The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force blasts the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding a federal law restricting partial-birth abortions. Surprise, I also think it was a bad ruling, but that's not because I support the right to "choose" to suck out your healthy baby's brain moments before his or her birth when the mother's life isn't at risk. There's a reason civilized society doesn't sanction infanticide.
So what's my beef with the ruling? I don't think it's a federal matter to regulate abortion, just as it shouldn't be a federal matter to regulate marriage. Similarly, I don't see where the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government power to set penalties for criminal acts (so I'm against federal murder statutes).
NGLTF supports partial-birth abortion, I don't. But I wish abortion advocates had left the battle for legal abortion (which I'd advocate states keep accessible at least through the first trimester) to be decided by state legislatures. And I wish partial-birth abortion opponents also had left the matter with the states. Which is where these decisions belong.
70 Comments for “Not a Federal Matter”
posted by Brian Miller on
Might I ask a simple question?
What are NGLTF (or yourself) doing taking a position on abortion in gay forums, and using “gay” resources, to discuss an issue that no gay men — and very few gay women — will ever encounter personally?
Economic issues for gays and lesbians, I can see the relevance in that it’s directly related to us (and both sides can argue about the benefits of various policies and their disproportionate impact on LGBT singles and families).
But abortion? What an irrelevant issue — on both sides of the “debate.”
posted by yoshi on
A few years ago during one of the local HRC gatherings I asked the same question. Why is this very divisive issue relevant to HRC’s charter to support equality for the GLBT crowd? My point to them is that they end up ticking off a percentage of supporters over this non-relevant issue. I expected the normal “right to privacy” excuse but the response I got was … say … less than enlightened. I am no longer invited to play with the other reindeer.
posted by jimbo on
Steve is discussing it because he’s criticizing NGLTF’s position. He also draws the federalism point – abortion is not a federal issue the same as gay marriage isn’t a federal issue.
posted by Lori Heine on
I agree that abortion should not be a federal issue. Different regions of the country move at different speeds, and can’t be expected to end up at the same place at the same time. So when they seek to impose their will on a nationwide level, people on either “side” end up actually making as many enemies as they do friends.
It is disturbing that so many people feel they must force their agenda on the whole nation through federal legislation. It seems, to me, to be a form of tyranny.
posted by Alex on
The larger issue is how much far should the government (federal, state, or local) go in making medical decisions for the citizenry? And I can see a tangential relationship to BGLT issues: How deeply should the government be able to regulate the lives of American citizens?
Lastly: DNX Procedures are, according to the reports I have seen, are rare and only used in dire circumstances.
But it makes for senstational and emotionally moving rhetoric & headlines.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
I for one have always viewed the debate on abortion as one that manages to involve a lot of people who fail to demonstrate a personal stake in the issue or who aren’t totally honest as to what their stake is. Arguably abortion and gay rights have that in common.
posted by John on
“But it makes for senstational and emotionally moving rhetoric”
Yeah, like this: “…not because I support the right to “choose” to suck out your healthy baby’s brain moments before his or her birth when the mother’s life isn’t at risk.” Which is just about the most egregious mischaracterization of this rare and necessary procedure I’ve seen yet. This is in no way shape or form different than the anti-gay crowd that just invents nonsense about our community to shock and disgust people. It is sad to see the very same thing happening here. If you are going to rail against something you could at least get your facts straight first.
posted by Michael C on
“Which is just about the most egregious mischaracterization of this rare and necessary procedure I’ve seen yet.”
Oh, really?!?! Which part is the mis-characterization? Here’s a description of the procedure below, from wiki… sounds like the characterization was pretty dead on (pun intended) to me.
“Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus’ leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the ‘partial birth’ of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.”
Yeah, that’s real relevant to gay and lesbian issues.
posted by John on
“…suck out your healthy baby’s brain ” – This procedure is almost always performed on non-viable fetus’ that are not found to be such until later in pregnancy when testing shows complications.
“…moments before birth” – The procedure is rarely used in the third trimester, and almost always in order to preserve the health or life of the mother.
“…when the mother’s life isn’t at risk” – The alternative to this procedure is highly invasive major surgery which poses far greater risks to the life and health of the mother. The procedure is rarely performed when the mother’s life and health aren’t threatened. So yes, this description is a falsification of what circumstances it is used in and why. The idea that any woman is willing to remain pregnant for 9 months and then shortly before delivery for some frivolous reason is just stupid and intellectually dishonest.
posted by xstate on
The federal government has no authority to make decisions regarding abortion, period. It is overstepping its boundaries, and some states won’t hesitate to fight back.
posted by Lori Heine on
When abortion and gay rights are stuck together as issues, it is almost always to the detriment of gays.
When done by the Right, it is usually to “show” that gay rights are — “like abortion” — a sign of how “decadent” culture is becoming. I do not buy into that rhetoric for a minute, but we need to remain aware that this is what people who talk like this are trying to say.
When it comes from the Left, it is an attempt to link gays with women in general into a sort of serfdom of aggrievement — to keep us all on the Leftist plantation and supposedly indebted to Left-Wing crusaders who wish to portray themselves as dedicated to the liberation of everyone who isn’t a heterosexual male.
I am very wary of people with either agenda.
posted by John on
Last time I checked being gay did not make a person sterile. Lesbians are perfectly capable of artificial insemination and gay men often have friends or family as surrogate mothers. So how again is access to personal reproductive healthcare and the right to make ones own choices should the need arise belong solely to the hets? This is not about abortion it is about the right of each citizen to have control over their own bodies instead of leaving such personal, difficult and trying decisions to some faceless government beureaucrat. You cannot make one blanket statement that will cover every possible situation, which is why it is best left to medical professionals in conjunction with individuals and families. You would think conservatives could undertand that point.
posted by Brian Miller on
The larger issue is how much far should the government (federal, state, or local) go in making medical decisions for the citizenry?
I agree, and I am pro-choice.
However, if I want to contribute money or insights to pro-choice issues, I’ll send cash or insights to the (very well funded) pro-choice lobby.
What is the underfunded, much smaller gay rights lobby doing wasting precious dollars to argue over an issue with no direct relevance to gay people? It’s not as though the gay lobby is flush with cash and the abortion rights lobby is small and underfunded — it’s the other way around.
You don’t see EMILY’S List running around calling for gay marriage and DP benefits, do you?
posted by Brian Miller on
So how again is access to personal reproductive healthcare and the right to make ones own choices should the need arise belong solely to the hets?
Such expansive reasoning, while well-intentioned, is flawed. Using your logic, EVERY issue is a “gay issue,” in which case there’s no need for a gay rights lobby at all.
We all know that’s not really the case — and given the BILLIONS in funding that the abortion lobby has, they don’t need the help (or funds) of the much smaller gay lobby to achieve their mission. Especially given that they’re not bending over backwards to provide funds and support to gay causes (as that’s outside of their mandate).
I think the real situation is that abortion rights, socialist health care, “economic justice,” etc. are Democratic Party campaign themes, and thus top-down organizations like the NGLTF and HRC that serve as Democratic front groups are obliged to push them — even though their relevance to gay issues is specious at best.
posted by jomicur on
Lest we forget, when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, their decision specifically cited ROE V. WADE as precedent and even cited the language in that ruling. In other words, attacking abortion rights undermines the legal basis for gay equality under the law as well. I’ve yet to meet a gay conservative (an odd term, in my mind–I use it instead of “gay Uncle Tom”) who was willing, or able, to grasp that connection, but it is clearly there, in black and white, in LAWRENCE V. TEXAS. The right wing, with the full complicity og what are smilingly called “gay conservatives” will use this ruling to attack every other SCOTUS ruling of the last fifty years, including the ones that furthered ay rights. Bot no, wait!–if a left=leaning organization like NGLTF is in favor of something, it must be evil and must be stopped! Fooey.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So how again is access to personal reproductive healthcare and the right to make ones own choices should the need arise belong solely to the hets? This is not about abortion it is about the right of each citizen to have control over their own bodies instead of leaving such personal, difficult and trying decisions to some faceless government beureaucrat.
Oddly enough, though, “access to personal reproductive healthcare” has very little to do with Roe v. Wade. Two prior cases (Griswold and Eisenstadt, having to do with access to contraception for all couples), established that the government had no business preventing those who wanted to avoid conceiving from using measures to do so. Roe simply legalized infanticide as a “contraceptive” method. The fact that the justices cited it instead of the far better precedents of Griswold and Eisenstadt shows again what an utterly-sloppy decision Lawrence is.
And relative to Lawrence, the only thing that overturning Roe would do would be to allow states to again decide whether or not they wished to permit abortions. But the reason that has to be stopped is the immense sums of money generated by abortion activities — 1.2 million-plus performed a year at an average of $500 a pop — would likely dry up, given that the vast majority of Americans do NOT support unlimited abortion. That’s why abortionists manipulate gays into being their cats’-paws and helping them protect procedures that are not only barbaric, but encourage unprotected and irresponsible sex.
The idea that any woman is willing to remain pregnant for 9 months and then shortly before delivery for some frivolous reason is just stupid and intellectually dishonest.
Ah, but you see, this procedure, as cited in the NGLTF press release, is used starting in the second trimester — which can be as early as three months.
And what I love is the contradiction of abortionists screaming about how rare this procedure is and how it supposedly hardly ever happens — but that banning it is depriving millions of women from exercising their “reproductive freedom”.
posted by Joel on
I agree that the abortion issue should be left to the states. However, unless you forget, the last time a state tried to ban partial birth abortion, it got struck down the by the Supreme Court (Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000). So this ruling doesn’t change the federal level of the issue; it does allow for the democratic process to run. And a democratic process at the federal level is much better than no democratic process, even if the issue should be decided at a state level. This is, hopefully, the first step in allowing states to decide the issue.
About Lawrence — as a gay man, I think it was wrongly decided. Anthony Kennedy is a vapid moron, and my being gay doesn’t change that. (If you want a good explanation of why Kennedy is a moron, read Scalia’s dissent.) For all the bad things you can say about Lawrence, “unconstitutional” isn’t one of them. Sorry, but I just can’t accept Lawrence and remain intellectually honest with myself. In any event, this decision doesn’t implicate Roe or Planned Parenthood, and the only opinion mentioning privacy is Ginsburg’s dissent, and then only to say that it’s not about privacy. Clearly, this isn’t a gay issue.
BTW: Roe really isn’t applicable case law anymore. Planned Parenthood v. Casey has pretty much completely supplanted it. And while some of the reasoning in Planned Parenthood was cited in Lawrence, the court’s opinion in both cases was pretty bullshit. For the last 40+ years, the Supreme Court has done nothing but convolute precedent to say whatever it wants to say.
posted by Craig on
So the *anti*-abortion movement has relevance to support for LGBT rights how exactly? All I see are a pack of homophobic fundamentalist and conservative Catholic bigots trying to force their right-wing statist religious agendas down peoples throats- tiny groups like PLAGAL
aside. And why has PLAGAL never
clarified its position on safe
sex and comprehensive sex education, for that matter?
Craig2
Wellington,
New Zealand
posted by dalea on
Let’s see here. We have gay conservatives arguing over whether it should be states or the federal government that enforces a regime of forced pregnancy. Which level of government do we want to mandate and coerce women into being the life support system for another life form. What is the appropriate agency to use in dragging women kicking and screaming into compulsory breeding.
Is this discussion about actual people or is it about animal husbandry?
Women are fully capable of making their own decisions. And I do not think a ‘federal’ set up where in some places women are full citizens while in others they are treated as inherently mentally handicapped is a worthwhile model.
It is very much like the 50’s and 60’s NR federalism for ‘negroes’. It was argued that in some places, people were ready to accept blacks as actual human beings capable of rational thought. But in other places, the idea of blacks voting, or eating in the same restaurant, or using the same water fountain was just too radical. So, just let blacks be second class, voteless, rightless people in some states. And full fledged citizens in others. All in the name of Federalism of course.
Federalism sounds good in theory. To at least some people. But in actual practice it has consistently been a way to legitimize state oppression and marginalization of disliked minorities. Federalism usually is a veneer over rather nasty ways of treating other people.
posted by dalea on
In the early days of gay liberation, there were many women involved who had become active through womens’ groups. Not through gay groups. One of their primary demands was reproductive rights. Which is how it came to be part of most gay groups principals. It is something we inherited from those who have gone before.
And it is also the case, that among the first supporters of our movement were feminists. Almost 40 years on, this is still the case. Being ProChoice comes from a coalition that has helped us in almost every instance. Why people here can’t understand this totally escapes me.
They support us and so we support them. Is this too complicted?
posted by AOW on
First, I am an Australian living in Canada, so commenting on another country’s issues/policies is a complete no no. That said, I do think that as far as “not a Federal Issue” it seems dangerous to say that citizens of a country have different fundamental rights (and control over ones body is pretty fundamental) depending on what jurisdiction they live in.
Just an outsider’s contribution.
posted by Joel on
Quote:
“Let’s see here. We have gay conservatives arguing over whether it should be states or the federal government that enforces a regime of forced pregnancy.”
Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, is arguing for a forced pregnancy. The woman should still have the right to refuse sex, or to demand contraception. The fact of the matter is that by outlawing abortion, we are forcing the woman to choose earlier about whether or not she wants to have a pregnancy and to live with the consequences of the decision. What’s the problem with forcing somebody to accept the consequences of a decision (and I don’t see how the decision being whether or not to have sex is any different).
Quote:
“Which level of government do we want to mandate and coerce women into being the life support system for another life form.[sic]”
What level of government do we want to mandate that women are allowed to commit infanticide? Of course, both questions are equally ridiculous. There’s a moral choice to make, which is at what point do fetuses become human being and acquire the right to life? I think most people would agree that it’s well before just minutes before being born, and most people would also probably agree that it’s sometime after conception. So where do we draw the line when people have such fundamental disagreements? The obvious answer is to let the democratic process run, and with federalism we can have a broader range of compromises.
AOW, I’d say that control over one’s body is pretty fundamental, but the right to live is also pretty fundamental. Although most people don’t like acknowledging it, the abortion debate is one of balancing the woman’s right to control her body and the fetus/infant’s right to live. At some point, the fetus’ right to life trumps the mother’s right to choose (this is pretty trivial, even if you say that it’s exactly at the moment of birth). Also, the US has some of the most liberal abortion laws anywhere in the world. People’s fundamental rights are protected differently based on what jurisdiction they live in, although the contrast is larger when you look at different countries’ jurisdictions. Also, as long as you allow people to move freely between the different states, having federalism is actually really good — you can try policies out in states; they are sort of a testbed for different policies.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We have gay conservatives arguing over whether it should be states or the federal government that enforces a regime of forced pregnancy. Which level of government do we want to mandate and coerce women into being the life support system for another life form.
And we have a liberal insisting that women become pregnant through means completely outside their control — and insisting that gays should perpetuate the belief that women become pregnant completely and totally spontaneously, without any conscious action on their part, and with no means whatsoever of preventing it other than abortion.
Abortion is not a matter of “controlling one’s own body”. It is a means of avoiding responsibility for the consequences of REFUSING to control one’s own body by killing someone else.
Abortionists at their roots are cowards and bullies. They carry out coverups for their own failure to act responsibility by killing the innocent and defenseless. They make hundreds of millions of dollars annually by encouraging irresponsible sex. Their selling of abortion and the resulting irresponsible sex to minority women have resulted in STDs — especially HIV/AIDS — being the number-one killer of black men and women ages 25 – 44.
We owe them nothing. And they owe us an apology for profaning our rights and existence in support of their infanticide.
posted by Brian Miller on
attacking abortion rights undermines the legal basis for gay equality under the law as well
The only people who cited Roe for precedence did so as a secondary justification. Even with Roe completely overturned, the primary precedence would have been the fourth amendment — and if that’s stricken, then I’m moving to New Zealand! 😉
They support us and so we support them.
That’s not really true (at least not in a proportionate sense). Where were the legions of the abortion lobby (not to mention the gay lobby) to turn out and campaign against anti-gay constitutional amendments?
I didn’t get a single email from NOW or EMILY’S List urging me to support same-sex marriage rights — yet NGLTF sends out e-mails every few days urging me to support abortion or other issues. Quite lopsided, really.
We owe them nothing. And they owe us an apology for profaning our rights and existence in support of their infanticide.
And the Emmy for Most Nauseating Drama Queen Rant Goes To. . .
posted by dalea91505 on
OK, so we solve the problem of abortion by outlawing abortions? Just like we solve the problem of drugs by outlawing drugs? Or, the problem of gun violence by outlawing guns? We deal with hate by outlawing it?
On the last three, the posters and editors at this forum argue eloquently that no, just outlawing something won’t stop it. And should not be done.
But when an exclusively female concern comes up, suddenly outlawing is a really good idea. In fact it is a moral imperative.
How do conservatives reconcile their disaproval of outlwawing drugs, guns and hate with their enthusiasm for outlawing abortions? Perhaps they feel that this is something that government can do. Then perhaps they can explain why this is an exception to the general rule so loudly proclaimed here.
How is this suppossed to work? There is only one case I know of where abortions were effectively outlawed. In Communist Romania during the 70’s and 80;s. There would be roadside pregnancy testing, and in factories, schools and offices. Any woman who tested positive would be immediately hauled off to jail. There she would be chained to a bed until the baby was born. This actually did end abortions. It worked! I am trying to understand how this is compatible with the other positions taken here.
If the government is strong enough to take away your abortions, why is it not also strong enough to take away your guns? Bobby, tell us.
posted by dalea on
Joel says: Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, is arguing for a forced pregnancy.
Joel, dude, you are. When you say: At some point, the fetus’ right to life trumps the mother’s right to choose (this is pretty trivial, even if you say that it’s exactly at the moment of birth).
You just said that a woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy. That the fetus trumps her right to live as she sees best. Now, how are you going to force her to remain pregnant? Chain her to a cot in jail? Have her watched and guarded 24/7?
What seems to be overlooked here is that abortion is a fairly simple matter to perform. For centuries midwives did abortions with bare hands. They can be caused by common herbs. Do you favor having ATF out searching for pennyroyal plants?
By comparison, guns and heroin are very high tech products. The idea of prohibiting guns is that given the round-aboutness of production, there will be points where a simple intervention can do away with the guns. We have all seen how well that works. The government can not keep drugs out of prisons.
And we expect a law will prevent abortions?
posted by OMG on
“There’s a reason civilized society doesn’t sanction infanticide”
A gay man who cites “civilized society” stance on anything in order to construct an argument is like a blind man who shoots his own feet.
posted by dalea on
Joel says: There’s a moral choice to make, which is at what point do fetuses become human being and acquire the right to life?
With the first breath a fetus becomes a human being and has a right to life. Life ‘inspires’ the fetus. Ad death, one ‘expires’. Both words come from the Latin spiro/spirare meaning to breath. Having solved that moral problem, let me move on.
The problem with saying that refusing sex is the solution here is this. During pregnancies problems can come up. Things go wrong. Fetuses die. They develop conditions which mean they will not live long beyond birth. And mothers get sick and can not both continue the pregnancy and live.
The law in question does not have an exception for the life and health of the woman. This law sends women to premature death. Which is probably what the lawmakers want. The comments here suggest that animating force; the misogyny is appalling.
posted by Joel on
Dalea,
First, I NEVER argued for forced pregnancy. There is a critical difference between There is an argument for forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy, beyond a certain point; however, she still has a choice to make. I’m just arguing for forcing her to accept responsibility for a choice that she had already made. The choice is ultimately hers to make.
Outlawing abortions won’t solve the abortion problem by itself, but it sure helps.
And when you say the fetus first becomes a human when it draws breath, on the face that’s a pretty damned radical assertion, and I say with 99.9% certainty that you are in the vast minority here. But that’s your opinion, and I respect that. What I’m asking is that you respect the opinions of others who disagree with you. And the best way to come to a consensus over our disagreement is through the democratic process.
However, I’d like to make two points about your litmus test for when the fetus first acquires rights. First is that you haven’t offered any support for why you’re right, other than a linguistic argument and an unsupported assertion that your linguistic argument is even slightly relevant.
My second point, though, is that your standard isn’t nearly as clear as you would like it to be. You talk about breathing — but you never mention what the fetus is breathing. At a certain stage of development, the fetus’ lungs take in fluid and extract oxygen from the fluid. I’d say that’s breathing. The fetus is capable of breathing ordinary air, too. So how is the fact that the fetus is perfectly capable of breathing ordinary air, but just hasn’t yet, different from the fetus actually breathing ordinary air, in terms of when it acquires rights? So, what you’re saying boils down to, there’s something magical in the air we breath, and by virtue of breathing it, we acquire rights. So you end up denying the intrinsic nature of fundamental rights.
In any event, we’re straying far off the course of the original discussion — that of partial birth abortion. I’m uncomfortable with, but would support allowing abortion in the first trimester, and then proscribing it after that. You give the woman plenty of time to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy. Of course, you also make exceptions when the life of the mother is in danger. (This exception also neatly solves your objection to my answer that refusing sex gives the woman enough choice; in fact, I could answer your objection by saying absolutely no abortions unless the life of the mother depended on it, but I’m not that extreme.) I personally feel that this is a reasonable compromise.
As I admitted earlier, outlawing abortion won’t prevent it entirely. But it will certainly help. We outlaw murder, but it still happens. There would be a lot more murder, though, if it were legal. And if you believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to infanticide, then this argument becomes completely analogous.
Also, the law doesn’t have an exception for the health of the mother because this procedure is never medically necessary (there are other forms of abortion besides IDX). However, the Supreme Court did leave open the possibility of a challenge to the law on a case-by-case basis.
I wish you would stop tying yourself up in intellectual knots. You argue for a broad, general right to abortion, but the only support you give for it is in extreme, rare circumstances. You have never presented cogent argumentation in favor of a broad right to abortion.
posted by dalea on
In a broad way, I support self ownership. Each individual person owns his/her own body. And can make their own decisions for the care and maintanence of that body. This is such a standard Libertarian concept I did not realize it needed to be articulated again here at a Libertarian forum. Two of the main groups IGF speaks for are Classical Liberals and Libertarians. We believe black people own their own bodies; which is why we are against slavery. We believe junkies own their own bodies; which is why we are against drug prohibition. We believe drinkers own their own bodies; which is why we are against prohibition. We believe prostitutes own their own bodies; which is why we are against sex laws.
Some of us even believe that women, weak and feeble minded as they may be, own their own bodies. Which is why we advocate that women make their own health decisions. Which includes whether to continue with a pregnancy or no.
That people make bad choices is not the issue. People are capable of doing all sorts of dumb things. I generally feel that prostitution is not a smart career move. But I do not feel it should be illegal.
And so it is with abortion. Any woman can become pregnant with the best of intentions and motives. And might encounter obstacles along the way. Which may require an abortion to rectifiy.
So, my idea of a reasonable compromise is that we recognize each woman’s right to make her own health decisions. Which may involve things we each find overwhelmingly offensive. Like nose piercing.
In short, mind your own business. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. But do not drag private, individual decisions out into law.
Perhaps you did not understand that this forum is not for Collectivists and Authoritarians. There are loads of forums where people debate how to run other people’s lives to suit their own personal views. I do not think this is one of them.
posted by dalea on
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists find this procedure necessary in certain circumstances. Your statement is incorrect, there are instances where it is medically necessary. Please correct your presentations to reflect actual facts.
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr04-18-07.cfm
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.
“Today’s decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women,” said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. “It leaves no doubt that women’s health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.
“We have seen a steady erosion of women’s reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court’s action today, though stunning, in many ways isn’t surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion,” he added.
This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.
“On behalf of the 51,000 ACOG members who strive to provide the very best possible medical care to the women we serve, I can only hope that in the future, science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us,” said Dr. Laube.
The AMA has a confusing take on it:
http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139586
Discussions of this topic from actual female type persons:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/20/18641/8987
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/20/143242/968
http://naamah-darling.livejournal.com/256369.html
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/04/do-you-trust-women.html
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The law in question does not have an exception for the life and health of the woman. This law sends women to premature death.
Actually, according to research cited by the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, in Table 3 on page 114 of the linked PDF, it notes that only 4% of the women surveyed having abortions cited their health as the primary reason for having one, only 3% cited the health of the baby, and barely 0.5% cited rape or incest as a reason.
And, as the comparison shows, those numbers have barely budged in the past two decades.
Put bluntly, over 90% of abortions are done for reasons that have nothing to do with the health of the mother or baby or with nonconsensual sex. They are because the woman knew a baby would interfere with her life and didn’t want to have one — but refused to abstain from sex or take protections against conception.
Your argument that abortions are necessary because women are incapable of resisting sex or using contraception are far more misogynistic than insisting that women take responsibility for their sexual actions and behaviors — including when said behaviors result in the production of a new human life.
In short, this is not a “private, individual decision”. This is a decision that involves one person killing another innocent, defenseless person simply because that person’s existence is inconvenient to the first.
To use an analogy, your right to have unprotected sex is a matter of individual privacy, but your refusal to disclose your HIV status to people with whom you have unprotected sex is considered publicly indefensible and criminal. Why then, should a baby, whose only crime is their existence, be killed for his/her mother’s failure and refusal to act responsibly?
And finally, as Joel correctly pointed out, while laws may not prevent every occurrence, they significantly deter — especially in cases where people have demonstrated a singular inability to control and take responsibility for their actions. Women would then be held accountable for their failure and/or refusal to control themselves sexually and to use contraception and protection when they choose to have sex.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, it should surprise no one that Dr. Laube, who pockets thousands of dollars for each act of infanticide that he performs, should be upset over the Supreme Court upholding the ban on this procedure.
Personally, my favorite way to deal with abortion would be to prevent doctors from charging for it. After all, abortionists claim that it is “medically necessary” to perform all of the 1.2 million or so abortions in this country this year; certainly they could provide abortions for free as a public service, if they believe that.
posted by Brian Miller on
In short, mind your own business. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. But do not drag private, individual decisions out into law.
Perhaps you did not understand that this forum is not for Collectivists and Authoritarians. There are loads of forums where people debate how to run other people’s lives to suit their own personal views. I do not think this is one of them.
Are you single, DaleA?
If so, want to get married? 😉
posted by dalea on
Yes I am Brian. Are you anywhere near LA? But probably I am much too old for you.
Thank you for the kind words. It seems that all sorts of authoritarian types have been showing up here lately. And presenting some sort of royalist conservativism. Very odd.
posted by jimbo on
David Brooks in the NY Times:
“By the third trimester, the fetus seems to begin dreaming, or at least making the same eye movements that adults make when they dream. It is hearing and making sense of what it hears….
“Meanwhile, when you look at the statements of the abortion rights forces, you find they can’t even look this matter in the face. Read the statements by the Democratic presidential candidates. Read the protests from Planned Parenthood and Naral. They can’t even bring themselves to mention the word “fetus.” They are terrified of having an honest discussion about human life, so they have built this lofty etiquette of evasion that treats abortion as the moral equivalent of a tonsillectomy.”
posted by ETB on
(1) Lawrence was a well written opinion based on solid principles.
(2) In terms of coalition building, pro-choice politicans and interest groups are much more likely to support gay rights then pro-life politicans and interest groups. Also most pro-life activists I met also want to outlaw birth control and gay sex.
(3) ‘States rights’ was something that was suppose to die with the Civil War…At any rate you can not leave stuff to the states to be decided under our current electoral system and get anything resembling the popular will.
If life begins at conception, then logically we should outlaw masterbation because you are killling life?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If life begins at conception, then logically we should outlaw masterbation because you are killling life?
Conception is the act of sperm and egg fusing together and forming a new organism that shares the genetic material, but not the exact combination of that material, of both its parents.
In masturbation, you’re short an egg and you’re short a fusion.
But I think that’s indicative of how uninformed most pro-abortion gay leftists are.
posted by ETJB on
“Conception is the act of sperm and egg fusing together and forming a new organism that shares the genetic material, but not the exact combination of that material, of both its parents.”
Well, not accordingy to most pro-life activists who want to ban birth control and homosexuality and (if we listen to Justice Scalia) masterbation.
It is interesting how some gay and bi men here think its no ones business if a fellow conservative brethen is a male prostitute or not, or engages in barebacking sex, or supports giving power to Islamic fundamentalists, but then turn around and claim that its everyone’s business to force every pregant woman to give birth.
BTW, I do not recall stating that I was ‘pro-abortion’ or even ‘pro-choice.’
posted by Brian Millerq on
Welcome to the “People With Absolutely NO Context Who Discuss Issues They’re Clueless About” Show!
I’m your guest host, Brian Miller, and today, we’re going to have gay men whose last contact with a vagina was at their own birth discuss the finer points of when heterosexual sex results in “life.”
On tomorrow’s show, Red State Roddy from East Westland, Oklahoma, will provide his perspectives on the Castro’s gay scene — despite having never been there! Following him on the same hour will be Blue State Bonny and her sophisticated analysis of “life in the Red States” as she’s observed from 30,000 feet on Continental.
Stay tuned!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It is interesting how some gay and bi men here think its no ones business if a fellow conservative brethen is a male prostitute or not, or engages in barebacking sex, or supports giving power to Islamic fundamentalists, but then turn around and claim that its everyone’s business to force every pregant woman to give birth.
That would be for two reasons.
1. Women do not become spontaneously pregnant. They choose to have sex, and in the vast majority of cases, they choose to have unprotected sex.
2. The end result of their unprotected sex is an innocent and defenseless life form — which they then want to kill because it inconveniences them.
When male prostitution or bareback sex lead to babies, then I will worry about either in the same manner that I do abortion.
posted by Brian Miller on
ND30 is right. Pregnancy and carrying to term are God’s divine punishment for those women who refuse to keep their filthy legs together.
Men have no role in it whatsoever other than as guardians of fetus rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pregnancy and carrying to term are God’s divine punishment for those women who refuse to keep their filthy legs together.
Nope; it’s the natural consequence of choosing to have unprotected sex.
You seem to have trouble admitting that a pregnancy is virtually impossible unless a woman CHOOSES to have sex and highly unlikely unless she CHOOSES not to use contraception, Mr. Miller.
Is that because it would make it too obvious that pregnancy is hardly forced on women, and is in the vast majority of cases a consequence of their own CHOICE?
And before you attempt the “rape and incest” canard, please note the statistics I noted above, in which rape being cited as the primary reason for having an abortion is less than 0.5 percent of all the abortions performed in the United States annually. Furthermore, there is a logical argument; since rape and incest are nonconsensual sex, the woman was not allowed to exercise her freedom of choice, both on whether or not to have sex and whether or not to use protection, prior to having sex.
Men have no role in it whatsoever other than as guardians of fetus rights.
The irony is that, if you want to hold a man responsible for his behavior in getting a woman pregnant, the only way it can be done legally is to have the child. Men may have no say in whether or not a woman aborts their child; therefore, it is impossible to legally compel them to pay or take responsibility for an abortion.
Furthermore, may I suggest, Mr. Miller, that you view one of the numerous revivals of Lysistrata, and tell me how it is again that men can so easily force themselves upon women when women choose not?
posted by martind on
You seem to have trouble admitting that a pregnancy is virtually impossible unless a woman CHOOSES to have sex and highly unlikely unless she CHOOSES not to use contraception, Mr. Miller.
Ah, yes! Welcome to the 19th century!
You’ve got to be shitting us — tell us you didn’t actually write that, pleaeeaaassse ….
posted by Alex on
Whoah! What a bunch of winger nuts cluster bout this site. Do you people eat and drink wholesome food or subsiss on Texas crude? Juss wonderin. And you all says yous queer? Straaange.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, yes! Welcome to the 19th century!
How so?
After all, I am making it clear that I believe it is the woman’s choice whether or not she wishes to have sex and whether or not she wishes to use contraceptives.
Where I differ from the abortionist left is in that I do not consider it her right to kill another person who exists because of her choice to have sex and her choice not to use protection because said person would inconvenience her.
Furthermore, I believe that the reason leftist gays are pro-abortion is because it serves as a useful proxy fight. After all, admitting that sex has consequences, and especially that unprotected sex has consequences, brings up uncomfortable questions about why thousands of gay men had to die of a disease that is largely preventable — as long as one is willing to exercise choice and control in one’s sex life. By arguing that choice and control are wrong and “19th century”, gay leftists do their best to demean the two things that would have stopped the AIDS epidemic in its tracks — and which the lack of allows it to perpetuate and continue today.
posted by xstate on
Abortion is a non-issue. It’s been around since the dawn of time and won’t go away. The religious ‘intellectuals’ can regulate it and kick and whine all they want, but they won’t stop it. Most people don’t care anyway. It’s been going on for what, 30+ years and all of a sudden this is a moral issue? If the Christians and Muslims and the other religion junkies really gave a hoot, they would have nipped this in the butt a long time ago. It is nothing but posturing.
posted by Brian Miller on
may I suggest, Mr. Miller, that you view one of the numerous revivals of Lysistrata
Why am I not surprised that your knowledge of female sexuality is limited to the bounds of a 2,400 year old Greek political comedy?
posted by Brian Miller on
Where I differ from the abortionist left is in that I do not consider it her right to kill another person
Unless, of course, the person is either Muslim or a “leftist.”
And if the person is a Muslim leftist, well gosh darn it, she has a moral OBLIGATION to kill him!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You need to cite my entire quotation next time, Mr. Miller.
Where I differ from the abortionist left is in that I do not consider it her right to kill another person who exists because of her choice to have sex and her choice not to use protection because said person would inconvenience her.
Next:
Why am I not surprised that your knowledge of female sexuality is limited to the bounds of a 2,400 year old Greek political comedy?
A comedy which makes clear that women are more than capable of controlling their own bodies and can make intelligent decisions concerning whether or not to have sex.
What I don’t get is the misogynist view shared by leftists like yourself who are convinced that women are either helpless or insatiable, and thus “need” abortion since they cannot manage their reproductive lives any other way.
posted by PCT on
I think Brian is more than capable of speaking for himself. However, to call him a “leftist” is just bizarre. His writings, perhaps more than anyone elses on here – are about individual freedom and personal responsibility.
If that’s the sign of a “leftist” – sign me up.
posted by Brian Miller on
A comedy which makes clear that women are more than capable of controlling their own bodies and can make intelligent decisions concerning whether or not to have sex.
So once again, we have a debate between two sides. One side is women, who argue that they know the most about their own bodies and their own lives. The other side is North Dallas Thirty, a psuedonymnous gay man who last touched a vagina at his birth and whose insights about modern women’s sexuality comes from 2,400-year-old greek political comedy.
Who shall we side with on this one? Hmmmm. . .
If that’s the sign of a “leftist” – sign me up.
Welcome, comrade! 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I expect you to side with the side that says women are too helpless or insatiable to exercise any degree of control or responsibility over their sex lives, and thus “need” abortion, Mr. Miller.
That’s because it’s identical to the beliefs of gays like yourself who insist that gay men are too helpless or insatiable to exercise any degree of control or responsibility over their sex lives, and thus “need” marriage as a means of reducing unprotected sex.
Personally, I think most women would be insulted by your belief that they can’t stop themselves from having sex or use protection when they choose to do it. But perhaps the abortion-supporting women you hang around with really are that way.
posted by Brian Miller on
Ahhh, ND, I honor your progress. At least you’re now using an accurate appellation for me (“gays”) rather than an inaccurate one.
Although, as usual, your understanding of my position is inaccurate.
I don’t take a position on the ability of women to control their sexuality — because their sexuality is their business, not mine and *certainly* not yours.
In fact, I find your obsession over how, when, with whom and under what circumstances women choose to have sex (or don’t choose, as the case may be) to be downright prurient.
Leave women alone. Their sex lives aren’t your business (nor the law’s business), and you don’t have even the remotest basis for passing judgments on these issues given your constitutional incapability to understand female sexuality due to the fact you’re not a female.
Honestly, you Republicans love to regulate *everything* don’t you? Especially on some flimsy “logical” basis. You use the same “logic” about women that one of your Republican politicians used to regulate the Internet, when he explained it’s “a series of tubes.”
Leave them (and us) alone, please.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Personally, I believe I have a stake in the fight for a woman’s right to choose for herself how to handle her body because I had a mother (deceased these 10 years) and have a sister whom I love dearly. I know and love other women – family and friends – and do not want to see them forced to do anything. Not to mention, in 1971 my mother was denied a medically necessary abortion at 23 weeks (of a pregnancy she desperately wanted) by some non-medically trained judge who decided she was not “close enough to death” to warrant the procedure. Instead, she suffered massive bleeding (the doctors had to replace her entire blood volume twice) for 18 hours, excruciating pain (to her it was worse than labor with my sister or me) and the horror of expelling pieces of the fetus as it was torn apart by her body (makes the abortion procedure look humane, doesn’t it).
My question for everyone here is “how much medical training do you have?” Actually, add to that “how many women do you know who have gotten pregnant?” I am an economist, for instance, but have worked in health care for 18 years – and health care is both very female and very fertile, so I know more than any gay man should about pregnancy. My point is that, no matter what the reasons for a woman’s decision to abort her pregnancy, the truth is that hundreds of women die every year from childbirth, and every single pregnancy represents a real threat to the life and health of the woman. Even “regular” pregnancies bring on ENORMOUS physical, emotional and psychological strains on the woman – who are any of us to make that decision for the woman? No doctor can tell you with any certainty which women will face serious health consequences from pregnancy, no doctor can tell you with any certainty which women are risking their lives – medicine is just not that exact.
When I consider the colleague who found out she was pregnant while she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer (the doctors assured her that she was menopausal from the treatment, and could never have children), or the friend who found out her very-much-wanted fetus was so horribly defective it could never live outside the womb (I refer to the fetus as an “it” because the birth defects were so horrific – including organs growing outside of the body – the doctors could not even tell a gender), or the friend who found out she was pregnant the second time by the married man who would not leave his wife for her, I cannot imagine forcing them to make any decision under those circumstances. For the record, the first woman opted to risk her life to continue the pregnancy – thankfully all turned out fine; the second woman opted to abort because, unlike Run’s wife on the MTV show “Run’s House” – who faced what sounds like the same issue, she could not psychologically carry a pregnancy she knew was doomed; the third woman opted for her second abortion.
I have no problem judging these woman by my own moral code (I though the first woman was an idiot for risking her life, but am thankful she’s fine; the second I fully supported; the third I refuse to speak to any more), but I simply cannot imagine having the moral hubris to insist I could make the decision not only for these women, but for every woman under every circumstance now and in perpetuity.
In a country that refuses to tell its children the truth about pregnancy and how to prevent it, where basic medical care is not guaranteed, and where men have to answer to no one for their medical decisions, we cannot sit on some moral high ground and speak in generalities. Until we do everything we can to eliminate unwanted pregnancies, and keep open all options for women who opt to get pregnant, we have no moral ground to stand on.
posted by Brian Miller on
ND30’s aspersions notwithstanding, I personally find abortion to be barbaric — but my personal opinion on how a woman controls her reproductive system should have zero legal weight. And even though I think abortion is probably not the best choice in a majority of cases, I will fight tooth and nail to preserve a woman’s right to sovereignty over her own body — rather than turn over control of her uterus to the state.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My point is that, no matter what the reasons for a woman’s decision to abort her pregnancy, the truth is that hundreds of women die every year from childbirth, and every single pregnancy represents a real threat to the life and health of the woman. Even “regular” pregnancies bring on ENORMOUS physical, emotional and psychological strains on the woman – who are any of us to make that decision for the woman? No doctor can tell you with any certainty which women will face serious health consequences from pregnancy, no doctor can tell you with any certainty which women are risking their lives – medicine is just not that exact.
And yet, women still choose, not only to have sex, but to have unprotected sex.
That’s where the analogy breaks down, CPT. Pregnancy is not an involuntary action that happens to a woman; it is, in virtually all cases, the result of decisions that SHE makes and that SHE carries out. As I pointed out above, Planned Parenthood’s own statistics demonstrate that nonconsensual sex (rape/incest) are cited as the primary reason for having an abortion in less than 0.5% of cases.
And the problem you have, in my opinion, is summed up nicely here:
I though the first woman was an idiot for risking her life, but am thankful she’s fine
This is the one whose pregnancy was accidental and happened during chemotherapy — which would have meant, to continue the pregnancy, that she had to immediately cease all treatments and run the risk that the cancer would reoccur.
You think her putting her child’s life ahead of her own makes her an idiot.
I think it makes her a mother.
And that really is what the debate is about. You see children in utero as something to be discarded if they’re inconvenient or less than perfect. Out of sight, out of mind.
I and your friend see them as children.
It is an endless irony to me that, in this country, you can be fined and go to jail for killing or harming an embryo or equivalent that is helpless outside its gestation environment in the same manner as you would for killing a fully-mature adult — as long as it’s an animal.
Put bluntly, we jail people for using the same rationalization as they do for aborting a human being when they collect seabird eggs.
In a country that refuses to tell its children the truth about pregnancy and how to prevent it
It tells them exactly how to prevent it; namely, don’t have sex until you’re ready for one.
But then again, if people didn’t have sex until they were actually ready and willing to take care of a baby, healthcare wouldn’t be doing a million-plus abortions a year at $500 a pop on average. It’s no surprise that the healthcare industry wants so badly for abortion to remain legal and for teenagers, who are notoriously unreliable in terms of taking precautions and avoiding risk, to continue to be told that sex is unavoidable and that they can have it whenever they want.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30’s aspersions notwithstanding, I personally find abortion to be barbaric — but my personal opinion on how a woman controls her reproductive system should have zero legal weight.
Abortion does not involve just the woman’s reproductive system. It involves the woman’s reproductive system and a separate human being living therein who is there in virtually all cases as a consequence of actions the woman took and did not take.
Abortionists argue that the baby in utero should not be considered a person because it is completely dependent on others for its support. However, what they never explain is why a baby OUTSIDE the uterus, who is also completely dependent on others for its support, counts as a person — or why, as I mentioned above, animals are given legal status while in embryonic or in utero state, but humans are not.
The difference is that a baby in utero is, quite literally, “out of sight, out of mind”. It is always easy to write off and dehumanize that which you cannot see, touch, or feel — which is why abortionists go to such lengths to prevent pictures or movies of abortion procedures, such as partial-birth abortions, from being publicized. It would be much harder for people like Mr. Miller to argue a woman’s “right to control her own body” if he were to see a doctor remove a nearly-intact and full-term baby and then casually crush its skull. He can mouth platitudes about how he finds it to be “barbaric”, but then not actually do anything about it, because it’s an abstraction to him.
posted by Brian Miller on
Abortion does not involve just the woman’s reproductive system. It involves the woman’s reproductive system and a separate human being living therein
That’s like saying that a deadbeat tenant doesn’t involve a landlord’s property — it also involves a separate human being living therein.
Do you support the notion that landlords have no right to evict deadbeat tenants, despite the problems that said eviction would cause the tenant?
If not, you’re being hypocritical.
I won’t even go into the pro-war “pro-life” folks at this juncture.
posted by ETJB on
Brain;
I read your comments on campus and started laughing at loud in the computer center.
“I’m your guest host, Brian Miller, and today, we’re going to have gay men whose last contact with a vagina was at their own birth discuss the finer points of when heterosexual sex results in “life.”
On tomorrow’s show, Red State Roddy from East Westland, Oklahoma, will provide his perspectives on the Castro’s gay scene — despite having never been there! Following him on the same hour will be Blue State Bonny and her sophisticated analysis of “life in the Red States” as she’s observed from 30,000 feet on Continental.”
I am still laughing as a write this. Laughing so hard, I crying. If only you were a student at my college.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you support the notion that landlords have no right to evict deadbeat tenants, despite the problems that said eviction would cause the tenant?
If the eviction would cause the immediate death of the tenant, you bet I would have problems with it.
The right of someone to do as they see fit with their own property only extends up to the point where what they are doing is harmful or deadly to others. You are perfectly within your rights to get roaring drunk and drive around your own property, but your right to do as you please ends with the turn onto the road where you involve other people in the process.
Furthermore, if you don’t want deadbeat tenants, run credit checks and take precautions prior to leasing to them. Don’t come running to me screaming about your “property rights” when you chose to lease to them and you chose to do so without protecting yourself.
I won’t even go into the pro-war “pro-life” folks at this juncture.
Please do. I would love to hear your rationale against killing terrorists who attack Americans, but in favor of killing babies in utero who are there through no fault of their own and whose only crime is being an inconvenience to their mother.
posted by Brian Miller on
If the eviction would cause the immediate death of the tenant, you bet I would have problems with it.
OK, so I’ve got you on the record as a socialist now.
As long as the tenant/squatter can claim injury, the landlord forfeits his property rights and must necessarily fund the squatter for as long as the squatter likes.
I happen to come from a libertarian perspective, and believe that one does not have a right to leech off another and have the government enforce that leeching.
An incidental note is that the individuals arguing for the “rights” of squatters rarely step up to the plate to help defray the cost of the squatting — whether it’s biological squatting or renter squatting. Such socialism is especially rich when the individual in question, who claims to be a gay man, is willing to use the force of law on the aggrieved to enforce his “beliefs” — with zero skin off his own nose.
It’s funny — for all the talk about “leftists” that you do here regularly, you’ve shown yourself to be a socialist on this issue (and also a leftist on the issue of “sexual orientation is chosen.”)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As long as the tenant/squatter can claim injury, the landlord forfeits his property rights and must necessarily fund the squatter for as long as the squatter likes.
Unfortunately for that argument, pregnancy invariably is of a limited duration, at which point the “squatter” leaves whether they like it or not.
I happen to come from a libertarian perspective, and believe that one does not have a right to leech off another and have the government enforce that leeching.
Then you should abolish laws requiring people to take care of their children and the elderly.
An incidental note is that the individuals arguing for the “rights” of squatters rarely step up to the plate to help defray the cost of the squatting — whether it’s biological squatting or renter squatting.
I see…..so even though I had nothing to do with your decision to lease to this person without taking any sort of precaution or protection, I should pay you when your decision and your choice causes you expense because I refuse to let you kill the tenant.
That’s a bit like arguing that I should be responsible for paying the fines you incur for drunk driving because I turned you into the police for doing it — or that I should buy your HIV drugs because you chose to have unprotected sex.
Normally libertarians would point out that society has no requirement to reimburse you for costs that you incur as a result of your own decisions; they usually even argue that doing so is in effect subsidizing bad behavior and only ends up perpetuating it.
posted by dalea on
The best expression I ever encountered of a Libertarian view on abortion was titled: The Fetus That Wanted A Free Lunch.
The argument we are hearing here seems to run like this. If you put erasers on pencils it is solely because you want people to make mistakes. If you put life boats on ships it solely because you favor sinking ships. If you favor having a fire department it is solely because you want buildings to burn.
Women get pregnant. And as the pregnancy progresses, circumstances change. Sometimes to a point where it can not continue without serious consequences. So, women have their equivalent to the eraser, the lifeboat and the fire department. Abortion, which is always a personal decision.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The best expression I ever encountered of a Libertarian view on abortion was titled: The Fetus That Wanted A Free Lunch.
Which will make sense right around the point that babies are enabled to choose their parents.
However, given that only one woman in history has ever gotten pregnant without choosing to have unprotected sex, the person seemingly wanting a “free lunch” is the woman — who wants the right to have sex and kill the consequences whenever they become inconvenient.
And as the pregnancy progresses, circumstances change. Sometimes to a point where it can not continue without serious consequences.
As I cited above, when asked the primary reason that they were having an abortion, only 4% of women cited their health, and only 3% of women cited the health of the baby.
That leaves over 90% of abortions having nothing to do with the health of the mother or of the baby, which are the only things that can remotely warrant the tag “serious consequences”.
posted by dalea on
An account of a late term abortion from someone who had one:
This diary is intensely personal, Ill not go into too many gory details. It?s taken me days to sit and write this, but I think it?s important.
I live in Canada where this procedure is available, and legal. But it makes me sad, and angry that this decision regarding late term terminations will continue to affect so many.
I have been reading so many diaries about the recent discussions in the US about the late term Abortion Ban. I will not call it what the right insists upon calling it.
I have no name for it in fact beyond the medical terminology.
They have banned it because they can. They didn?t base it upon medical knowledge, they based it on emotional rhetoric. They didn?t base it on the experiences of women, they did it because they simply don?t care about people.
They didn?t base their decision on what is best for children for sure.
I care, very much that women have to make life or death choices, and may be penalized for that. Women don?t suddenly decide after 20 weeks of pregnancy that this just isn?t for them.
* pale cold’s diary :: ::
*
It?s a decision I had to make at 21 weeks of pregnancy
Not one that was taken lightly as you can probably guess. It almost tore me apart inside, I honestly wanted to go along with him.
Yes, it was a boy.
Inside my mind hes a fat chubby baby with golden curls.
Inside my mind he looks much the same as his sister who is now 2.
In reality, he is my child of glass. Fragile both physically, as fragile as the dreams I had when I first learned he was going to be.
At 19 weeks I had an ultrasound, to see how things were going with my little “Ebenezer” as we called him. Of course we didn?t know if it was a boy or a girl, but often one gives the baby growing inside of them a nickname.
A few minutes into the scan the tech looked very serious, and had to go and get a senior tech to come see the blurry image on the screen. They both then stared at the image they saw, I could tell they didn?t know quite what to say.
“it?s the long bones in the legs” he said. “they are bowed.” We want you to go to the hospital in the city, they have better equipment. They said.
So we made an appointment and went to the city in a couple days. After two hours of looking at our little guy turning about, and watching his small heart beat, in that blurry grainy black and white world, we met with the genetics team.
The news as you know by now was not good. It was just…heartbreakingly tragic.
He had broken all of his long bones already. Many fractures had already started to heal. His legs were completely bowed, and his arms as well.
OI type 2 they said.
What does that mean?
Osteogenesis imperfecta type 2: An inherited connective tissue disorder with extremely severe bone fragility. This is the lethal form of “brittle bone disease.”
The disease is characterized by short limb dwarfism, thin skin, soft skull, unusually large fontanels (soft spots), blue sclerae (whites of the eyes, small nose, low nasal bridge, inguinal hernia and numerous bone fractures at birth. There is bowing of limbs due to multiple fractures.
This disease (also called osteogenesis imperfecta congenita or Vrolik disease) is usually not compatible with life. The children are usually stillborn or die of respiratory failure in early infancy.
That?s the term they used; “not compatible with life”
At this point we had two choices, continue on with the pregnancy, or to terminate.
My first question was if he was in pain?
The answer was not yet probably.
Not yet?
At around 21 weeks gestation, the evidence says that a fetus does feel pain. That?s when the nervous system develops enough for a fetus to react to stimuli.
I asked if it was a girl or a boy? If they knew? Normally I wouldn?t ask, but it seemed important suddenly.
A little boy. We already had his name picked out. Hauk. It means “wild Hawk” in Norway.
So our decision was made at that moment. Our little boy was not going to be subjected to the pain of broken bones every time he moved. To make him do that, with no hope in the end was simply unthinkable. It was cruel beyond the Universe.
When one has to make this horrible choice, there are then other choices.
Much preparation has to be made so that the cervix dilates for the final medical procedure; it is painful not only physically but mind numbingly sad and final.
There?s the second-guessing: this isn?t happening to us. This has to be a cruel mistake?
Theres the anger: Why, why our little boy? You can scream and shake your fist at the heavens, it does no good.
Theres also the despair.
I talked to him, I apologized countless times. I told him so many times how much I loved him. Like I wanted to imprint his soul somehow with that love. If ever a child was wanted, it was this one. He had to know that.
My husband and I spent hours, both of us just sobbing….
I wrote this to my little boy, just two days before the procedures started.
To Hauk.
Porcelain hopes
Fragility not to be touched.
An ideal, and a bunch of dreams all thrown into a small bundle of moving breathing tissue
We watched you move, and wave your little hands.
Little feet pressed up against protective walls.
Now after just a short visit we have to say goodbye.
I can feel you move even now.
But we know that you cannot make it when it is time to be born
We wont be able to protect you enough
So we say goodbye to you and offer you our love.
You will always have that at least.
Go, be without pain little one.
You do know we will be together one day.
Until then. Blessed be our little darling.
We are asking her to take care of you for us
Wrapped into love and light.
Forever
Mama and Daddy will always remember you.
In the hospital, in the recovery room, they asked us if we would like to see Hauk. We decided not to, just a little voice telling me things were best left alone. We did however get a card with his little footprints. The tiniest toes I have ever seen…..It?s a treasure to keep. Now it makes me smile.
Afterwards, it was a dark time. Some days still are hard.
We have 2 little ones now, one day they will know about their brother. They are loved so much more because we know how special a birth truly is.
In my minds eye, Hauk will always be a beautiful chubby baby, with golden curls and sky blue eyes.
We made the right choice, for him. For no one else. That?s a parents real job.
When the right wingnuts and religious freaks tell you that a late term Medical termination is just an expedient thing, and that women do it just to be “rid” of their babies?
Tell them about Hauk. Ask them if they have ever broken a bone? Ask them if they could ever ask their children to suffer so?
I know there are also many other medical reasons that this procedure needs to be available.
What is the same, is that no one takes this lightly, It leaves a mark on your soul. It will make you cry for years to come.
At that point In a pregnancy you can feel movement, you love your child.
If there?s any good at all to come from his passing, it will be to help other families who have such tragic news.
Back in a few minutes, I have some babies to go kiss.
posted by dalea on
Let Mother Freja the Ancestress receive him. Let him join in the Halls of our Folk. May he be born again in more propitious circumstances.
And now for our edification and enlightenment, we will here how this woman is a slut who spread her legs, got off and decided to avoid the consequences of her choices.
Which is what modern day libertarianism has become. A system where every random divine right of kings loon gets to put up whatever authoritarian whimsy comes along. And call it libertarian.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When the right wingnuts and religious freaks tell you that a late term Medical termination is just an expedient thing, and that women do it just to be “rid” of their babies?
That would be because, as I just cited above, only 3% of abortions, according to the women having them, are due to the health of the baby.
And now for our edification and enlightenment, we will here how this woman is a slut who spread her legs, got off and decided to avoid the consequences of her choices.
Actually, what she is doing is more on the order of pimping than it is being a slut — especially since she is selling her child’s story as justification for abortions done, not because of the mother or child’s health, but for the mother’s convenience, which constitutes over 90% of all abortions.
Especially since what she leaves out is that, even in the United States, she still could have had her late term abortion; it would simply have to be the dilation and evacuation procedure which, despite the insistence of her, her fellow abortion supporters, and abortion providers that it is unsafe and wrong, currently makes up 95% of late-term abortions performed, as stated by Planned Parenthood.
What the statistics collected, interpreted, and provided by abortionists tell us, dalea, is that three out of every hundred abortions done are because of conditions like Hauk’s.
Don’t profane his existence as an excuse for the other 97 children who don’t have a thing wrong with them, other than being inconvenient to their mothers, to die.
posted by Brian Miller on
If you’re concerned about dead children, ND30, is it safe to assume that you’re resolutely opposed to the Iraq conflict (and the prior embargo on Iraq)?
After all, those two actions resulted in the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children since 1992.
Or do “children’s lives” only concern you when they’re not in direct conflict with your own political ideas, and give you a platform to attack women with? (Let’s ignore the fact that zygotes, fetuses, and blastocysts aren’t “children,” but 6 year old Iraqis clearly ARE).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I would have infinitely preferred, Mr. Miller, that we had taken the logical route in which Saddam Hussein, being a dictator with weapons of mass destruction, the desire to get even more, and a willingness to attack and invade countries that were our strong allies, just didn’t need to be in power any more, period.
That would have been in 1991.
Doing so would have neatly eliminated the need for sanctions, whose net effect was to channel money away from the Iraqi people and towards the UN bureaucrats, Saddam’s regime, and the European governments he bribed to ignore him.
And it’s very likely that economic sanctions against Iran will have the same net effect on its children.
So reality is, Mr. Miller, that if children have the misfortune to be born into the clutches of a country that is under the sway of a brutal dictator or regime, there are three choices we face:
1. Do nothing and let the brutal regime have its way with them (Rwanda)
2. Put sanctions on the brutal regime and watch it soullessly channel all its resources to itself and leave its people to starve (pre-war Iraq)
3. Attack and remove the brutal regime, with the very high likelihood that children will die in the process.
None of these is a perfect solution — nor will there ever be, when you are faced with regimes like Saddam’s and Tehran’s that literally hold their children hostage and will casually starve them to death or imprison and torture them for the crime of their parents’ political beliefs.
And in this case, it is relatively easy for me to choose option 3 — because we had already tried options 1 and 2 and seen the massive death toll from both. In all cases, the problem was Saddam, and removing him, while it didn’t fix everything, made it possible for ANYTHING to be fixed in the first place.