emily | April 18, 2007 04:24 PM

Pete: Making abortion a matter of convenience, such as an after-the-fact method of birth control, is reprehensible. It is tantamount to refusing to take responsibility for your actions.

I'm sorry, but do you understand what you are saying here? Abortion isn't easy. You don't wake up one day, say oh, I'm pregnant, and walk down to the clinic and have a doctor snap her fingers in front of your belly.

Being pregnant kind of sucks. Hormones suck. The changes your body go through suck. Having an abortion sucks.

It's also taking responsibility, but for some reason people seem to think it isn't. Waiting until you give birth and leaving your child for dead in a public bathroom trashcan is "not taking responsibility", but making an appointment and going through a difficult and painful medical procedure IS taking responsibility.

I do not believe that women should EVER be punished for having sex.

Birth control is never one hundred percent. Condoms break. The Pill fails, or another medication interferes with it and the woman isn't knowledgeable enough to know to use something else in addition to it.

You wrote: Under what circumstances should women be allowed to have abortions?

Any.

Shawn Powers | April 18, 2007 04:27 PM

I have serious doubts that either camp will do any convincing on the this post. To both sides, the matter of "is the fetus alive" is as clear as "is the sky blue."

It's not a matter of opinions, it's a matter of judgments. If it were opinions, the sides could agree to disagree. They are not opinions, they are interpretations. I realize the difference is subtle, but it's profound.

I can have the opinion that euthanasia is wrong. You can have the opinion it is right. Our opinions differ. The parallel would come when one of us says euthanasia is murder, and the other doesn't. It's no longer opinions, but entirely different views of the situation.

I say the sky is blue, you say the sky is green. It's my opinion the sky is a pretty blue -- which makes no sense to you, because it's not blue dammit, it's green.

Feel free to tear my fancy wurds apart, hopefully I've communicated my opinion regarding the difficulty between the two camps.

Emily | April 18, 2007 04:27 PM

Sam: what I am arguing is that the unborn child is just as important as the mother.

If you believe that there is a circumstance in which a woman should NOT have the right to terminate a pregnancy, then you are not pro-life, you are anti-women's-rights.

--

And let me clarify my "any" in response to the above: it isn't that I believe that abortion as a form of post-sex birth control is a good idea; on the contrary, I think it's a really bad decision, health-wise. The problem is that as soon as you start legislating when a woman can and cannot have an abortion, there will be back alley abortions. And rich girls will, by and large, get them while poor girls won't.

Are you going to be the 15 year old girl who has to go into court and stand in front of strangers and tell them that your father raped you?

As soon as a resctriction is legislated, it becomes (in part) a class issue. Just like before Roe v. Wade.

LizT | April 18, 2007 04:29 PM

Well, now very sad for my daughter, who in a life-threatening childbirth situation, now may die because her HIGHLY EDUCATED doctor is not allowed to decide what has to be done for her care. My future grandchild will probably die too in that situation. Very sad indeed.

Question to add to list I ask doctors: Are you willing to go to jail to do what is best for my medical care?

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 04:31 PM

Suzanne M:

"Women who are getting IDX abortions aren't getting them because sometime in the middle of the 7th month they decided they didn't want to be pregnant anymore."

Truth.

And the fact that is more to the point in this particular case is that there is no exception made for medical necessity; women who are in the unfortunate situation in which an IDX abortion is the least dangerous option for them no longer have that option.

Essentially, no one who is getting in IDX abortion is getting one for convenience. They're getting it because it's necessary. They are going to have a traumatic experience. And now, it's very likely they're going to have a traumatic experience that is even more medically dangerous.

Jordan | April 18, 2007 04:32 PM

I'm with Emily. My body. My choice. After all, I have to live with my decisions. To say that abortion is an 'easy' decision is ridiculous.

Kate | April 18, 2007 04:38 PM

Ouch Emily.

"Being pregnant kind of sucks. Hormones suck. The changes your body go through suck. Having an abortion sucks."

Even with my fence sitting above, just because being pregnant sucks, and hormones suck isn't really something that would sway me into having an abortion.

Sitting in traffic sucks, being audited by the IRS sucks, losing money in a vending machine...sucks. Not a very good argument for promoting abortion.

"Waiting until you give birth and leaving your child for dead in a public bathroom trashcan is "not taking responsibility", but making an appointment and going through a difficult and painful medical procedure IS taking responsibility.

I believe there are safe haven laws that will allow for anonymous drop off at area hospitals, police stations, and firehouses.

While you hear about the case every so often of a woman who panicked, I would say this law is a pretty good alternative and is the kind of thing that should be promoted more often.

Sam | April 18, 2007 04:40 PM

Emily,

Clearly you are one of those people who sees the world in black and white. Fine. Nothing wrong with that.

No one ever said that having an abortion is easy I never even so much as emplied it, truly i didn't so please try not to twist my words about this. But I did teach in a public school for two yrs and trust me teens do have sex freaked out and had an abortion. It happens, get over it. If I was truly anti-women's right then I would be of the opion that women should not be allowed to have one. There is a disctinction between the two. Please recognize it the next time you try to attack a person.

There is a definate difference between a woman who has to have one because circumstances beyond their fault and having one because you just dont want it. There are laws in many states that allow mothers who do not want their newly born child to drop them off at police stations, churches and hospitals. No questions asked.

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 04:43 PM

Folks, you can have laws that encourage drop-offs and laws that allow women to have abortions. This isn't an either/or situation.

Sam:

Don't be accusing people of seeing only in black and white because they have a strong position far away from your own. Emily's position (i.e., a woman has a right to control her body) is not a radical one.

cephyn | April 18, 2007 04:43 PM

Well, the bill does contain a medical exception. From the bill:

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

The problem is that, in researching the legislation, Congress decided that there was never any case where an IDX abortion is the only safe option, a D&E abortion is always a safe alternative. So they gutted the health exception from the start. This method of legal rodeo is particularly disturbing.

Emily | April 18, 2007 04:45 PM

Kate: I believe there are safe haven laws that will allow for anonymous drop off at area hospitals, police stations, and firehouses.

I do not believe that forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy is fair or moral, and that's what you're talking about. Anonymous drop-offs are great, but you are still forcing a woman to go through something that will irrevocably change her body simply because you have chosen to judge that she did not try hard enough not to get pregnant in the first place.

Sitting in traffic sucks, being audited by the IRS sucks, losing money in a vending machine...sucks. Not a very good argument for promoting abortion.

I'm not promoting abortion. I am defending the idea that having an abortion IS taking responsibility. Just because YOU do not agree does not make it so. Just because someone wants to tell me that having an abortion isn't taking responsibility does not make it so.

Having an abortion is taking responsibility. Having the baby and giving it up for adoption is also taking responsibility. So is keeping the baby and raising it.

That was my point, and that is why I brought the physical changes into it. Being pregnant is not as simple as getting fat and then popping a baby out.

Sam: There is a definate difference between a woman who has to have one because circumstances beyond their fault and having one because you just dont want it.

What better reason is there than "I don't want it"? What better reason is there than "This is my body and choose not to have what amounts to a parasite inside me for nine months"?

The SECOND you start judging some women as "deserving" abortions as others as not deserving, the entire system goes right to shit and it becomes a class issue.

(This is the same reason that I believe in no-fault divorce, by the way. Make getting married harder, if you want to reduce divorce rates, but the men and women who need to get divorced need it enough that it should be easy. If you don't want abortion to happen, make NOT getting pregnant easier, but don't make it harder because the people who really need it can't have their reasons legislated.)

Pablo Defendini | April 18, 2007 04:45 PM

Well, politicians do know better than doctors, don't they?

/sarcasm

Sam | April 18, 2007 04:46 PM

Interesting you didn't defend me of being accused of being anti womans rights. Seeing how I never said the federal government should regulate what a woman does with her body. If anything I was always of the opinion that a woman can do whatever she wants, I stand by it but at the same time I do have beliefs of my own.

CoolBlue | April 18, 2007 04:48 PM

Um, this isn't really a decision about abortion, it's a decision about a law, enacted by Congress that has to do with abortion.

Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.

And while everyone is making a big deal about Justice Kennedy's statement that "court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications."

I found Justice Thomas' hint that he would like to see someone challenge Congress' ability to even make this law more interesting. From his concurring opinion

I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it.

That is, of course, a trap....

nisleib | April 18, 2007 04:49 PM

To Sam and all the other "pro-lifers"

Nobody wants to acknowledge the plain fact that making abortion illegal will not make it go away! It will just make it more dangerous. Do you think abortion began when the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade? I assure you it did not. It has been around for centuries.

Abortion is the least attractive method of controlling the reproduction cycle. No amount of legality or illegality will change that. It is always the last choice and always will be the last choice. It is invasive and painful and leaves emotional scars. Nothing will change that!

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 04:49 PM

Sam:

"Interesting you didn't defend me of being accused of being anti womans rights."

Are you speaking to me, here? If so, I didn't see that comment, so I wouldn't have been able to defend you from it.

Emily | April 18, 2007 04:51 PM

Sam said:

Interesting you didn't defend me of being accused of being anti womans rights.

Actually, Sam, what I said was that IF you believe that there is any circumstance in which a woman should not be permitted to have an abortion, you are anti-women's-rights.

I stand by that statement. If A, then B. If you don't believe that the government should regulate when a woman can have an abortion, then you do not believe A, and you are not anti-women's-rights.

With me?

Phillip J. Birmingham | April 18, 2007 04:52 PM

Even with my fence sitting above, just because being pregnant sucks, and hormones suck isn't really something that would sway me into having an abortion.

No, but it would be immoral to force someone else through that for nine months.

alsafi | April 18, 2007 04:53 PM

Kate, did you read the story Kristen linked to? This one is also eye-opening. Getting your taxes audited may suck, but this is on a much deeper level, and because the description of the procedure squicks you out is a hell of a reason to force a woman to carry a dead fetus around for several days, or deny her the chance to hold and grieve over her twins. There are a lot of things that squick me out--Pentecostalist services, for example, or laprascopic surgery. But I don't think they should be outlawed, all the same, even though outlawing them probably wouldn't have nearly as horrific results.

hippo | April 18, 2007 04:53 PM

I think Justice Thomas has it right, this is a question for legislatures and not for the court:

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.

Sam | April 18, 2007 04:56 PM

Yes I was Mr. Scalzi, it was in Emilies thread before my response to her, but its okay I'm a BIG BOY. But I dont think she meant it maliciously, after re-reading the post I might have over reacted.

In any case this goes back to the same reason why many of the founding fathers took issues with creating the Bill of Rights. Because when you tell people you have certain rights it implies that you didnt have them to begin with and gives government the opportunity to use that Bill of Rights agaisnt you because then there are rights that all of a sudden you find out you dont have because they didnt make it into a 250 yr old document.

Jeri Merrell | April 18, 2007 04:56 PM

Under what circumstances should women be allowed to have abortions?

Let's rephrase that question. Under what circumstances am I not allowed to make my own choices about my medical care?

Legal, adult women - and even minor women under some circumstances - should be allowed to make their own choice, not have it imposed on them by some outside party. Allowing external parties to dictate choices about medical care smacks of a police state. Unfortunately there's no easy analogy I can draw about a comparable men's health issue.

In Washington state (where John'll be next week) there's a huge uproar about Plan B contraception. Pharmacists are insisting on being able to opt out of prescribing it based on personal beliefs. So, a woman who has a legal prescription in hand may not be able to easily obtain it, if the pharmacist in town has decided he doesn't serve loose women and that their destiny/judgement is to become pregnant.

Women have a long way to go. We are equal, legal adults, with minds and bodies that are our own, and to propose in some cases that in some cases the government (and/or pharmacy) gets to make our medical care decisions for us because we can (and should?) procreate is really scary.

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 04:59 PM

Jeri Merrell:

"We are equal, legal adults, with minds and bodies that are our own, and to propose in some cases that in some cases the government (and/or pharmacy) gets to make our medical care decisions for us because we can (and should?) procreate is really scary."

It does remind me of the old and very black joke that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Kate | April 18, 2007 04:59 PM

Hrm. Am I the only woman on the planet though, that was taught that having sex could possibly result in pregnancy? (I am not talking about rape here.)

While I don't want to punish women for having intercourse, (Frankly, I'd be upset if I weren't allowed to partake)there are associated risks with anything in life.

This just happens to have a really large one attached,(a consequence for some and a blessing for others) which should make both participants extra careful depending on numerous factors.

I've also just realized that I'm starting to preach, which is exactly what I didn't want to do, so I will shut it and adhere to my previous statement:

While I'm glad women have a choice...it's not a choice I would necessarily make.

Sam | April 18, 2007 05:01 PM

If men could get pregnant I'd rather be a woman, assuming that at that point the world turned upside down. I will always be the first to admit that females are the better sex for it.

CoolBlue | April 18, 2007 05:03 PM

Jeri Merrell

Under what circumstances am I not allowed to make my own choices about my medical care?

When it's Government issued.

Suzanne M | April 18, 2007 05:13 PM

Am I the only woman on the planet though, that was taught that having sex could possibly result in pregnancy?

Kate, that was a bit patronizing. Clearly people know this. Just as clearly, birth control fails. No one is faulting you for not having abortions, and since you say that you're glad women have a choice, I fail to see what the problem is.

Kate | April 18, 2007 05:13 PM

alsafi:

Pregnancy does suck! I have had three children. I would be the first to attest to that! Hormones also suck, but my personal choice would not be to abort unless my life was in danger. By having sex, I made the choice to deal with any consequences (or blessings) from that union.

YET: I am grateful for Roe vs. Wade. I am grateful I have a right to choose.

I am concerned there was no language allowing for medical intervention in this latest ruling. I do believe a lot of women will die because of it.

I also believe that if abortion was illegal in general, it would not stop women from seeking fatal back alley abortions by seedy doctors that resulted in were so common before the initial RvW decision.

So here I sit, atop my pointy fence, and I'll tell you what sucks; being so torn on such an emotional issue.

Tor | April 18, 2007 05:14 PM

Anonymous drop off laws? In the vast majority of cases where a D&X is performed, either the mother or the fetus would not be alive long enough to take advantage of it. And in some cases, especially now, both.

Childbirth can be dangerous. Women die every day in childbirth. Removing an already deceased/non-viable fetus through surgery is even more dangerous to the life of the mother. Leaving aside the effects of telling the mother that what she thought was a growing baby inside her, will not be growing any more, and in a few months she can come in and go through the agony of childbirth to get rid of it.

D&X is the safest medical procedure to remove a non-viable fetus from the womb of the mother. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, should be held responsible from this point on, every time when a woman dies on the operating table or in childbirth, when a D&X is what would have been done in the past. Of course, for this administration, that's just a drop in the bucket.

Cheney alone may very well kill more people before breakfast, with his bare hands, than this law will. Depends on how busy he is....

cephyn | April 18, 2007 05:15 PM

Kate-
There IS medical language in the bill providing for the woman's health (see my comment above, or my blog) - The problem doesn't lie in the text of the bill, the problem is that Congress invalidated that language from the start. What's the point of requiring the medical exception if Congress just invalidates it? It's a huge problem.

Kate | April 18, 2007 05:20 PM

Suzanne M:

My response was mainly to Emily for these two comments, my apologies.

I do not believe that forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy is fair or moral, and that's what you're talking about.

and her response to:

Under what circumstances should women be allowed to have abortions?

Any.

Which I'm personally understanding as, that any sort of behavior, circumstance, or situation is acceptable grounds for an abortion. My issue is on the behavioral side.

I'm of the mindset that responsibility starts way before the clothes are even off.

Espana Sheriff | April 18, 2007 05:23 PM

Sigh. Must remember to get my tubes tied as soon as I can afford it.

And/or switch teams.

Peer Ahlstrom | April 18, 2007 05:24 PM

I think that saying anyone who is pro–unborn child rights is anti–women's rights is hyperbole. I would guess that most people who are pro–unborn child rights are pro–human rights and consider women and unborn children to be included in the definition of the word human. But clearly not everyone agrees that unborn children are included in the definition of the word human.

John Scalzi | April 18, 2007 05:25 PM

Kate:

"I'm of the mindset that responsibility starts way before the clothes are even off."

I believe that concern is that one can be as responsible as possible, short of abstinence, before sex and still find one's self pregnant anyway.

Jeri Merrell | April 18, 2007 05:32 PM

John - you took such care to make that last statement gender neutral - "find one's self pregnant" - and it really wasn't necessary. ;)

Emily | April 18, 2007 05:34 PM

Kate:

Which I'm personally understanding as, that any sort of behavior, circumstance, or situation is acceptable grounds for an abortion. My issue is on the behavioral side.

I'm of the mindset that responsibility starts way before the clothes are even off.

You still haven't shown me how having an abortion is a form of "not taking responsibility" beyond that you and others say so.

I believe that it IS taking responsibility, even if others think it's murder.

Suzanne M | April 18, 2007 05:35 PM

Kate: Fair enough, and apology accepted. Still, I'm with our host on this one. It's possible to be perfectly responsible before sex and wind up pregnant. And I'm quite firmly of the opinion that abortion is also a perfectly responsible course of action. It's not like it's easy or painless or even inexpensive.

But then I, like Emily, am vehemently in the abortion-on-demand, for any reason, camp.

Kate | April 18, 2007 05:40 PM

John:

Exactly, which is why I applaud that most abortion is still legal.

I got pregnant at age 18. No one told me that some anti-biotics cancel out the effects of birth control.

My mother's first words when I broke the news were "Make him pay for an abortion. You shouldn't miss out on all the world has to offer!"

There she stood, looking at her bright daughter who had been accepted into a pre-med program only to throw her entire life away by having a baby.

I don't know why, but I couldn't do it. I just couldn't. In my head, even though I was 'responsible', I got pregnant because my birth control failed.

His name is William, and there isn't a day that goes by where I don't regret the decision I made to go forward with the pregnancy and save school for later.

Yet, had I chosen the other way, I would have been thankful that I didn't have to sneak around and pay for something that may have left me and the life that grew inside, dead.

See my conflict?

My overall problem with what Emily had stated, was that even the irresponsible behaviors should be allowed to have that choice, and I think personally, that is where I'd draw the line.

Emily | April 18, 2007 05:45 PM

There are those, Kate, who would believe that YOU were irresponsible for relying on a drug that you did not entirely understand. (I am not one of those people, but I'm trying to make the point.)

Do you see? Your line of "responsible enough to deserve an abortion" is impossible to control, and impossible to legislate. And that's why it can't become a factor.

Chang, for rizzle. | April 18, 2007 05:49 PM

I'm not sure I can contribute anything other than this observation: Usually, the same people who are so pro-life are also pro-war. So they are all about keeping the fetus alive at all costs, regardless of the effect on human life, then letting it out into the world and doing nothing for it when it's out of the womb, except prep it for being shipped off to Iraq or wherever so it can supposedly die for our beliefs.

People are weird.

Kathryn from Sunnyvale | April 18, 2007 05:51 PM

Same, Pete, Alex... or anyone else

A data question or two for you*:

What do you understand to be the natural maternal mortality rate** from pregancy and childbirth? What's the first number that comes into your head? 1/2? 1/20? 1/200? 1/2,000? 1/20,000? 1/200,000?

To rephrase this: what percent of pregnant women get a condition that requires medical intervention, where no medical intervention can lead to an adverse outcome?

Another question- When (roughly) did C-sections became part of maternal medical treatment?

-----

* I'm asking this here because I've been meaning to ask somewhere, but it takes a calm and polite thread to be able to ask without (hopefully) sounding like it's a trick question. Would people other than medical historians be expected to know this?

** "Natural" meaning raw statistics about medicine. i.e. X% of pregnant women get condition Y, and Z% of people with Y can die without medical treatment.

Jess | April 18, 2007 05:57 PM

Dear President Bush, Supreme Court and Internet whackjobs.

Please stay out of my uterus. I can make decisions about my body and my ability to use to bear children.

Thank you

Peer Ahlstrom | April 18, 2007 06:15 PM

Kathryn, you seem to have those statistics at hand. What are the answers?

cephyn | April 18, 2007 06:17 PM

If an IDX procedure saves one woman's life - ONE - what do the statistics matter? If it's a safe medical procedure that saves a life, a doctor should legally be allowed to consider and perform it.

So unless those statistics say ZERO - irrelevant.

Missy | April 18, 2007 06:24 PM

Am I the only woman on the planet though, that was taught that having sex could possibly result in pregnancy?

Yes, Kate. Only you. No one else was ever told this, we just woke up in shock one day to find that we had children.

For someone who claims to be "grateful" for choice, you're awfully judgemental of women who make a choice that's different from yours.

Tor | April 18, 2007 06:28 PM

These figures are from 2000.

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/

The actual mortality rate in the US is 17/100,000 live births, but as for the natural rate?

In Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, the maternal mortality rate is close to 2,000/100,000 - or 1 in 50. Given that there isn't much of a medical infrastructure in those countries, the 'natural' MMR is probably somewhere around there.

As for C-sections - check out wikipedia - its been steadily increasing for the last hundred years or so, and the first case where the mother survived was (I think) in about 1500. Or are you asking about elective c-sections?

Peer Ahlstrom | April 18, 2007 06:32 PM

If a procedure that saves a life also takes a life, there doesn't seem to me to be an easy, no-brainer answer.

Someday, the world will have Bujoldian uterine replicators and the question will be moot, but that day is a long time off.

cephyn | April 18, 2007 06:35 PM

Peer-

1) "takes a life" depends on how you view a fetus. Since that is not well defined, nor well established, nor well agreed upon - you shouldn't be making laws based on an opinion.

2) Regardless - If a procedure saves a life and takes a life, I prefer it to having 2 lives lost because the procedure was unavailable.

Peer Ahlstrom | April 18, 2007 06:47 PM

I'm not making the law, but it is my opinion that a very large number of laws are passed based on (informed) opinion, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I think society would grind to a standstill if decisions based on opinions were not allowed.

To say saving one life is better than losing two does count as a pretty good argument in my book.

cephyn | April 18, 2007 06:54 PM

OK Peer, perhaps my first statement was too general - fair enough. Laws must be passed on opinion - but shouldn't there at least be general consensus? Shouldn't the information informing opinions be from reputable sources?

If you look into the Congressional hearings on the IDX stuff - there's equally sized sides. But one side is filled with experts from the field (Like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who say IDX is a necessary medical procedure at times) and generalists (doctors who are not obgyns, PhD medical personnel, etc). While both sides are "professionals" and "experts" - seems to me one side is more "expert" than the other.

BUT if both sides seemed to be reputable and of equal weight - I as a lawmaker could not justify outlawing a procedure that half the expert community says is necessary. If they came to general consensus, one way or the other, that is when I would be comfortable passing a law.

Christian | April 18, 2007 06:54 PM

> So they are all about keeping the fetus
> alive at all costs, regardless of the effect
> on human life, then letting it out into the
> world and doing nothing for it when it's out
> of the womb, except prep it for being shipped
> off to Iraq.

High Five Chang!

Peter Ahlstrom | April 18, 2007 07:02 PM

Somehow I seem to have misspelled my own name. Bizarre. (I was wondering why people were leaving the t out... D'oh...)

I have not looked into this particular law. I'm a bit confused about how the law can have an exception but also say it will never need to be applied.

Does anyone here know enough about constitutional law to explain why, if a law does not have an exception the Court feels is necessary, their only option is to strike down the entire law?

Laura | April 18, 2007 07:07 PM

Well John. you've really opened up a can of worms here!!! One thing I haven't really seen mentioned much up to this point is the push by some groups to force abstinence only (ignorance only) 'education' in our public schools.
I truly believe that accurate, honest, timely education is the BEST way to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus, reducing the number of women seeking abortions.
Oh, and honestly, is there anything the government regulates that it DOESN'T muck up? Do we really want it to have so much to say about such a private concern?

John H | April 18, 2007 07:13 PM

Sorry for jumping back in so late in the game -- I was out enjoying my day off.

Alex R, if you're still reading: If we don't distinguish between 'life' and 'potential life', i.e. something that can survive outside the womb vs something that can't, what's to prevent an even larger grab?

Why stop at outlawing abortion -- the unfertilized egg and its sperm counterpart have the possibility to become a person too, so let's demand that every female of child-bearing age be kept in a perpetual state of pregnancy. Yes, I'm being facetious. But we already have certain religions deeming that contraception is a sin, so it's not far from being true.

If I go to Wal-Mart and buy a box with a picture of a bookcase on it, chances are what's in the box is not a bookcase but rather a bunch of parts that has the potential to become a bookcase. Until I get my tools out and put the parts together and stand the result up in the corner it really isn't a bookcase. I could just as easily take all the parts and throw them on a bonfire, at which point they become firewood.

My point is, a fetus is just a clump of cells with the potential to become a human being. Until it grows large enough and devloped enough to live outside the womb it is no more alive than a clump of cancer cells growing out of control would be.

cephyn | April 18, 2007 07:14 PM

Peter-
They have no other option. If any part of a law is unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional. The Judicial branch is not in the business of writing or modifying laws - they are only allowed to judge whether or not the laws are "legal".

The President has a slightly different function - no President can write laws, but the President can decide that a law is no good for any reason. The President can then veto - what you suggest is a line-item veto, which has repeatedly been judged unconstitutional - it would enable the President to write law.

Eric | April 18, 2007 07:17 PM

While I believe that society exists to protect those who cannot protect themselves, I'm not sure it makes any sense to speak of the "rights" of an unborn entity. What rights does a fetus have? When do they start? It would seem clear that there is a convention of increasing a person's rights with age, but our culture certainly does not give full rights to those under the age of 18 (and it would appear that many rights that children may have had are in the process of being eroded: see recent decisions regarding schools and the First and Fourth Amendments).

I don't ask this casually or with a clear answer in mind, but there is a crucial point here: I'm not sure when a child is imbued with rights, but I can take it as a given that an adult has rights. And there is a post-Enlightenment and modern Constitutional trend of including some form of self-determination within that sphere of rights.

I don't want to take this too far and say that individuals and society have no duty to the young: I don't believe that. (And, since our host mentioned his background in language, let me offer that I'm an assistant public defender, and that I'm basically in charge of juvenile cases in our office: I've probably spent more time professionally advocating children's rights than most folks posting here.) But I cringe whenever I hear someone talking about a fetus' "rights." To speech? Assembly? To an fair day's wage for an honest day's work? Society's duty to a fetus: okay, I can work with that. Where do we draw the line between a communal duty and what has to be taken as a woman's self-evident right to control her body (because without some such right, she has no right to speak or be safe from seizure). Fetal rights? Lost me.

I would prefer that abortions never happened or had to happen. But, since the issue of an adult's rights are far clearer than questions of social duty or the status of a potential human, I have to err on the side of the entity that clearly has human rights--I don't see any rational option other than being pro-choice, even if it's emotionally exhausting.

There: my opinion and $5.00 might get you a grande latte somewhere. Still, hope it casts a light somewhere out there....

Kate | April 18, 2007 07:17 PM

Missy:

Please look up sarcasm in the dictionary. I think you actually replied in the tone. I've already apologized for my comment. However, if you insist, I will do it a second time. I am sorry for being sarcastic on such a serious subject.

As far as being judgmental of women who have not made the same choice;

No. I'm judgmental of women who use abortion as birth control. If you make reckless choices, have sex with people without any protection, and then go crying to a clinic when you find yourself pregnant, I can't agree with that.

What is so terribly wrong with having a moral stance, making my own choice, and being tolerant and accepting of those who choose differently. Not once have I said that I hated people who have abortions. Not once have I said I despise people for making a choice that I couldn't.

What I am saying is that I will draw the line at irresponsible behavior as defined above as unacceptable grounds for having an abortion. This is my belief.

The best part about this whole discussion, is your right to believe whatever you wish and you know what, I respect it, even though I may not agree with it.

cephyn | April 18, 2007 07:25 PM

Kate-
While I can see your point, it falls apart - many people make reckless choices, but one of the most important things is that we minimize the danger to others because of those reckless choices.

If we deny your reckless woman an abortion - because she recklessly was pregnant - we force her to have a child that she clearly is not prepared for (we can see how reckless she is - not a good Mom trait). Isn't that harming that child, maybe forever?

If a person is drunk and kills someone while driving, society and the law takes steps to see that they don't harm others any more than they already have. Forcing someone who doesn't want a child to have one is like sentencing that reckless driver to be drunk at all times and force them to drive with people on the road - the made the choice to drive drunk and now we're gonna force them to do it, everyone else's safety be damned. Sure, everyone else might live - or she might screw up even more lives.

John H | April 18, 2007 07:32 PM

Kate: Would you deny AIDS drugs to junkies who shared a dirty needle? Or bypass surgery for someone who spent his life eating red meat?

I would guess that most medical procedures are about reversing the effects of peoples' bad choices. Should that stop?

Tapetum | April 18, 2007 07:38 PM

Since everybody here seems to at least be in favor of a "life of the mother" exemption, let me pose a question. Just how in danger does the mother's life have to be, and how imminently?

Does she get to have an abortion if her risk of death is 80%? How about if it's 20%? What if it's a 5% chance of death, but an 80% chance of severe medical consequences? Where is that line drawn and who gets to draw it? And how? -considering that very few medical conditions come with predictive percentages that precise.

No pregnancy is without medical risk. I had two children while an ideal candidate - young, but not too young, healthy, no medical problems at all, mother and grandmother had children easily. I nearly died with each pregnancy for two very different reasons. Something as simple as having my second child at the same hospital where I had my first would have made that second birth fatal.

Now I have several medical conditions. None of them would necessarily mean that a pregnancy would harm me, but any of them could. Who gets to decide if I or anyone should carry an unwanted pregnancy? Who gets to decide what level of risk is acceptable for a complete stranger they never meet?

As should be obvious, my answer is only the woman whose body it is can decide how much she is willing to risk to take a pregnancy to term.

Kate | April 18, 2007 07:39 PM

Good point cephyn:

Unfortunately, I can not offer a logical way to get around that problem. Unless while forcing a woman to give birth then give that baby to someone who actually does want the child.

Before you all jump on me for that last statement, I realize that will never happen, not to mention cephyn is completely right. Reckless does not equal 'good mommy.'

I don't have an answer. Perhaps there is no way around it, but I don't have to like it do I?

Perhaps better education on programs resources available will help curb that particular problem.

Greg | April 18, 2007 07:45 PM

John:

I know your mind is made up about abortion, so I won't try too hard to convince you otherwise.

I would suggest that a nuanced approach to abortion is possible. An early term abortion, fine, let's keep those legal. But late term abortions are, I believe, dangerously close to infanticide.

The pro-abortion radicals remind me of the gun-nuts, who also believe that a nuanced approach to a complex issue isn't permissible. As you are probably aware, the NRA believes that if we restrict AK-47s today, then we are going to come for Bubba's bird gun tomorrow. Most of us know better.

Likewise, the radical pro-abortion faction believes that *any* restriction on abortion will automatically lead to banning *all* of them.

Missy | April 18, 2007 07:48 PM

No. I'm judgmental of women who use abortion as birth control.

Please do not make the mistake of thinking that only contraceptives = birth control. Abortion IS birth control - it controls birth.

If you make reckless choices, have sex with people without any protection, and then go crying to a clinic when you find yourself pregnant, I can't agree with that.

So your actual position is "I'm grateful that women have a choice, but only as long as they behave in a manner that's acceptable to me. Otherwise, they should be punished!"

Please take the "reckless sex" straw man out back and burn it. A third of abortions are performed on MARRIED women, and more than half of women who choose abortion were using contraceptives.

Kate | April 18, 2007 07:50 PM

John H: Apples and oranges depending on which side of the fence you sit. I am horribly uncomfortable tiptoeing on the top.

For those that believe life begins at conception, you are dealing with the whole issue that you're not doing something to yourself at that point, you're killing another life.

For those that believe that life is begins when it is viable outside the womb, you are dealing with people who believe they are performing an abortion on a bunch of cells.

For someone who's had three children,I'm someone who believes that there is life in the womb, which dictates my personal choice in the matter.

Like I said many many times before, I don't hate people who get abortions. There are some reasons that people get them that I don't agree with, but alas, there is nothing I can offer for a substitute, except a better education on the possible 'side effects' of sex.

Alas, I think I'm done replying since I keep repeating my stance, but everyone wants to label me as a strictly pro-life hypocrite. I thought I was coming across as a moderate in the situation.

Kathryn from Sunnyvale | April 18, 2007 08:00 PM

Peer,

I'm hoping that someone, or a few people, will first say what they think the number is (without reading Tor's stats, perhaps).

As a corollary:

Greg, do you happen to know, off the top of your head:

1. When preeclampsia/eclampsia starts?

2. What treatment(s) stops eclampsia?

Peter Ahlstrom | April 18, 2007 08:07 PM

Kathryn, why don't you just make your point instead of fishing?

Teresa | April 18, 2007 08:13 PM

First of all, hello John. I read about your blog in "Geek Monthly" (heh), and I'm glad I stopped by, as you've got some interesting stuff going on over here. I'll be a regular visitor.

Now, as far as this particular post on the Supreme Court's decision...I have to say, I'm not entirely disappointed. I'm 27 years old. When I was in high school and early college, I was adamantly "pro-life" - no ifs, ands, or buts. I've since come to hate stupid labels like "pro-life" (as if people who support abortion staying legal are against life) or "pro-choice" (as if all people who are against abortion are against having a choice), and my once black & white view of the issue has now become more grey. While I'm still against abortion, I don't know that I would want it to be completely illegal. However, I support this particular decision for pregnancies that are this far along, because as with any other medical procedure there need to be limits. We can't have an abortion free-for-all. Personally, I'm much more interested putting my energy into fighting for equal access to birth control and reproductive health education so that abortions might not be so necessary...it alarms me that I'm always made to feel out of place whenever I attend a "women's reproductive health/rights" event because I don't believe in abortion. I hate the idea that one has to support all or nothing.

Sam | April 18, 2007 08:14 PM

Amen Teresa!!!

Owlmirror | April 18, 2007 08:17 PM

Since the owner of this blog is a fan of Carl Sagan, I hope that he will not take amiss this linking to an essay by that worthy (and his wife, Ann Druyan). This is the most thoughtful essay I've ever seen on the topic being argued.

  http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

It's kind of long, but very worthwhile.

Lee Gray | April 18, 2007 08:33 PM

I largely fall in with Teresa.

It's a tough call, but I (at least at present) believe that human life begins at birth to a not-insignificant degree and that such life is deserving of some pretty rigorous protections. I do not believe in a ban on abortion, but on serious limitations.

I also think that legislatures seem to have a very tough time getting this one "right," and most of their proposed legislation falls far short of the mark and begs to be invalidated.

I just happen to throw that "unborn bundle of human cells" in with others who cannot protect themselves and deserve special consideration.

I also have two children of my own, and would in no way minimize the difficulty and pain of childbirth and child-raising.

I also abhor capital punishment in most currently accepted circumstances.

Life vs. liberty is always a tough call.

And, I always love a good debate.

Pete | April 18, 2007 08:36 PM

I believe that it IS taking responsibility, even if others think it's murder.

Emily, I guess this is the whole crux of your argument isn't it? I guess one woman's "responsibility" is another woman's murder, eh?

Your argument that abortion is a responsible choice is poorly framed. You state that it is "rough" to be pregnant. Wah. (That's right...it's the same sound a baby makes when it's upset, but I don't suppose you would be moved by it.) It is rough to be pregnant, but you aren't you own person at that point. You pound your chest and say: "It's my body!" So it is. But guess what? You now have a guest; that growing human life didn't choose to be placed there. Your body, which was once your own, is now shared by another human. It was an accident of evolution or providence (take your pick) and for better or worse, you are now responsible for it. (That ugly "R" word again...) This isn't a punishment for your sexuality, but it is a consequence of making love.

This hits especially close to home for me. I have a six-week old son now, and I watched my wife go through the blossoming of pregnancy. I can say that despite the hormonal changes, the gaining weight, and the associated complications, she had never been happier in her life, or more beautiful. Sorry, Emily, but your arugment really doesn't hold water with me.

Being responsible means seeing that this child makes it through a full term, barring endangering your life (notice the caveat here). Once the baby is born, feel free to give the child up for adoption. In our society, your "responsibility" can end there if you want. The cases of babies ending up in trash cans are extreme. (As an aside, keep in mind that abortion is legal and easily obtainable now, yet we still see this type of behavior.) As Kate mentioned, help is readily available to those who decide that they are unfit or unable to keep their infants.

If none of this sounds appealing, I suggest abstinence or masturbation.

Frame it as you choose...this is really a matter of conscience and I see little point in continuing to discuss it. All I can do is pity you for what I perceive to be a lack of humanity.

I mentioned before that I'm not sure the government should have the power to legislate or enforce medical issues such as this. I stand by that statement even after reading the dialogue here. Something deep within me is terribly saddened by what we justify to perpetuate our own selfishness. It is a symptom of a deeper malady, which is that we, as a people, are reluctant to really take reponsibility for our actions. If offered the easy way out, it seems that we'll take it as a matter of course.

Teresa | April 18, 2007 08:46 PM

John H. said:
"If I go to Wal-Mart and buy a box with a picture of a bookcase on it, chances are what's in the box is not a bookcase but rather a bunch of parts that has the potential to become a bookcase. Until I get my tools out and put the parts together and stand the result up in the corner it really isn't a bookcase. I could just as easily take all the parts and throw them on a bonfire, at which point they become firewood.

My point is, a fetus is just a clump of cells with the potential to become a human being. Until it grows large enough and devloped enough to live outside the womb it is no more alive than a clump of cancer cells growing out of control would be."

I've gone back and forth with this one in my head and heart for a long time...and what I always come back to is: that clump of cells is a human being in its earliest stages of development. Granted, it's not a fully-functioning, viable human being...but neither is a newborn baby. A newborn baby can breathe, sure, but it can't feed itself or clothe itself, and if left to its own devices, it will die. Or what about a 3 year old child? What if you have a poor single mother living in a trailer who can't afford to feed herself and her child? Now what if she decides to kill her child both to spare it an unfortunate life as well as protect herself from starvation? She would be seen as a pariah.

Whenever I hear people supporting the argument that fetuses aren't life that deserves protection, I marvel at the fact that location and desire seem to be the only real determining factors. I want this baby to be "alive". Therefore, it is alive. I don't want this baby. Therefore, it isn't alive. There are plenty of things in this world that I don't want. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

It's inside the womb and I don't have to see it. Therefore, it's not alive. It's outside the womb, and it's cute. Therefore I can't kill it. How is it that some mothers look at an ultrasound photo and call it a "first picture of their baby", and other mothers look at it and see only "a fetus." Isn't it the same "bunch of cells" in both cases? And can it be both things? Should it?

Many of you worry about the extreme where every woman's uterus is monitored and they're forced to be pregnant. I worry about what a lax view of abortion means in terms of our attitude toward human life in general. We live in a world and in a time when we've come up with more and more "good reasons" to kill each other. I feel like the sometimes-rabid defense of abortion is symptomatic of that...

Missy | April 18, 2007 08:47 PM

Your body, which was once your own, is now shared by another human.

No. Women do not lose their right to bodily integrity merely by dint of becoming pregnant. We're not incubators with feet, Pete. We're fully formed human beings and we have the right to do with our bodies as we please. Including ridding ourselves of unwanted "guests".

If none of this sounds appealing, I suggest abstinence or masturbation.

And yet, I've never heard a man do anything but whine if he's presented this same choice by a woman who doesn't want to have sex with him because she doesn't want to take the chance of conceiving his child. Funny, that.

Jeri Merrell | April 18, 2007 08:48 PM

I have no idea what the stats on this are - but the genesis of this discussion was late term partial birth abortion, rather than a debate on abortion rights in general.

I wonder what percentage of last trimester abortions could be considered "elective" and what percentage medically necessary - either for the health of the mother or to resolve the death of a fetus?

My bet is that the proportion of elective abortions is vanishingly small at that point in pregnancy.

And at that point, when life is at stake and/or the fetus is dead, I'm not sure I'm all that worried about the method. What is safest for the mother? What's going to cause the least pain?

I'm not sure I consider the "ick factor" a valid decision criteria.

Tapetum | April 18, 2007 08:52 PM

Pete, congratulations on your son. I'm glad your wife had a good pregnancy - but please don't think that even all normal, otherwise healthy, pregnancies are well tolerated. I can introduce you to three women who had hyperemesis gravida (throwing up to the point of requiring hospitalization for nutrition and fluids), two with a separation of the pubic symphysis and loosened hip joints (severe hip and pelvic pain with every step, or even standing), half-a-dozen who were put on bedrest for weeks or more...I could go on. As it happens, all of these were wanted pregnancies, the women did their best with what they had, and all the resultant children were healthy. Nonetheless, I would have a very hard time regarding an unwanted pregnancy of this kind as straight-up torture.

That's part of why comparing a fetus in utero to a born child of whatever age is disingenuous. There is no circumstance in which a parent must submit to involuntary physical torture to permit their child to live. In fact, we explicitly disallow it. Show me the law where a father whose a match with his sick child must donate an organ and I might start conceding some comparative value.

Pete | April 18, 2007 08:56 PM

No. Women do not lose their right to bodily integrity merely by dint of becoming pregnant. We're not incubators with feet, Pete. We're fully formed human beings and we have the right to do with our bodies as we please. Including ridding ourselves of unwanted "guests".

I agree, women are not incubators with feet. They are quite frankly the better half of the human race, even with they display a penchant for the irrational as you just did. If my sister-in-law overstays her welcome, I'm not allowed by law to make a corpse out of her and use a big vacuum cleaner to suck the resulting pieces into the street. Likewise, your guest deserves the same from you. All he/she needs is a little consideration and hospitality.

I've never heard a man do anything but whine if he's presented this same choice by a woman who doesn't want to have sex with him because she doesn't want to take the chance of conceiving his child. Funny, that.

Sounds like you hang out with some really high quality guys. The thing that no one talks about here is that the father is EQUALLY responsible for a fetus. No one ever talks about that, though. I would even go as far as to say that the father has input into the decision to abort or carry to term. After all, it IS half of his genetic material.

Tapetum | April 18, 2007 08:56 PM

Glah - that'll teach me to proof-read better. That should read "Nonetheless, I would have a very hard time regarding an unwanted pregnancy of this kind as anything but straight-up torture."

Eric | April 18, 2007 09:02 PM

I find the continued assumption that making the choice to have an abortion is "easier" than making the choice not to? Is it? Is there any basis for that assertion? I'm not in a position to say which of those choices is easier, although my experience is that not making a choice sometimes appears easier, at least in the short term--which might explain those occasional tragedies where a girl carries to term and then abandons the newborn in a garbage can or ladies' room.

Personally, I think it's reprehensible and lacking in any kind of empathy to state that what must be an awful and traumatic choice is "easy." Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't... but it says a great deal to me that I'm grateful I'll never have to make such a choice for myself.

The assumption that girls or women who choose to have abortions face that choice because of their own conduct is also reprehensible. The fact that some of these "mothers" are victims of rape is not trivial and should never be set aside (including familial rape; "rape or incest" seems a redundant formulation). A ban on abortion except in the case of medical emergency means telling a victim that she must continue to suffer for the crimes committed against her; by all means let us protect something which may-or-may-not-be-human at her continued expense. Perhaps she can even take comfort in having been violated when she delivers her happy bundle of joy; better yet if the child looks like the father!

Part of the problem with assigning an unborn cluster of human cells with "rights" is that one can certainly follow that with absurd arguments. Perhaps masturbation is a criminal offense: that's certainly one common way the story of Onan is read, although I've seen some lovely attempts to talk around that interpretation. Perhaps fertility doctors should be prosecuted? "Potential human" is too vague a phrase for me to sleep comfortably with, sorry, it applies to too many combinations of cells that just happen to contain human DNA.

As for labels: those who oppose allowing a woman the option of undergoing an abortion are against choice, even if they're morally correct in doing so. The lie is in claiming that those who would support a woman's choice prefer death to life; hence "pro-life" is abusive and "pro-choice" is accurate. A better nomenclature might be "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion," but "pro-life" is far too powerful a rhetorical posture.

Suzanne M | April 18, 2007 09:06 PM

Pete, Missy said nothing irrational. Way to be insulting.

If your sister-in-law overstays her welcome by hooking herself up to your internal organs to sustain her own life, you're still entitled to evict her, even if it results in her death. Because she would be violating your bodily integrity. Simple.

I would even go as far as to say that the father has input into the decision to abort or carry to term. After all, it IS half of his genetic material.

But it's not occupying his body. If it were, it would be his decision whether to keep it there or not. Again, simple.

Terry | April 18, 2007 09:24 PM

Safe, legal, and rare.
Like Kate (and some others, I think), I have been pregnant, gone through child-birth, and love my children. But here's another deal. . . . Between children, I had two miscarriages. Some may not know this, but a miscarriage is also called an abortion. In my case, an incomplete abortion. That means, the dead fetus, or parts of it, remained in me.

In both cases, medical intervention was needed. Unfortunately, because anti-abortion activists had forced the only doctor who could safely do therapeutic abortions out of the state, I was forced to go to another state, an expensive and exhausting trip considering how ill I was, to obtain this necessary care after my second miscarriage. A good thing I could afford it, too. I had to entrust my care to a doctor I had never met before, but fortunately he was competent. My youngest child was born the next year. Without that doctor, she might not have been born.

So now you know more about my personal life than you probably wanted to. But the point is, women have abortions for many reasons. Pregnancy and child-birth are inherently dangerous and difficult; and if abortions are not available, women die, and they die at a higher rate. No woman should be forced to carry a dead fetus to term or risk her life having unnecessary surgery. She should not be forced to have a child, nor should she be told she cannot have one.

May a woman have control of her own fertility or not? If she does not, the State or Religion does. The anti-choice position trivializes women's abilities and decisions by saying that they are not capable of understanding what they are doing or making difficult choices.

Daniel B. | April 18, 2007 09:35 PM

If your sister-in-law overstays her welcome by hooking herself up to your internal organs to sustain her own life, you're still entitled to evict her, even if it results in her death. Because she would be violating your bodily integrity. Simple.

By that logic, shouldn't all abortions be legal, for any reason? Eight month, seventh mo