Federal judge: Late-term abortion ban unconstitutional SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.
The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.
"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.
Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.
Bush signed the bill in November, saying "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."
In the banned procedure -- known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents -- the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.
Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.
Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.
The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's precedent in Roe v. Wade. It shifted the debate from a woman's right to choose and focused on the plight of the fetus.
Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:In the banned procedure -- known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents -- the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.
Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.
Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.
Yikes. I wouldn't want to be forced to make that argument. Interestingly enough, the original humane movement advocated sudden head trauma (madame guillotine) over piecewise mayhem. Maybe this attitude is simply an extension of anti-French sentiment?
Seriously, the whole notion of calling one method of systematic death more "humane" than another is typical political BS that deflects attention away from real issues for shock value alone. In deference to pooka I think it deserves a comparison to the AWB's "omg it looks scary" provisions.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Question: How late can you get an abortion in the US?
In Norway it's illegal to have an abortion after the 12th week after conception, but it's possible to get an abortion up to the 16th week in extreme cases.
[ June 02, 2004, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: St. Yogi ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
A couple things-- the judge's ruling only affects doctors employed by Planned Parenthood, and only those doctors in CA. In addition, the city of San Francisco is prohibited from enforcing the ban. (This is my understanding of the report from NPR yesterday)
The late-term abortion ban is being challenged in Nebraska and NY as well. Everyone expects this to go to the Supreme Court.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Yogi: there is no federal limit, and most state regulations have been struck down in the last couple decades. There are more than a few places where you could probably get away with aborting a baby if the mother allowed you to stick it back up there for formality's sake.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States.
Scott, are you sure this is only a CA ruling? I was under the impression that this was a *federal* ruling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's one of the most boneheaded rulings I've seen in a while, actually. That a judge would actually refer to a "right to choose" merely indicates that the judge has, in fact, very little understanding of what constitutes a legal right. (By doing this, too, the judge has played into the hands of those who will argue with increasing potency for an actual constitutional amendment.)
[ June 02, 2004, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm actually not sure, Kasie. The information I posted was what I'd heard on NPR, and they very specifically stated that the ruling only applied to CA.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
------------------------------------------------- CBS/AP) A federal judge has declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to be unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.
The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States. --------------------------------------------------Quoted from CNN Today
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Why did my eyes start to roll when I read that it was a federal judge in San Francisco?
This ruling has a snowball's chance of standing.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Refraining from making political or moral statements Refraining from making political or moral statements Refraining from making political or moral statements. Oh well I tired. What's next, torture of teen-agers? Yeah I'm really kinda wondering which part of my country's constitution that I've spent maybe a dozen or so hours reading and re-reading it says that it's a woman's right to choose to kill without justification or explanation a near developed human life just because it happens to be inside of her. Truth to tell, I don't know what in the constitution even gives the pro-choice folks a constitutional leg to stand on, even a distorted one. Which ammendment did that (ahem)lady, think she was talking about, anybody? Honestly I don't know. #5 maybe? That'd be really pretty screwy judging by how it reads but...
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
"The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's precedent in Roe v. Wade. It shifted the debate from a woman's right to choose and focused on the plight of the fetus."
Um, yes. That's really the whole point of the Supreme Court's division of pregnancy into three stages (formerly coinciding with the three trimesters). In the third stage, the state's interest in the life of the fetus takes precedence over almost any right of privacy of the mother. Therefore, there is no departure from the Roe v. Wade precedent. What a crock.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Scott, are you sure this is only a CA ruling? I was under the impression that this was a *federal* ruling.
It's a federal ruling that only applies to the plaintiff's in this case. Once it's ruled on by the appeals court, that decision will be binding within the Circuit (9th, I think) that oversees California. Other Circuit Courts are perfectly free to reach their own conclusion until the Supreme Court settles the issue. Rulings from other circuits can be cited as "persuasive authority," but are not binding.
Circuit conflict is one of the prime reasons the Supreme Court will hear a case, but it's no guarantee. They will hear this one, however, once the other two courts rule. I'd bet a lot of money on it.
But no, this ruling is not binding on any other court in this nation except state courts within this court's district.
Dagonee
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Thanks, Dag Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Ugh. No slope is so slippery that it justifies this crap.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Unless I need another course in American Government, which is certainly possible, I'm pretty sure a court ruling can only apply to the areas under its jurisdiction.
As far as slippery slopes go, "...whenever somebody starts warning you about the 'slippery slope,' you can be sure of this: They are defending an extremist position, and the only way they can persuade people not to return to the middle ground is by pretending that the opposite extreme is the only alternative."-OSC
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Ok, I have to say that I am pro-choice. However, I'm not sure why anyone would support this kind of late-term abortion. I know, I know, that seems kinda backwards since I'm pro-choice, but it's just my personal thingy. What are the reasons that women get an abortion this late? Are most of them done for medical reasons, or what?
space opera
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would like to know the answer to this as well.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
The major problem with this bill is that there are *no* provisions for the life of the woman. The right to choose becomes more than just a choice between pregnancy and non-pregnancy; it because a choice between your own life and your child's. I'm still sorting out how I feel about this particular aspect of abortion, but I do think it's crucial that there be a provision for the health/life of the woman. If a mother faces death by carrying the baby to term, I believe she should be able to choose to abort.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I totally agree, Kasie. I'm shocked that there is no provision such as the one you mentioned. I'm sure it would be a horrible choice to have to make, but I'd rather have a late-term abortion if it meant dying and leaving my 2 older children without a mother.
space opera
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The major problem with this bill is that there are *no* provisions for the life of the woman."
I'm reasonably sure that, during the testimony about this bill, numerous doctors testified that partial-birth abortion as a procedure was never in fact necessary to save the life of a mother. And, IIRC, no pro-partial-birth people brought anyone in to testify otherwise.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Good point. That makes me wonder. Fetuses are getting viable earlier and earlier. If a mother's life was in danger, couldn't they just take the baby early?
space opera
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
If saving the mother's life is the goal, then yes, they could. But I think a "health" clause would be invoked to justify an elective late term abortion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Currently, psychological effects can be considered as part of the health of the mother, so there is no legal impediment to pretty much any late term abortion right now.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If a mother faces death by carrying the baby to term, I believe she should be able to choose to abort.
Why? I ask the question in reference to the vaccuum-the-brains-out while literally still kicking procedure. In those procedures, by what basis-aside from the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose-do you hold this belief?
Which actually begs another question, which Tom brought up too. In the case of partial-birth abortions, just what are the health-risks to women? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that at that late stage of the issue, there are basically two choices.
One is to attempt to deliver the baby. The second is to partially deliver the baby, and kill (or murder, YMMV) it before completion, and then dispose of the remains (or corpse, YMMV). So my question is, has there ever been any evidence that there are health benefits for the mother by pausing the delivery, killing the 'specimen', and disposing vs. going through with it as best you can?
I just don't see how making a choice for termination is going to improve the mother's chance for survival. In fact, it seems to me that leaving the 'specimen' lodged in there while it is being destroyed might pose all sorts of health risks of its own, vs. getting it outta there ASAP.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Why should the mother's health be an issue at all? The outcome that is being sought by a portion of this nation is to give the rights of the fetus (at any age, not just during late-term abortions) the same rights as the mother. Both have a right to live, correct? Why not the reverse? What if the mother's health is a risk to the child's health, would we kill the mother, take the fetus out and do our best to make sure it survives (as we do with any prematurely born child?).
I am not trying to be facetious, but it only seems like the question of the mother's life occurs if there is proven risk otherwise it seems like the Fed and State governments are to make the decisions.
The real slippery slope is drawing a line in the sand. It is easy to start at either end...a nine month old fetus is no longer a fetus but a baby that can live outside the womb. A 1 day old fertilized egg is not. Do we draw lines in the sand and live with them (as it seems other countries do) or do we just say from the moment a woman is pregnant, life decisions are made from without? Or conversely, until the baby leaves the womb whatever happens to it is the choice of the mother.
I don't want to argue a slipperly slope argument, but in this issue, will there ever be acceptable middle ground? The Late term Abortion is the weakest link in the pro-choice movement because it is a horrid procedure that you won't find anyone really advocating for publicly ("I had a LTA and it tickled!") other than to say that to get rid of it opens the door for more breaks in the wall.
Tough stuff and tougher consequences.
fil
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Dag has hit on the reason pro-life advocates are reluctant to allow for "health" provisions as opposed to "survival" provisions, by the way. We're concerned that "health of the mother" will be interpreted so broadly as to allow abortions in virtually any circumstance.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
The reason that I can justify the Big Three Exceptions to my pro-life stance (rape, incest, life of the mother) stems from one of my main arguments against abortion — that human beings do not have an inalienable right to be free from the consequences of their actions.
Though most people in this country do not have sex for the specific purpose of having children, we'd be pretty stupid to pretend that the two were not linked. Sex is the first stage in the human reproductive process, and if you're having sex, you had better expect that at some point or another, babies might happen as a result.
To me, it seems as though the pro-choice lobby is saying that women have an inalienable right to make careless choices, and then get out of the consequences of those choices.
But that's not how it works in the real world. Around here, bad things happen to people all the time because of their stupid choices. One guy overeats and never exercises, and he gets fat. Another guy screws around at work, and he gets fired. Yet another guy gets a woman pregnant, and he pays child support for the next eighteen years.
Yet pregnant women alone need to have the right to escape the consequences of their actions? Come on. When you have sex, you are doing far more than just having a good time. You are potentially creating a life. To turn around and say, oh wait, I didn't really want that to happen, and then to END that life that YOU made ... it's just unconscionable to me.
Rape, incest, and the threat of death are special cases for me, though, specifically because they involve things that an expecting mother really doesn't sign on for. In the first two cases, the mother wasn't the one making the decision to create this life. She didn't ask for the responsibility, and it would not be fair to hold her to the consequences of an act that was cruelly inflicted upon her.
And while pregnancy is part and parcel of the human reproductive process, and should be expected by any sexually active person with an IQ over 70, imminent death is not. No one should expect to die as a result of having responsible sex. So when that issue is unexpectedly added into the mix, and someone's death is virtually inevitable, then it becomes not a matter of convenience, but really, a matter of triage. Again in this case, the woman is subject to a consequence that she should not have predicted, and didn't sign on for, so she should have the choice.
But compared to these tragic cases, the most common reason for an abortion that I'm aware of ("Oh no! If I have a baby right now, it will RUIN my LIFE!") really sounds like childish whining ("I just wanted to PLAY with my toys, I didn't want to put them AWAY! Waaa!"). Yes, the issue is bigger, and the hardship can be very real for some. But I'd really like to live in a place where people are actually expected to step up and accept the consequences of their choices, even when it's hard.
As things stand, we live in a place where people sue big corporations for their own obesity or lung cancer, because we've taught them that the purpose of the law is to offer people excuses for their decisions. [sigh]
Anyway, I've now officially stepped over the line into the Abortion Debate, and I apologize for that. It's just been a while since I've said this stuff, and now and then, I have to say it Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: If a mother's life was in danger, couldn't they just take the baby early?
Actually, a friend of mine is having a cesarean at about 35 weeks because of the traumatic way that her body deals with the last month or two of pregnancy. She has never been able to carry a baby longer than that and both she and her first child nearly died during the delivery. I suppose she feels it's better to give the child a chance at life than to take it completely away.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Hmmm, you're probably right, Stargate. I wonder what could be done to lower the need for abortion at any stage. It seems as though there's talk all over the place about birth control and making good decisions, but there are still a lot of women getting pregnant who don't want a baby. Like I said, I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that I cheer every time someone gets an abortion. It saddens me that it happens. I used to volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center, and many of our clients were just devastated when the test came back positive. However, many of them were overjoyed when the test came back negative. For those who weren't pregnant, we weren't allowed to discuss birth control with them. I understand that it was a Christian-based organization, but that just seemed kinda silly to me to expect that people having sex already were going to jump on the abstinence bandwagon.
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I understand that it was a Christian-based organization, but that just seemed kinda silly to me to expect that people having sex already were going to jump on the abstinence bandwagon.
It's the gut-wrenching feeling you have right before you see the test results. You'll jump through hurdles not to have to go through that again.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Geoff, I would like to mention that you may want to use a word other than "consequences"... Abortion (both natural and conscious-decision) is as much a consequence of pregnancy as bringing a child to term.
There are lots of natural consequences that humans have found ways to delay, avoid, or abolish altogether; you are simply displaying your own bias when assuming childbirth is the only consequence of pregnancy, and everything else is skirting responsibility.
-Bok
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
But PSI, we had several clients come in multiple times for pregnancy tests, so that gut-wrenching feeling must fade for some people. Perhaps it can even be a question of self-worth for some women.
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Space- It does fade, but it still helps.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Even married people have unwanted pregnancies. Being married doesn't make you automatically ready to have a child.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
True, true. But how do you make that stick? Not every child who is raised to believe that he/she should wait for marriage before having sex is going to do so. Of course, we all know nothing is 100 percent. Mind you, I'm not arguing that abstinence is a bad idea; I think it's a wonderful idea. We always stress to our kiddos that MARRIED people are the ones who should be making babies, and the only way we've explained sex to our oldest is that it should happen between married couples. However, nature has played this trick on us so that our bodies sexually mature way before we emotionally mature. I worry that despite what we tell our kids, it's still going to happen.
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Stargate, how do you think decision making occurs in a marriage? A woman CAN have an abortion without her husband's permission, but it doesn't always happen that way.
Space:
quote: However, nature has played this trick on us so that our bodies sexually mature way before we emotionally mature.
I've always felt like society played a bigger part than nature in the emotional maturity of teenagers. Getting married at a young age didn't play such a huge problem for past generations.
I don't really have a point. I'm just chatting.
[ June 03, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*makes "Pretty sure he's a troll" motions to PSI*
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Kat! HAHA! How do those motions look, anyway? Are the similar to the ones I made at the guy that was speeding through my neighborhood yesterday when my child was near the street?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Stargate, I wasn't using it as an "excuse" to justify society's decreasing morals. It was just something that I pointed out. I'd pretty much be an idiot if I thought that sexual maturation was the reason, neh? I think that lack of moral fiber comes from several places. The fact that sexual maturation comes before emotional maturation has just always seemed backwards to me; Mr. Opera and I were just talking about it the other night. I suppose it happens because while sexual maturation is helped along by good nutrition, etc., emotional maturation largely comes from age and experience.
space opera
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hey do you guys see that? Just out the window; right on the bank of the river.
Yup, it's the conversation.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
No problem, Stargate. I'm going to check out your new thread.
space opera
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm pretty sure I saw this ruling coming.
With such an "us and them" mentality prevalent in politics, knee-jerk reactions like this are pretty predictable. I'd wager that these judges knew the outcome of this trial the day the ban went into effect, months ago.
And, at the risk of making Geoff feel dirty, I have to agree with him, totally.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Very well put, Rat Named Dog.
I'm a pro- life liberal, I support people making their own choices about their sex life, but responsibly.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I am all for personal responsibility, as RnD pointed out. But that would include making undesirable choices. Abortion, while not a choice I value or would participate in my marriage, is only ours to make and not the government. People can proclaim that people need to be responsible all they like, but as soon as we put caveats on what those choices are to be responsible about, we really lower the expectations of responsibility.
We say, "Have an abortion and you are a murderer!" and society says that you aren't responsible...
We say, "Have babies you can't support and you are a welfare queen!" and society says that you aren't responsible...
So it seems people who make bad choices have to live with the consequences of their bad decision making either way. Why say "responsibility!" but take away one of the possible consequences. People who are rabidly anti-choice have some odd delusions that the abortion process is an easy decision and done without any physical or emotion hardship. Having known people who have gone through that, it isn't the case in the least bit.
Either we are responsible for our actions or we are not. If you take away a choice such as abortion then why shouldn't the government get involved and say who can or can't have sex? Or more specifically, who can or can't be fertile? Why not make mandatory birth control and we have to go to the government to get permission to have babies? Why take away one choice and not the other?
fil
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Well, considering the population problem I'm not sure that would be so bad, fil. I don't support it, but I can imagine it not being terrible. But seriously, fil, we're talking about someone's life here, and I think that's more important than whether or not someone suffers the proper consequences.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Either we are responsible for our actions or we are not. If you take away a choice such as abortion then why shouldn't the government get involved and say who can or can't have sex? Or more specifically, who can or can't be fertile? Why not make mandatory birth control and we have to go to the government to get permission to have babies? Why take away one choice and not the other?
While this applies to the gist of Dog's argument, it doesn't even speak to the unborn child being a separate human life deserving of the protection of the law.
Dagonee
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I don't know where you got the notion that the government should act as the almighty enforcer of karma, but it wasn't from conservatism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
RB, who was that reply aimed at? I couldn't tell.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Sorry. -> fil
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: We say, "Have an abortion and you are a murderer!" and society says that you aren't responsible...
We say, "Have babies you can't support and you are a welfare queen!" and society says that you aren't responsible...
I don't understand why people think that these are the only two choices you have with unplanned pregnancies. There is also the option of working your butt off and paying your bills yourself. It's not always the most fun thing but it gets the job done and is a very respectful option.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think abortion is a hard choice and should never be treated lightly. However, I think it should be an available choice. I think that the acceptability of the choice to have an abortion lessens as the pregnancy progresses and I think that in the last trimester it should clearly only be done in a case where the mother's life is threatened. **
However, in the first trimester I see very little reason to condemn the choice to have an abortion. I do not believe that a fetus is a "human life" in the first trimester, at least not in the way sensationalist pro-lifers would have you believe, and I also don't believe they think so either. If a woman naturally miss-carries early in pregancy, we do not treat the naturally aborted fetus the same way we would a deceased child, or even in many cases a still-born child. We do not name it or hold funeral services for it. We do not bury it. In nearly every case (if not EVERY case) the tissue is disposed of in the same way a tumor or failed organ is disposed of. Clearly we as a society do not afford the naturally aborted fetus the same dignity, honor, or respect we do a "human life". So to claim a first trimester clinical abortion is "murder" and that the fetus at this point has "rights" is just as disingenuous on the part of pro-lifers as any slippery-slope argument is on the part of a pro-choicer who demands unrestricted abortions up until birth (if there really are any of these in a politically significant number.)
(my 2 cents)
** Where the line should be drawn in the second trimester I will agree is open to debate. I'm inclined to agree to restrictions beginning at the start of the second trimester, but I'm open to arguments why that date should be a couple of weeks later or so. Ideally I would not place restrictions on first trimester abortions, allow second trimester abortions in cases of rape or incest or health risk to the mother, and third trimester only in a case where the mother's life is threatened and there is no way to save both mother and child (if such a case even exists).
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Kasie, I should point out that both societies and individuals take time to change. Rarely does a person manage to simply jump tracks and begin behaving in a radically different manner.
The pro-life position, at least in its extremer forms, is relatively new. It is also the product of a society which tends to associate sapience with visible humanity (most fundamentalists don't believe in aliens, for instance), and embryos do not look very human. As a result it is difficult to make the transition to proper behavior, especially when the larger society reinforces different behavior. Eventually, if pro-life forces were to prevail, the cognitive dissonance would produce larger-scale changes in society, but it will take time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:
I also don't believe they think so either.
:snort:
If that's truly the case, then there's no reason to go on talking to YOU about this-- you've not only got your mind made up on the one side, you're firmly convinced that the other side is lying about their own opinions!
:snort:
quote: If a woman naturally miss-carries early in pregancy, we do not treat the naturally aborted fetus the same way we would a deceased child, or even in many cases a still-born child. We do not name it or hold funeral services for it. We do not bury it. In nearly every case (if not EVERY case) the tissue is disposed of in the same way a tumor or failed organ is disposed of. Clearly we as a society do not afford the naturally aborted fetus the same dignity, honor, or respect we do a "human life". So to claim a first trimester clinical abortion is "murder" and that the fetus at this point has "rights" is just as disingenuous on the part of pro-lifers as any slippery-slope argument is on the part of a pro-choicer who demands unrestricted abortions up until birth (if there really are any of these in a politically significant number.)
The folks that I know who've had a miscarriage have gone through mourning periods EXACTLY akin to people who have lost a child, Karl. Lack of a body, coffin, funeral, or gravesite made no difference.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Gee you guys offer your opinions pretty respectfully, I guess that's why I like hatrack. I am very proud of myself for managing to keep out of this thread except for one short post other than this. *Hugs self*
[ June 04, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Why should the mother's health be an issue at all? The outcome that is being sought by a portion of this nation is to give the rights of the fetus (at any age, not just during late-term abortions) the same rights as the mother. Both have a right to live, correct? Why not the reverse? What if the mother's health is a risk to the child's health, would we kill the mother, take the fetus out and do our best to make sure it survives (as we do with any prematurely born child?).
fil,
In my opinion, there are a number of reasons for this. But first one has to appreciate and acknowledge the reality that the majority of late-term abortions are due to rejecting the disability that has been discovered in the fetus/unborn child. The term one facility specializing in these procedures uses is "fetal anomolies."
Frankly, if a woman or couple doesn't want a kid with disabilities, they face less stigma by aborting than by giving the child up. If they end the pregnancy, they can portray the act as one of kindness, saving the child from a tragic life or they can also misrepresent the disability as a lethal one.
If they abandon the baby, they have to be honest with themselves, their families and their friends about their motives.
Not suggesting there's any solution here - but I think these dynamics play a powerful and underdiscussed role in late-term pregnancy termination.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In addition to what Scott said I’d add, as someone who’s worked as a hospital chaplain, that if the miscarriage happens in the hospital and the tissue/fetus can be recovered, a funeral is an option. And one that many people choose. Casket, stone, name, and all. In the first trimester, a death certificate is not required, nor does a funeral director need to be involved, but the parents can fill out a form requesting that the remains be released to them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott R, I specifically did not write that there is no mourning. I know there is mourning. But are you seriously asserting that there is no recongized difference in mainstream society between a miscarriage and the death of a post-partum human being?
quote: If that's truly the case, then there's no reason to go on talking to YOU about this-- you've not only got your mind made up on the one side, you're firmly convinced that the other side is lying about their own opinions!
That's an easy way out of a reasoned rebuttal. I expected better from you of all people. I don't think I make a habit of being unreasonable and I don't think my words showed closed mindedness at all. I made and assertion and showed why I believe so. You are free to show me where my thinking is wrong and I think I've shown on this forum that I'm pretty accepting of reasoned arguement. I have not stated that the other side is "lying" about anything. I may think they are deluding themselves, and I have pointed out some evidence of that very fact. I'm sorry if my wording has offended you as that was not my intention. However, I don't think I've been as harsh as you seem to think, and I don't think I deserve the dismissal as not worth talking to.
DKW, can you tell me what percentage of people choose the option to honor, bury, and mark the grave of a miscarried fetus? (Honest inquiry for information)
I have known many people who have suffered miscarriages and none of them who have chosen that option. I don't think there is any society stigma against people who don't choose that option. I'd hazard a guess that most people don't choose that option. And the fact that a death certificate isn't required is further proof of my original point. Where is the social outcry against this oversight? There is none precisely because we (as a society) de-facto recognize a difference between an early term fetus and a human being.
Edited for clarity.
[ June 04, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"I think abortion of a first-trimester fetus is murder."
"No you don't. You're being disingenous."
Isn't this the gist of your argument?
There is a vast difference between the intentional destruction of a pre-term fetus, and a miscarriage. NOT in terms of the state of the fetus being destroyed, but in terms of the emotion put into the situation. THAT is where the 'murder' part comes from.
If you die tomorrow from West Nile, people will mourn. If a right-wing fanatic kills you, people will mourn AND be outraged-- because of the act committed against you. Murder isn't casual, it isn't random-- it's an act against you, yourself, your personhood. And because of that outrage, the mourning will be naturally deeper.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Sorry Karl, I don’t have any statistics. Anecdotally, I’d say that at hospitals where it’s offered most people do, but at hospitals where it isn’t offered few people think to ask, or are in the mental state to push for it if the doctors/nurses aren’t supportive. Conventional wisdom used to be that the less the parents thought about it the sooner they’d “get over it.” (Somewhat related note -- My mother wasn’t allowed to see her six-month stillborn baby girl 35 years ago, because the doctors thought it would be “better for her.” Thank God that sort of paternalistic nonsense is fading.)
Of the cases I know about at the hospital where I worked, all of the families named the baby and had some form of memorial service, whether or not there was anything to bury. (The exception, of course, would be miscarriages so early that the woman didn’t even know she was pregnant.)
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
For those who wish to evaluate the claims about the extreme flexibility of the "health of the mother" definition, you won't find it in Roe v. Wade.
The case that dealt with those issues was Doe v. Bolton.
Here's a relevant excerpt from the decision:
quote:We agree with the District Court, 319 F.Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.
Pro-choicers tend to portray "health of the mother" as a narrow definition. Pro-lifers contend its a definition you can drive a truck through.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: "I think abortion of a first-trimester fetus is murder."
"No you don't. You're being disingenous."
Isn't this the gist of your argument?
No.
"A fetus is a human life from the moment of conception. Killing it is just like killing a two year old."
"Really? I think you are being disengenuous. Have you considered that in practically no other way are they considered equal in law or even in society in general? If you drive with your child not in a carseat and he is injured you can be found guilty of negligence. If a pregnant woman engages in extreme sports causing her to miscarry she is not charged with similar negligence. If you do not feed your child you can be charged with abuse, but if you smoke or drink while pregnant leading to miscarriage you are not prosecuted. If your 2 year old dies you hold a funeral and bury him. If you miscarry, in most cases you do not. ** Do you disagree with these examples?"
THAT is the gist if my arguement, which, while I don't claim it is flawless or particularly brilliant, I do claim is not close minded and has some merit.
** Note, DKW's input has led me to believe that this might be more prevalent than I previously believed, but (anecdotal evidence of my own) I have never known anyone who has done this. I have never seen a marker in a cemetary for a miscarried child. And I am talking about 1st trimester here. Not second or third. My point is that in practice society in general does recognize a difference between a fetus and a child, and even between a 1st trimester fetus and a more developed one. For example, my mother's first child was carried to term but stillborn. He is buried in a cemetary in NC. My mother had 2 other miscarriages for whom there was no such observance, but both of them were first trimester, and probably even within the first month of conception.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Karl, there have been cases in Florida where a car wreck killed both a pregnant woman and her unborn child and the driver was charged with 2 counts of murder.
In any case, I think a woman should be charged with something for doing something that she knows would jeopardize her unborn child. I'm not sure where I would draw the line on that. Drugs, smoking, etc. should bring about charges, but I'm not sure about sports.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I know there are rare cases where charges are brought. It is arguable, too, whether this is due to true violations of law or due to political attempts to set precedent for fetal legal status. Was there a conviction?
quote: In any case, I think a woman should be charged with something for doing something that she knows would jeopardize her unborn child. I'm not sure where I would draw the line on that. Drugs, smoking, etc. should bring about charges, but I'm not sure about sports.
What if she smoked and miscarried in the first trimester? Should proof of causality be required? What if she was unaware she was pregnant? By your standard does this excuse her or should she still be charged? Why and with what? "I didn't know a child was there" wouldn't excuse her if she killed one while drunk driving.
Why drugs and not sports? What if she's abnomally fat and eats at McDonald's 7 times a week?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
You know what I wonder about adoption, though? I think people who adopt are wonderful, really. But every single one of the couples that I know, or any of my friends/family knows who have had problems with infertility have always tried to concieve through in-vitro, etc. Adoption is always their LAST option. Is that why we have so many children sitting in foster care, especially the older children? I mean, if everyone chose adoption instead of abortion, would the numbers work out? Just wondering.
space opera
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I didn't mean it was the last resort for all couples, as I said, just for the ones I know. I know there are couples with biological children that adopt as well. Still, my question is: if all women choosing abortion chose adoption instead, would there truly be homes for all of these children?
space opera
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
An adoption counter-example:
Our old landlords had a big mormon family of 6 or 7 kids of their own. When the last one left the house for college, they went and adopted 6 more kids. One was from India, and the other 5 were from Ethiopia. Of the 5 from Ethiopia, there were two sets of siblings. They ranged in age from about 5 to 9.
They are probably the happiest family I have ever met.
It is not uncommon for mormon families to have a large biological family, and then adopt one or two for their younger children.
Edit: Yes, I believe there would be ample homes to adopt all the aborted children.
And even if there weren't, wouldn't it be better for them to be raise in an orphanedge than not at all?
[ June 04, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Why is no one answering my question? I'm not trying to flame here, and I'm certainly not saying that b/c kids are in foster care that women should run out and get abortions. I know that people with biological children adopt, but that wasn't my question.
space opera
edit: after your edit - but if there are ample homes, why are so many children unadopted now? Again, this is just a question, not an attempt to start a debate
[ June 04, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Was there a conviction?
I can't remember, but I'll see if I can find out. I agree that it was at least party and possibly mainly, an attempt to bring about fetal rights.
quote:What if she smoked and miscarried in the first trimester? Should proof of causality be required? What if she was unaware she was pregnant? By your standard does this excuse her or should she still be charged? Why and with what? "I didn't know a child was there" wouldn't excuse her if she killed one while drunk driving.
Why drugs and not sports? What if she's abnomally fat and eats at McDonald's 7 times a week?
I can't answer all those, but I don't think the drunk driving is a good example. With drunk driving, you are doing something which you know could injure or kill others.
My problem is that pregnant women who do drunks, drink excessively, etc. can be condemning their children to a lifetime of physical and mental problems and nothing is done about it.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I expect that a big part of the reason more people don't adopt is because it can be very difficult and take a LONG time, sometimes years, to get approval for adoption, despite what you see on Sex in the City or Friends.
[ June 04, 2004, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: maui babe ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Good point, maui babe.
So, to anyone who cares to answer - are pro-life groups working to change laws/requirements that make adoption so difficult? It would seem like it would help their cause.
space opera
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Adoption requirements are stringent because it is necessary to ensure that children go to good loving homes (and even these measures aren't a guarantee). I don't think anyone wants to be responsible for changing the laws and then having something awful happen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While I like the adoption option far more than abortion, I must admit that adoption is not a quick and easy solution. Anyone who thinks so might ask Dan_Raven about the process sometime, for instance.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:While this applies to the gist of Dog's argument, it doesn't even speak to the unborn child being a separate human life deserving of the protection of the law.
Sorry so late to post responses, but here goes...
It doesn't speak to it because so far, there is no legal recognition of an unborn fetus/baby being a separate human life. Maybe they should do that?
How about this. The moment someone is known to be pregnant, the do all thing things that we do when the child is born. We apply for a SS card, when we do taxes, we put the unborn down as a dependent (if unborn by the end of a tax year). Then the cluster of cells is now a child, bam!
Jeb "the other" Bush tried something similar to this in Florida a while back. A disabled woman was raped in an institution and became pregnant. The woman had no ability to make decisions about what to do but did have a guardian, who opted to allow the baby to come to term. Jeb got directly involved and attempted to get the unborn fetus a GUARDIAN! If that isn't giving legal status to an unborn fetus, I don't know what is. Because he did it and not some intermediary, it could only be read as political. So maybe more than just the title of "human life" should be bestowed on the unborn. They need legal status, too.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I don't know where you got the notion that the government should act as the almighty enforcer of karma, but it wasn't from conservatism.
I never said it was conservatism that started it, but it surely has been conservatives of late that look to the government to enforce karma, as you put it or, more specifically, dictate a certain version of morality. One only has to look at the gay marriage ban, any attack on a woman's reproductive choices, declaration of what is or isn't a religion, etc. I have no doubt liberals would do the same sorts of things if in power, but the conservatives certainly are holding their own with it right now.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I don't understand why people think that these are the only two choices you have with unplanned pregnancies. There is also the option of working your butt off and paying your bills yourself. It's not always the most fun thing but it gets the job done and is a very respectful option.
Most people who are not or have not been "working poor" rarely do understand this. A great book from a couple years back (and now a play that I just saw) is called "Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting by in America" by Barbara Emmerich.
The author goes "undercover" as it were to attempt to live on wages earned in typical minimum wage circumstances, such as a waitress, Wal-Mart clerk, housecleaner, etc.
She couldn't do it. She did it for a year or so and flamed out, even with having the spare credit card and a car already in hand.
I work to support this population of folks as well, in that I work with adults and children with disabilities on their own or in their families in innercity Cleveland. It isn't as easy as "just working hard" at all.
Things cost more if you are poor. I don't just mean that you don't have enough money to buy stuff (which is true) but it helps to look at where people live and how they can spend money. Most folks can't afford a car, so getting jobs means finding a place you can walk to or that is near a bus route (Cleveland has little in the way of trains). So you make your $7.00 an hour and have to make a living off of it. Many folks can't afford to get decent housing as they can't save up for the deposit, first and last month's rent and moving fees. So they take whatever they can.
They aren't able to shop for furniture or household goods at the "discount" stores that litter the suburbs because the bus doesn't get out there. Even if it did, how is a person to get that less costly stuff back to their home? So they shop near by. I helped open an office for my agency in one such low income neighborhood. As a rule, we had planned to save our agency money AND support the local neighborhood economy by purchasing furniture and office supplies near by.
Boy, did we learn a lesson. All the local furniture stores were overpriced crap or rent-a-center vultures. We opted to save money and make our purchases in the suburbs where we could find deals, deals, deals that are not accessible to the local economy. We rented a truck to move it, because we could.
Shopping and moving food is tough, too. I come home with a trunk load of fairly priced food because I have a car and can choose to shop at whatever place is having the cheapest deals.
A person who lives in the innercity can't take home gobs of food to feed a reasonably sized family and have only what they can walk to or bus to to choose from. Hope they like shopping daily because that is the only way to do it.
I am not making excuses for people, just pointing out that simply "Working hard" is only the beginning of it. Lacking an environment that would easily support the working poor, how would simply "working hard" help out?
Bringing this home to pregnancy and abortion... most working poor have little access to quality health care where good, informed decisions can be made. And adding another mouth to the table only makes the above situations even more difficult. There is a derth of quaility and affordable day care in poor neighborhoods. Even with it, day care can cost as much as rent and people are having a hard enough time getting by without that. So what next? You have babies babysitting babies. I have more than one time came across a 6 year old babysitting their 2 year old sibling so I doubt that it is so uncommon.
I am not saying that having a late-term abortion is a better option (since that is the title of this thread and we really aren't talking pre second trimester abortion) but with the working poor, this IS the other option.
Just a thought.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:The folks that I know who've had a miscarriage have gone through mourning periods EXACTLY akin to people who have lost a child, Karl. Lack of a body, coffin, funeral, or gravesite made no difference.
I think it depends how long into the process it happens, to be honest. My wife and I suffered a miscarriage about 10 years ago. It was very early on, we didn't know we were pregnant and it happened so fast (from discovery of pregnancy to the bitter end). We did mourn, but it wasn't the same as losing a child to us.
A great friend of ours lost a child in the second month of pregnancy. It was very difficult and they mourned for a while but soon were pregnant again and are doing well. By a while, I mean a few weeks. Again, they hadn't a lot of time to "connect" with the child, etc.
A co-worker of mine had saw her baby born and die within hours of that event. It took her over a year to mourn that and mourn in a significant, can't-look-at-other-babies sort of way.
I am not trying to downplay mourning miscarriage vs. living babies but to say they are exactly the same is a bit of a stretch. My wife found in her discussions with other women that miscarriage is not at all uncommon and while absolutely no fun they aren't typically life-stopping events that she thought they could be. Tough to work through, hard on a relationship maybe, but in no way equal to the loss of a living, breathing little baby.
Just my experiences and those around me, though. Obviously can't speak for all on this.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: In my opinion, there are a number of reasons for this. But first one has to appreciate and acknowledge the reality that the majority of late-term abortions are due to rejecting the disability that has been discovered in the fetus/unborn child. The term one facility specializing in these procedures uses is "fetal anomolies."
I did not know this at all. I was wondering who would do late term abortions. Interesting point. Working in the field of disabilities, I can appreciate this information. There is a huge stigma against those who give up their disabled kids for adoption. Especially if a) they have other kids without disabilties and b) if they try and have another non-disabled baby. Wow. Interesting point.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Cuyahoga County, where I live, currently has THOUSANDS of kids awaiting adoption. They range from birth until mid teens. I don't know the statistics of abortions in this country, but with adoption needs so high, I can't see the situation improving if suddenly every unwanted pregnancy became an unwanted baby.
We tried adoption twice. Once before our first child was born and we tried again last year, before deciding that having a baby would be a more reasonable option for us. We aren't a poor family, but to adopt from a good and reputable agency (Cathlic Charities) it would cost us around $10,000. We were happy to adopt a "special needs" baby (which can range from sibling groups, kids with disabilities and simply a child who is not white) and that only would be around $7500. It would take about 6 months for a completed home study (a part I do agree with, only about $1500 of the cost) and then some classes (also cool). The remaining costs are for paying hospital bills (if for newborn baby) for the birth mother and gobs of legal fees (for the lawyers, wheee).
And then you wait. We weren't really interestd in adoption an older child but thought up to 1 year would be fine. But that is a long wait time. And if a new born, there is no guarantee you would keep the baby. A birth parent has the right to come take the baby back within a certain amount of time under our system (which I believe is reasonable, but still harsh).
I wish we had the money to do this. We both work and have some money put aside but it is to help out with our current home and child. How weird would it be to go into debt to get a child, thinking of the day when your new child is "paid off" like some car. Yeesh. I would think society would support making sure kids find their ways into good, permanent homes at any cost.
Guess not.
fil
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:They aren't able to shop for furniture or household goods at the "discount" stores that litter the suburbs because the bus doesn't get out there. Even if it did, how is a person to get that less costly stuff back to their home? So they shop near by. I helped open an office for my agency in one such low income neighborhood. As a rule, we had planned to save our agency money AND support the local neighborhood economy by purchasing furniture and office supplies near by.
Boy, did we learn a lesson. All the local furniture stores were overpriced crap or rent-a-center vultures. We opted to save money and make our purchases in the suburbs where we could find deals, deals, deals that are not accessible to the local economy. We rented a truck to move it, because we could.
(Just a quick note.)
No kidding! I lived in a dirt-poor neighborhood in Detroit, and in a mostly-poor neighborhood now in downtown Dallas. The grocery stores are far away. The close businesses are fast food and very, very overpriced convenience stores, and just across the main thoroughway is the most expensive mall in town. There is absolutely no place to shop for food that doesn't require a car that wouldn't cost at least twice what I pay at a big grocery store.
Detroit was even worse - there were grocery stores, but they were very, very expensive. It's infuriating.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Space Opera, I heard and totally agree with your view of things. I know a fair amount of families who will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to get pregnant but won't give adoption a thought. Many people who adopt do so because they support adoption. Many have kids (at least in the groups I attended). My wife was adopted and we had hoped to continue that tradition in our family but just can't do it now. It is sad. My wife (now mid-30's) was adopted in Ohio as a newborn. The cost was less than $25. And a photo with the judge! By today's standards, her parents wouldn't have been able to afford her and the second child they adopted a year or so later. Where would he be now?
But I agree, there is still some stigma to adoption. Blood, it seems, is so much more important that loving and raising a little baby, regardless of who gave birth to it.
This happens even with women who have dangerous pregancies. I knew a woman who had a dangerous pregnancy where she would have to spend the last 4 months of it in bed (due to health risks to mom and baby...baby would literally fall out if she stood up for any length of time)! Yet, she wanted a second child and did this risky thing again, risking not only her life but the life of the unborn child! I think that is just silly, when there is a healthy little baby out there just waiting for such a family to move into.
Tag along with that the still-prevalent stigma of mixing ethnicities. It is getting a LOT better, but still. In fact, I think it seems more of a stigma for white families to adopt black kids than mixing ethnicities. Most of the several thousands of non-adopted kids in my county are black. Yet there is a booming business of international adoptions for parents will pay $25,000 or more to fly to China or Eastern Eurore or Korea to adopt an infant while little black babies grow up in a variety of foster homes. Can't understand it, but that is pro-choice for you.
fil
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Can't understand it, but that is pro-choice for you.
You lost me on that last part.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I always wanted to adopt twelve kids of different ethnicities and have a rainbow at the dinner table. That sounds so silly but I still hope to do it one day. Seriously, the rainbow part is kind of a joke, but I think a family with so many cultures in it would be a special kind of family, and I would hope it would encourage others to stop worrying about what color their kids would be. I don't understand how people can claim to be unbiased, but then balk at the idea of having a person of a different race in their family. Especially when the number of non-white (non-American) kids out there that need families get ignored in favor of being on a waiting list for three years to get an American kid.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Now, wait a second-- I was under the impression that your various Social Service agencies won't allow/discourage a caucasian family to adopt, say, an african-american child.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
o_O Really? Why do they care?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Most of the posts about adoptions seem to miss the fact that there are essentially two different adoption systems. The reason there are so many unwanted children waiting adoption is that they entered the system as older children--essentially, as "damaged goods." (And incidentally, it costs virtually nothing to adopt one of these children. In fact, generally speaking, the state pays you.) There is a shortage of healthy infants. And that is why there are, simultaneously, thousands of kids awaiting homes, and thousands of parents awaiting children. Would this demand for children be enough to match the numbers if all aborted children were put up for adoption? Beats me. Truly, though, if it were, would most people who abort want to carry a pregnancy to term anyway? I don't think they would, because they wouldn't want the inconvenience and discomfort.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This is why I believe that there would be more than enough homes for non-aborted babies. There is a HUGE demand for adoptable babies.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
As far as the cross-cultural adoption thing . . . they care because, all things being equal (i.e., if possible) it might be nice for kids to be raised with a knowledge of and pride in (and a sense of belonging to) their own subculture. Granted, not everybody agrees with this. If you adopted your children when they were very young, you wouldn't have twelve cultures at the dinner table, just one: yours. Children who are visibly different from the dominant culture will suffer the burden of discrimination, and so many believe that it would be nice if they also could reap the benefit of their unique heritage--the sense of belonging that could help make up for never truly belonging to white America. Of course, that is not always a choice, and being adopted by a family of a different background is better than not being adopted at all. Practically, what ends up happening, since most children in the foster system are minority, and there is a dearth of healthy caucasian children, is that caucasian families are allowed to adopt minority children if they want to, but minority parents are virtually never allowed to adopt caucasian children,
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can't understand it, but that is pro-choice for you.
Sorry. The point is that, well, that is what choice is all about. I can hardly take a stand supporting pro-choice but then really go off on the people that don't choose the way I would! I am just pointing out my astonishment at some choices people make but realize at least they can still make these choices.
fil
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think there is anything contradictory, hypocritical, or wrong in sayig that somebody has a right to do something, and then telling them that it's still wrong to do it. Just because you have the right doesn't make it right.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Fil, it's normal for husband and wife when they love each other to try having a child of their own first. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heck, they do this even when they don't love one another. It is their choice, of course, but I am astonished at what lengths, costs and risks people will go through to make sure they raise a child with some or all of their genes. It is of course their choice and I can't fault them to make it, but I can still scratch my head. I totally am into some amount of problem solving when the ol' natural method of begatting doesn't work. My wife had to use some low-grade fertility assisting medication (Clo-med?) but that was cheap and, one child later, apparently did the trick when time simply didn't. In fact, I was set to have an appointment with doctor to see if it was me that wasn't contributing, as it were...one day before the appointment, I got the call that my wife was pregnant, saving me a bit of running around (literally... the process wasn't at all like on sit-coms...thankfully). Also, for complete disclosure, this was a week after we had signed on with an adoption agency and began the process of getting our first home study.
But normal left the building when it is costing thousands upon thousands of dollars and the health risks are mounting to the point where mother and child are at severe risk. Again, it is a choice to be made but one that I would think wouldn't stack favorably with adoption being a great alternate choice. But live and learn.
fil
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I agree fil. I sometimes scratch my head to at the lengths people will go to in order to have a biological child. I suppose that it's just something within our culture; I'm not really sure. My husband and I have 2 children, but biologically they're mine from a previous marriage. I can't count the number of people who've asked him if we're going to have another so that he can have one of his "own." Mr. Opera considers our children to be his "own," and when we have another child it will be b/c we want one, not to fill some biological niche.
space opera
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Our biology drives us to desire a child that is biologically ours.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Why is it the USA, or at least our media, can have NO middle ground? It's either a culture war for no choice vs. late term... instead of a middle path of allowing abortions up to the 13th week or whatever. Or a culture war for no gay marriage vs. gay marriage... instead of civil unions as a third option on the scale between married and single.
Of course...in the end our "culture wars" are nothing but tiny fluctuations. We are pretty homogenous as a people. Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: This is why I believe that there would be more than enough homes for non-aborted babies. There is a HUGE demand for adoptable babies.
I really wonder. I am surprised there aren't more organizations that offer to help a mother-to-be through the rest of a pregnancy (I mean, since this thread is about late-term abortion, we are only talking weeks to a couple months) and then take the child off the mother's hands immediately (with the allowed time period for the mother to change her mind, of course). That would seem, to me, a more positive and pro-active response than some activities the pro-life movement has chosen. I am all about choice but if there isn't anything reasonable to choose from, you take the one that makes the most sense at the time.
fil
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
fil,
that is done. In fact, in one town I know of, an "adoption alternative" center was built across the street from a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Those activities don't get as much coverage as protests.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Silver, I think there can only be middle ground if people are on the same page. At least in the abortion debate, it is tough to even nail down the parameters of the discussion. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice can be complimentary to some (to me...I am globally pro-choice but personally pro-life) and anathema to others (Some pro-life figure if you are pro-choice, you are pro-abortion). To some it is a civil rights discussion about the rights of the unborn and to others it is a civil rights discussion about the sanctity and sovereignity of the human body.
So how can one find middle ground? It like a football game played by two teams but on separate fields!
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:Those activities don't get as much coverage as protests.
I figured that there would be such alternatives. But you are right, protests are much sexier for news coverage. Same with positive aspects of Planned Parenthood. It is easy for the media to simply focus on one aspect of their services but forget that a lot of what they do is done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It would be neat if PP would get together with these other places (the ones that offer to help find a baby a home) more often.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Silver, not to pick on religion, but I think this is a root to it as well. Many of the current hot topic arguments today revolve around issues primarily dealt with in religious venues. And in those venues, there are no middle grounds (unless you are Unitarian, of course...but that is another thread). I mean, most churches have a "you are with us or against us" mentality due to the static nature of their beliefs. If the Bible says gay people are sinful and such, where is the middle ground? There isn't one. From the other hand, why should gay couples be the flexible ones if those that hate them aren't? Same with abortion...either the thing in the womb is a little person or it isn't in the eyes of many. Same with the folks against capital punishment. Human life is either sacred or it isn't, even if someone violates that trust by killing someone. Killing someone doesn't bring back the victims, etc. Not a lot of wiggle room, there.
fil
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
fil, I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to correct one thing. Christians believe everyone sins. We also believe we've been forgiven by Jesus's death. So it's not the sin per se that bugs us. It's the denial of sin.
I fornicate, but you don't see my running around telling everyone God doesn't mind. Of course He does. Frankly, if I'd known then what I know now, I'd have behaved myself. At this point, I'm not willing to stop so all I can do is push on and promise not to do it again if I do, God forbid, find myself single again.
Looking at it from that perspective, it's not the sin that we have a problem with. It's encouraging others to join you since it's not really that bad. I plan to have kids one day. I hate to think what kinds of messages will be aimed at them.
How far do we push the laisez faire envelope? How often will I hear "So something has to be good for it to be legal?" before we decide maybe we ought to be good to ourselves. Not in some "cover up the emptiness I feel so I can tell everyone I'm happy" sort of way. In Aristotle's "I can look back from my deathbed and know I lived a life that meant something" sort of way.
Maybe Americans should worry a little more about what has meaning to us and a little less about what feels good.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)