Abortion...think of it this way

[Chris James]

Ever since Roe vs. Wade the anti-abortion fanatics have been looking for a way to undermine the law of the land. Abortion is legal, folks...except in places like Texas where they have done their utmost to do away with the abortion clinics.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-appeals-court-upholds-restrictive-texas-abortion-law/ar-BBkSLJ9?ocid=LENDHP

Now they have a court on their side (probably filled with those activist judges they despise so much...unless it goes in their favor then it is wonderful.)

Perhaps if the law was allowed to rule and abortions were not so religiously condemned then we could have doctors performing the operation in major hospitals across the land where it is safer. We all know doctors will do most anything for the money.

But abortion is against the will of God they say...no, really? What about those who don't believe in God? Is it just too bad for them we make the rules kind of thing? None of this disruption of the rights of others seems to bother the Christians behind all this anti-abortion business.

I'm a gay man, what do I care about abortion? Except I do care because a woman who wants to abort an unwanted fetus has more in common with me that either of us has with an invisible deity. I may not know her reasons but I don't have to. Personal rights should trump the religious beliefs of others.

[Cole Parker]

The religious right cares about principle and not people.

C

[Graeme]

My personal view is that every abortion is a tragedy. That doesn't mean it's not appropriate at times, but I have a dislike for using it as a form of birth control.

[DesDownunder]

The religious right cares about principle and not people.

C

The principles they care about are petrified, without any compassion for the people they affect in the real world we live in.

As for abortion, I would never tell a woman what she should do with her body, so long as she doesn't want to involve me.

I wouldn't tell a man what he should do with his body, unless he wanted to involve me, but then celibacy has never been a priority for me.

In fact I think homosexuality is the perfect answer to avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

[Cole Parker]

My personal view is that every abortion is a tragedy. That doesn't mean it's not appropriate at times, but I have a dislike for using it as a form of birth control.

I agree, Graeme. But that's the rare exception. Most women are strongly opposed to aborting a child. When they make that decision it's almost always a very difficult one, but one where the need for the procedure overwhelms the sadness of having it done.

I don't like men making laws that tell women they they, through their laws, are in control of a woman's body. I doubt very much that if men had to bear children and still controlled the legal process, they'd still be so avid about restricting this procedure.

C

[Pertinax]

Everyone seems to be looking at this issue from the point of view of judges, or the point of view of pregnant women. What about the point of view of the child who is killed?

[Cole Parker]

Everyone seems to be looking at this issue from the point of view of judges, or the point of view of pregnant women. What about the point of view of the child who is killed?

That's a valid point, of course. As I said, any abortion is tragic. However, when it comes to weighing the rights of an unborn fetus against those of a fully grown and functioning female human, I have to give the edge to the latter.

C

[Pertinax]

So, if a weaker person is an impediment to a full life by a stronger person, the weaker one can be killed?

[Graeme]

I have a friend who had two abortions. She didn't want to -- it was a medical necessity because both pregnancies were ectopic. There was no chance that either fetus would grow to be a living baby. Not aborting them would just have resulted in the death of the mother.

[Pertinax]

There have been cases where ectopic pregnancies resulted in live births, and other cases where the child was successfully implanted in the uterus, but both are rare. But so is ectopic pregnancy. There are causes of ectopic pregnancy, most of which are outside the control of the mother, but not all. Some are a result of lifestyle choices.

In any case, a medical procedure which intends to preserve the lives of both mother an child is always to be preferred. In no case can it be intended to kill either one. If a death does occur, it is a tragedy, and must be an unintended consequence of proper procedures.

I do not think it is proper to place the value of one life over that of another.

That is my position.

[Rutabaga]

I realize it must be a minority view here, but I'm with Pertinax.

R

[Pertinax]

You may be the only one, but thank you. Nice to know I'm not entirely alone.

[JamesSavik]

When it comes to abortion, I claim complete neutrality.

I will neither cause or participate in an abortion.

[vwl]

I find that the focus of discussion regarding abortion is usually quite superficial, not getting to the heart of the issue. There is no question that life begins at cell division after conception--a biological fact. On the other end, we know that in the animal kingdom, runts and deformed offspring are ejected from the nest or the mother's teats. Indeed, in the past I believe doctors would often make the decisions about keeping severely deformed infants alive, paralleling what happens in nature.

The issues involved in abortions are complex, but primarily fall under two overriding questions: 1) When does the State begin its responsibility for protection of life-- somewhere between conception and birth (or even after birth?)? 2) Who decides the answer to the question--mothers, lawmakers, judges, voters in initiatives and referendums? I don't think there is a "correct" answer to these questions. We know that the judges of the United States Supreme Court has made a decision that the State's protection implicitly begins after the first trimester of pregnancy; the court has limited the range of decisions for the future.

While I don't agree with them, I can sympathize with those who think the State's responsibility begins at conception. I have no problem with these people continuing to press their case in the courts, the legislatures, with the voters and with the mothers. Life does matter.

And while I don't agree with them also, I cannot fault the women who believe that they can decide up to a live birth occurs.

However, I think there are a myriad of questions between the fourth month and live birth that are the rightful purview of the voters and the legislators. I balk at letting judges decide the difficult questions; the Supreme Court judges have expressed regrets about making the first-trimester decision and not leaving the decisions up to the states, which were already approving abortions in the first few months of pregnancy.

• Should an abortion be permitted for gender-selection purposes (after the first trimester)?
• Should an abortion be permitted after the first trimester if the mother has not done due diligence about finding deformities in the first three months?
• Should an abortion be permitted at the point of birth (the late-term abortion issue)?
• Should the first-trimester limit be expanded beyond the first three months?
• What reasonable conditions can the State put upon abortions during the first trimester? That is, notification to the other parent, restrictions of procedures to places where emergency hospitals are near by, requirement for counseling? Of course, what is 'reasonable' to one person is not to another?

The American public shows a great amount of ambivalence to the answers of these questions, as do I. I strongly believe, however, that the people and their legislatures and governors should make the decisions. I don't think there is a best or consensus decision on these issues.

[Cole Parker]

I find that the focus of discussion regarding abortion is usually quite superficial, not getting to the heart of the issue. There is no question that life begins at cell division after conception--a biological fact. On the other end, we know that in the animal kingdom, runts and deformed offspring are ejected from the nest or the mother's teats. Indeed, in the past I believe doctors would often make the decisions about keeping severely deformed infants alive, paralleling what happens in nature.

The issues involved in abortions are complex, but primarily fall under two overriding questions: 1) When does the State begin its responsibility for protection of life-- somewhere between conception and birth (or even after birth?)? 2) Who decides the answer to the question--mothers, lawmakers, judges, voters in initiatives and referendums? I don't think there is a "correct" answer to these questions. We know that the judges of the United States Supreme Court has made a decision that the State's protection implicitly begins after the first trimester of pregnancy; the court has limited the range of decisions for the future.

While I don't agree with them, I can sympathize with those who think the State's responsibility begins at conception. I have no problem with these people continuing to press their case in the courts, the legislatures, with the voters and with the mothers. Life does matter.

And while I don't agree with them also, I cannot fault the women who believe that they can decide up to a live birth occurs.

However, I think there are a myriad of questions between the fourth month and live birth that are the rightful purview of the voters and the legislators. I balk at letting judges decide the difficult questions; the Supreme Court judges have expressed regrets about making the first-trimester decision and not leaving the decisions up to the states, which were already approving abortions in the first few months of pregnancy.

• Should an abortion be permitted for gender-selection purposes (after the first trimester)?
• Should an abortion be permitted after the first trimester if the mother has not done due diligence about finding deformities in the first three months?
• Should an abortion be permitted at the point of birth (the late-term abortion issue)?
• Should the first-trimester limit be expanded beyond the first three months?
• What reasonable conditions can the State put upon abortions during the first trimester? That is, notification to the other parent, restrictions of procedures to places where emergency hospitals are near by, requirement for counseling? Of course, what is 'reasonable' to one person is not to another?

The American public shows a great amount of ambivalence to the answers of these questions, as do I. I strongly believe, however, that the people and their legislatures and governors should make the decisions. I don't think there is a best or consensus decision on these issues.

As we're a republic, perhaps instead of letting the people decide, it should be turned over to their appointed spokespeople: the legislators. But the problem with that, as it would be with empowering the people to decide, is that the views of both group change. So, how the law would be written this year might well be written differently next year. This seems to be a question whose answer shouldn't bounce around like a beach ball in a direction-changing wind.

[Graeme]

Personally, I am neither in the pro-life camp, or the pro-choice camp. I find both extremes to be insufficiently nuanced. There are things that I definitely disagree with:

• Abortion as a form of birth control
• Abortion as a lifestyle choice (such as aborting a fetus if it has the 'wrong' sex)
• Not allowing abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape (I'm not saying they should be aborted, but I feel that the woman in this case should have a strong say in whether they want a 9 month ongoing reminder of their rape. Once a fetus transplant is a viable option, that would be my preferred option in this case, but that's not a viable option at the moment)

I am less confident of my position on other matters such as:

• Abortion because the parents are unable to support the child -- including situations where the expectant mother needs to keep working to support other children and can't afford to take time off due to being pregnant.
• Abortion where a serious medical condition is identified (including Downes syndrome, but not dwarfism, which I don't consider to be a serious medical condition).

As I said in my first post, I consider every abortion to be a tragedy. I would prefer more effort is spent on ensuring that there is no need to consider an abortion in the first place, by increasing knowledge and understanding of things like using birth control, and the risk factors that lead to abnormalities.

[vwl]

As we're a republic, perhaps instead of letting the people decide, it should be turned over to their appointed spokespeople: the legislators. But the problem with that, as it would be with empowering the people to decide, is that the views of both group change. So, how the law would be written this year might well be written differently next year. This seems to be a question whose answer shouldn't bounce around like a beach ball in a direction-changing wind.

I think someone has to speak for the unborn child--through legislation--which means that the people and/or their representatives must make the difficult decisions vis a vis the mother. With issues this difficult, I don't think the laws will bounce around quickly--at least, on a nationwide basis; some states may act differently for either good or bad.

I'm not sure we should fear the 'direction-changing wind.' It was clear before Roe v Wade that the wind was moving strongly to approving abortions.

I think we can approve the 'direction-changing wind' in another area: gay marriage. The direction of the nation changed rapidly for the better.

[Pertinax]

A couple of thoughts occur to me in this context.

Abortion is not really a form of birth control, any more than warfare is a form of birth control. They are two separate issues. Decisions on birth control should be made before conception. Thomas Robert Malthus, in his seminal study of population, spoke of limitations on population growth as warfare, disease, and famine. We don't really want any of that.

Second, there is no real identity between what is legal and what is moral. Lots of things are legal which are not moral, such as cheating on one's partner, or spending the week's salary at the local bar while the kids go hungry. On the other hand, in my opinion, at least, during the Prohibition Era it was moral to drink Bourbon, but illegal. As we are a pluralistic society, with no consensus on this and other moral issues, we have to rely on what is legal, but we mustn't confuse the two.

As to the morality of abortion, the essential disagreement is over whether the child in the womb is a human being or not. I don't think anyone would agree to simply killing an innocent human being. If that issue could be settled, the rest would be much easier, but we do not seem to be close on that at all.

[Cole Parker]

Well said. And that certainly is the heart of the argument.

C

[Graeme]

I agree I'm still waiting for medical science to develop to the point where they can do a transplant of a fetus from one womb to another with a high degree of success. That would, to me, go a long way to finding a solution. It's analogous to the argument that a woman can give up the baby for adoption after birth, but it eliminates the issue of having to carry the child for 9 months (with associated medical and emotional impacts), which is especially important in a lot of cases. It wouldn't solve the problem, because I suspect there would be a shortage of women willing to accept these transplants, but it would shift the focus of the discussion.

[Cole Parker]

There are reportedly huge numbers of women who want babies but are unable to conceive. If they're able to carry an implanted child, I think there'd be a surprising number that would go along with this. Two needs would be fulfilled simultaneously.

C

[Nigel Gordon]

This whole subject is a minefield where thinking, at least in the West, has been massively corrupted by the Abrahamic tradition. It might be worth considering that in many non-Abrahamic cultures and tradition the child is not recognised as being a "human being" until some time after birth. Actually this also applied within the Abrahamic tradition until about the time of the Roman conquest of Judea.

The argument that life exists and must be preserved from the moment of conception is flawed from a scientific perspective as the majority of conceived embryos fail to implant ( between 60% to 80%) and are flushed away in the menstrual cycle. Also a lot of implanted embryos are naturally aborted before the end of the first month. Many late or heavy periods are in fact miscarriages of failed implanted embryos. If we are going to say that life exists as an independent entity from the moment of conception we have a major medical emergency on our hands as we are losing up to 90% of it.

What is interesting is that the countries that have the best sex education in the world, like the Netherlands, have some of the lowest abortion rates ( 9.7 per 1000 women of childbearing age), whilst those with some of the worse sex education, like the USA tend to have the highest abortion rates ( 18 per 1000 women of childbearing age). Whilst abortion was on the increase worldwide up till the millennium, figures since the millennium indicate that the abortion rate has either remained flat or in many cases decreased. These figures are generally in line with an increase in the quality and availability of good sex education.

There have been a number of studies showing that there is a direct relationship between the quality of sex education provided and the level of abortions. The better the provision of sex education the lower the level of abortions. It is also the case that where there is good quality sex education provided there is a drop in the level of 'viable abortions' that is abortions where the aborted foetus would have been viable if it had survived to term. In countries such as the Netherlands, with their low level of abortions, a high percentage of abortions carried out are to terminate foetuses that would either not survived to term or would have died shortly after birth.

From my own perspective and my religious belief the right of the mother to have an abortion if she so desires is absolute. At the same time I regard abortion as something that should be avoided if at all possible, not on any moral ground but because of the attendant risks associated with any medical procedure. The fewer medical procedures that have to be carried out the better.

What seems clear is that one way we can reduce the number of abortions is to increase the availability and quality of sex education in schools. To make this effective, however, you also have to make sure the means of contraception are readily and easily available to all who might need them, including such provisions as the morning after pill.

[Pertinax]

So, in some magical manner, a non-human at some point during nine months, changes species and becomes human. Interesting.

I don't think the Netherlands is a particularly convincing example. For the past half century, it has the reputation of an 'anything goes' country.

But I agree that sex education is essential to reduce, and eventually eliminate, abortions.

I am not in an "abrahamic' society. That's condescending and filled with assumptions. I am a Roman Catholic.

[vwl]

In response to Pertinax, it's not that a non-human magically becomes a human at some point during nine months; rather, it's that the State asserts some responsibility in the protection of that life. When the State does so is a political matter, trying to balance the tensions of the mother and the life of this new being.

[J.HunterDunn]

Pertinax wrote:

I don't think the Netherlands is a particularly convincing example. For the past half century, it has the reputation of an 'anything goes' country.

With all due respect, as a citizen of one of the first countries that legalized gay marriage, my patriotic feelings force me to a reaction to the assumption that “anything goes” in this country.

In an ideal world there wouldn’t be the need for abortions, but we don’t live in an ideal world.

With that in mind I much prefer strict legislation on the topic of abortion (as is the case in The Netherlands), than the practice of unqualified old women using knitting needles in shady back-rooms, to which some women who want an abortion are condemned in some countries.

I totally respect you and anyone who wants to protect life from its earliest beginning. As this conviction originates in religious belief, that conviction deserves respect.

But people who don’t share that conviction shouldn’t be forced to conform to the religious believes of others.