Partial Birth Abortion & Late Term Abortion -- should they be prohibited? [Archive]

BURNER

01-15-2003, 09:08 AM

Consider, for example, the very conservative House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeLay and his wife, Christine, have taken three troubled teenage foster children into their Houston home." Mr. DeLay has been active in working for neglected and abused kids in the District of Columbia. Mrs. DeLay is heading an effort to establish a residential facility in Fort Bend County, southwest of Houston, for kids who otherwise would be bounced around from foster home to foster home.

Adopting 3 children is a good start. Now if all of the other pro-lifers would follow the example then there wouldnt be anymore unwanted children. If ,as you say, they are "half of Americans" they all might just have to take 1 child to make foster care and group homes a thing of the past. Too bad most of them would rather protest that adopt.

It's a damn shame that no pro life group will step up and provide legitimate alternatives and help for the mom and child.

Let me say it again, if you arent the one carrying the baby then you should mind your own buisness. No one has the right to tell another person what to do with their own bodie.

beagledave

01-15-2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by BURNER
Adopting 3 children is a good start. Now if all of the other pro-lifers would follow the example then there wouldnt be anymore unwanted children. If ,as you say, they are "half of Americans" they all might just have to take 1 child to make foster care and group homes a thing of the past. Too bad most of them would rather protest that adopt.

Let me say it again, if you arent the one carrying the baby then you should mind your own buisness. No one has the right to tell another person what to do with their own bodie.

Wow. Burner makes the claim that all pro lifers espouse violence. A claim disproved and refuted by several dopers..does he/she retract it.. Nope.

He claims that no pro lifer will "adopt the unwanted children", a claim that I disprove. Does he/she retract it? Nope.

Huh.

sqweels

01-15-2003, 09:43 AM

December, you are well-known as a conservative around here, but your position on abortion calls into question the meaning of the term "conservative" since in the eyes of a lot of people, opposing abortion is the first word in conservatism.

As for PBA, I would be willing to accept a ban if that could be the basis for a compromise that would end the this bitter, divsive dispute over abortion. The anti-abortion movement really, really wants this ban, but what are they willing to give up in exchange for it? They make a great deal out of the "gruesome" appearance of the procedure, and emphasize the idea that the fetus is in the process of "being born" during it. But no such considerations are present when the issue is stem-cell research or the morning-after pill, but pro-lifers oppose these too. So are they willing to accept a compromise and agree to stop attacking abortion rights overall, or would agreeing to this ban amount to appeasement?

3. Do you prefer the terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" or something else? And why?

I prefer the terms "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights". You can't get any clearer than "anti-abortion" while "pro-life" is flightily euphamistic and glassy-eyed and unspecific. Environmentalists could be called pro-life. "Pro-abortion" is unacceptable because there is a difference between supporting the legality of abortion and actually favoring that women get them. "Pro-choice" is euphamistic too, but emphasizing choice is important since the anti-abortionoids would very much like to portray the siuation as one where the evil society is forcing innocent young girls to kill their babies.

lynn73

01-15-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by december
Partial birth abortions appear to be increasing (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030114-75792581.htm), according to the Guttmacher Institute. Congress is moving to address the issue on a national basis. Should PBA or late term abortions be prohibited?

I vote NO on prohibiting partial birth abortion. Once we agree that's it OK to kill a fetus, I don't care what method is used.

I vote NO on prohibiting 3rd trimester abortions, although there are certainly good arguments for saving a viable fetus. One could argue that 6 months is enough time for a pregnant woman to make up her mind. Still, I support continuing to use the act of birth to define the beginning of humanity, because it seems so natural.

Oh, so you think it's okay to kill a full term baby in the normal prosess of being born with just the head still in the birth canal by stabbing it in the back of the neck and sucking the brains out. You call this a fetus!? Just because all of a sudden mommy decides she doesn't want it. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand? How any doctor who would perform this legalized murder could sleep at night is beyond my comprehension!

yojimbo

01-15-2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Libertarian
Yojimbo

1. Why does the term "pro-life" annoy you?

2. Does the term "pro-choice" annoy you as well? If not, why not? If so, why?

3. Do you prefer the terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" or something else? And why?

pro-life annoys me because if I'm not in that camp does it mean that I am not pro-life?

I think that the parent/s should have the right to decide their future and the future of their child.

Pro-abortion would annoy me as well because while I may not agree with aborting a child of mine I/society have no business IMO making that decision for anyone else. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion IMO.

I'm not going to come up with alternatives as it's a minefield and it could easily hijack this thread too much.

beagledave

01-15-2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by yojimbo
pro-life annoys me because if I'm not in that camp does it mean that I am not pro-life?

It refers, in this context, to a narrow use of the term "life"..that you would not support protecting the life of a fetus.

(FWIW, I subscribe to a seamless garment/consistent ethic (http://www.seamless-garment.org/about.html) approach to this issue, so "pro life" has another dimension for me )

Much as the term "pro choice" does not refer to all instances of choice in life, only "reproductive choice.

Both terms are narrowly defined terms...some folks only choose to see the narrowness of one term.

0rbytal

01-15-2003, 10:14 AM

I must share this to hopefully make some of you reconsider your convictions:

I use to consider myself a very, very strong pro-life advocate and even held to the conviction of "even if a woman is raped, she can still put the child up for adoption. At least the would get the chance to experience life."

However one day while I was brushing my teeth*, a thought crossed my mind: What if my wife were raped? Would I change my stance for this one scenario? That seems hypocritical. But surely I wouldn't want to raise a child that is not mine... the rapist could have some hereditary traits to make the child prone to violence (no cites, just an example for argument's sake). After that thought, I realized that if that happened, I would support my wife on whatever she decided to do. So I guess I am pro-choice.

Why don't some of you (no-exception-pro-lifers) answer that question as well? What would you want to happen if your wife / mother / sister were raped (and impregnated)? Would you shun her for choosing an abortion? (directed to males)

(females-->) What would you do if you were raped (& impregnated)? What if the rape were by a family member?

*as the song goes: "The important things in life are apt to blindside you on some idle Tuesday..."—The sunscreen song

NurseCarmen

01-15-2003, 10:15 AM

99% of the partial birth abortions aren't done on the basis of "Mommy has decided she doesn't want it". They are done due to a medical condition of the fetus or when the mother's life is at risk. If they outlaw that 1 percent I'm fine with it. If the pro-lifers are willing to take in horificly deformed children, as well as ALL of the expenses and emotional pain (that might be a bit tougher) then I'm willing to give up that bit as well. Where the life of the mother is at stake, I have no qualms with a PBA.

yojimbo

01-15-2003, 10:19 AM

I agree beagledave pro reproductive choice would be better.

While I understand that I'm looking at it from a one sided perspective but it still annoys me.

I've had several people on hearing that I was pro choice accuse me of wanting to kill babies they then proceeded to get so far up the ass of the pro life lobby that they could see the Popes feet :D

cowgirl

01-15-2003, 10:21 AM

Who remembers Kang and Kodos' presidential election speech ...

Kodos: No abortions for anyone !
Crowd: BOOOOOO !
Kodos: Um ... okay ... abortions for everyone !
Crowd: BOOOOOO !

tiny ham

01-15-2003, 10:27 AM

Abortions for SOME

Tiny American flags for the others!

YAY!

blanx

01-15-2003, 10:29 AM

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

beagledave

01-15-2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by NurseCarmen
99% of the partial birth abortions aren't done on the basis of "Mommy has decided she doesn't want it". They are done due to a medical condition of the fetus or when the mother's life is at risk.

Well.

No. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html)

In 1993, the American Medical News-- the official newspaper of the AMA-- conducted a tape-recorded interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he said:

And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.

The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-birth abortions, including the third-trimester abortions performed on the five women who appeared with President Clinton at his April 10 veto ceremony. Dr. McMahon's general approach is illustrated by this illuminating statement in the July 5, 1993 edition of American Medical News:

"[A]fter 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there. I think, 'Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.' On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: 'Who owns the child?' It's got to be the mother.'"

In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a "series" of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving "maternal [health] indications," of which the most common was "depression."

Of Dr. McMahon's series, another 1,183 cases (about 56%) were for "fetal flaws," but these included a great many non-lethal disorders, such as cleft palate and Down Syndrome. In an op ed piece written for the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Katherine Dowling, a family physician at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, examined Dr. McMahon's report on this "fetal flaws" group. She wrote:

Twenty-four were done for cystic hydroma (a benign lymphatic mass, usually treatable in a child of normal intelligence). Nine were done for cleft lip-palate syndrome (a friend of mine, mother of five, and a colleague who is a pulmonary specialist were born with this problem). Other reasons included cystic fibrosis (my daughter went through high school with a classmate with cystic fibrosis) and duodenal atresia (surgically correctable, but many children with this problem are moderately mentally retarded). Guess they can't enjoy life, can they? In fact, most of the partial-birth abortions in that [McMahon] survey were done for problems that were either surgically correctable or would result in some degree of neurologic or mental impairment, but would not harm the mother. Or they were done for reasons that were pretty skimpy: depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting. ["What Constitutes A Quality Life?," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 28, 1996]

NurseCarmen

01-15-2003, 10:58 AM

I'd prefer a cite that isn't from the National right to life website. I think we can all agree that the information they put out is rather skewed.

MamaHen

01-15-2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by 0rbytal

(females-->) What would you do if you were raped (& impregnated)? What if the rape were by a family member?

I did find myself pregnant after my rape. My son is 5 now and he's amazing. He actually sings, plays and sleeps just like any other 5 year old, he hasn't shown a single sign of violence. I am the grand-daughter of siblings. My grandmother was raped by her brother who has special needs. He still lives with her. I guess it's all in how you look at a situation. I found myself pregnant and thought "Wow, I'm having a baby! I am creating LIFE", then I went on to cackle madly but that's besides the point.

0rbytal

01-15-2003, 11:12 AM

That is great MamaHen. I am truely happy for you and I hope you raise your son to be a wonderful person as you seem to be (from your relpy). While I grieve for the method you and your grandmother conceived those children, every life is precious. I would say that you and your grandmother made the choice I would want my wife to make in that situation; I would support her decision either way.

Whack-a-Mole

01-15-2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by His4ever
Oh, so you think it's okay to kill a full term baby in the normal prosess of being born with just the head still in the birth canal by stabbing it in the back of the neck and sucking the brains out. You call this a fetus!? Just because all of a sudden mommy decides she doesn't want it. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand?

As NurseCarmen already mentioned PBAs are rarely if ever done simply because the mother decides she doesn't want to have the child. It is nearly always for medical reasons where the mother's life is at serious risk.

"Thou shalt not kill" has no bearing on this whatsoever. It is a religious piece of dogma and not the law of the land (separation of church and state and all that) no matter how much you might wish it to be otherwise. Laws can be based on moral grounds and religion certainly claims a piece of that territory but just because the good book says "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't make it a law of the USA (if it did you should write Bush and ask him to reconcile that with a potential war with Iraq).

elucidator

01-15-2003, 11:17 AM

Mammahen you have taken a noble and enlightened approach to a horrendous problem. Commendable, indeed. And if such nobility were commonplace, most likely none of this would be a problem worthy of consideration. But it is not.

But not for a moment would I have you not "cackle", as you put it. Cackle away, hire a megaphone and a skywriter. Music to my ears.

plnnr

01-15-2003, 11:19 AM

I must assume, from you post, His4ever, that you are equally as opposed to capital punishment.

Gaijin

01-15-2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by december
Once we agree that's it OK to kill a fetus, I don't care what method is used.

I, too, was caught off guard by your stance, having considered you clearly conservative from your posts on other issues, but this line makes me curious- do you vote no on the ban because you support the option of abortion, or to maintain a sense of consistency in regards to the legality of the issue? If, for example, the tables were turned - Suppose abortion had been outlawed completely, and the current issue is the legalization of aborting a fetus in its earliest stages of development - would you support the bill because you support the option, or would you oppose it because once we've decided it's wrong, it shouldn't be used at all?

Siege

01-15-2003, 11:26 AM

The only way I would consider being for a ban on partial-birth and third trimester abortions would be if there were a completely iron-clad provision that they would be legal if the life of the mother were in danger, and that includes mental health. Otherwise, you're trading "killing babies" for killing women. The last two words are rhetoric on my part, intended to match the rhetoric of "killing babies."

Personally, I am anti-abortion just as I am anti-divorce. I consider both to be always morally wrong, but I also know full well that both are, at times, necessary. I also believe a person should do everything practical to make sure that she's never in a position where either becomes necessary, whether that's using birth control or making sure she knows someone well. I also realize sometimes things go wrong which is why I don't like having legal restrictions on either one.

If I were to find myself pregnant tomorrow, presumably because I was raped today (that's the only way a pregnancy's going to happen to me right now), I don't know what I'd do. I don't have the income to support myself without a job for nine months, and I suspect pregnancy would interfere with finding temporary work. Despite the fact that I believe abortion is morally wrong, I would consider it. How can I carry a child I cannot support? If I could work out the financials and other logistics, which I would prefer to do if at all possible, I'd put the child up for adoption. However, I'm aware of one other thing. I'm at an age where the odds of any child I have being handicapped are growing greater by the day. Which would be crueler -- bringing a child into the world with severe handicaps who is only destined to live a few days and spend those in pain, never leaving the hospital, or aborting it?

I am, obviously, politically pro-choice, except to me, it's pro-the-awful-choice. Before Roe vs. Wade, women did seek out illegal abortions, and the consequences sometimes proved fatal for the mother as well. This is the choice, as I see it: keep abortion legal and "kill babies" as the pro-life movement likes to put it, or make it illegal and kill women who see themselves with no alternative. It's not my choice to make, therefore I am pro-choice. I agree with what I consider the heart of the pro-choice movement -- abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

CJ

Gaijin

01-15-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by NurseCarmen
I'd prefer a cite that isn't from the National right to life website. I think we can all agree that the information they put out is rather skewed.

I propose the challenge that someone find a cite for an abortion statistic that isn't skewed.

NurseCarmen

01-15-2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Gaijin
I propose the challenge that someone find a cite for an abortion statistic that isn't skewed.

:D true. true.

litost

01-15-2003, 12:10 PM

Is there a segment of society who wilfully use abortion as a contraceptive device? If not, and knowing fully well that abortion is an emotionally and physically draining process for the woman, why on earth is there a controversy about this?

beagledave

01-15-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by NurseCarmen
I'd prefer a cite that isn't from the National right to life website. I think we can all agree that the information they put out is rather skewed.

Huh. Umm, well no. Ad hominum attacks may be convenient, but you haven't credibly argued against the quotes.

I also notice that you provided no cite for your assertion that 99% are done for serious maternal or fetal health risks..care to back up that claim?

I note that the AMA had previously endorced (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/20/abortion.ama/index.html) a ban on the procedure, even though "the AMA's general policy is to oppose criminalizing medical procedures"

Whack-a-Mole

01-15-2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by litost
Is there a segment of society who wilfully use abortion as a contraceptive device?

This is strictly anecdotal evidence on my part but I have seen some women who seem to use abortion as a contraceptive device.

I used to work for Planned Parenthood and saw many women come through the doors to our clinic. I would say most women did not view abortion lightly but clearly a few did. I talked with our resident psychiatrist who would counsel many of these women and she said that as with most things there were as many takes on getting abortions as there were women getting them. Some, the psychiatrist said (without ever betraying a specific confidence) were quite unperturbed by the whole thing. Add to that multiple visits and counseling to try to be more careful (less sex, better timing, contraception, etc.) the women felt that abortion was simplest for them.

Again, MOST women seemed to take the whole process rather seriously and many were deeply upset by it. Still, there were a few in the bunch who showed no more emotional concern for what was happening than were they there to get an ingrown hair seen to (of course some might just have been suppressing emotions but one would suppose the psychiatrist would get through that).

jjimm

01-15-2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by litost
Is there a segment of society who wilfully use abortion as a contraceptive device? If not, and knowing fully well that abortion is an emotionally and physically draining process for the woman, why on earth is there a controversy about this? Yes, Russia (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/18/world/main526182.shtml), at just under 60% of all pregnancies.Induced abortion, a legal means to terminate pregnancy, remains the primary method of birth control in Russia.http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/undergrad/vol7/kotlyar.html

Soup Nazi

01-15-2003, 12:52 PM

I'd like to propose everyone substitute the words "birth control" and "contraception" with the words "life prevention" in every post, article, and document—then see how moral it sounds...

I also disagree with laws dealing with abortion are as necessary as laws for seatbelts, helmets, and other laws that should clearly be left to the "commitor's" or "actor's" discretion. The government should have no say on what I think is right for me, unless I am infringing another's right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of hapiness. Yes, I know that the fetus has the right to life too, but while it is attached to the mother, the mother owns it and can do what she pleases with it.

Whack-a-Mole

01-15-2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Soup Nazi
I'd like to propose everyone substitute the words "birth control" and "contraception" with the words "life prevention" in every post, article, and document—then see how moral it sounds...

That is truly one of the oddest proposals I've ever seen from any side in these debates. By extension I'll be sure to tell the next woman who refuses to have sex with me that she is preventing a life so she feels badly :rolleyes: .

Grim_Beaker

01-15-2003, 01:24 PM

According to the statistics gathered by the CDC here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus017.pdf) the total number of legal abortions performed 21 weeks or later into the pregnancy for the years 1998 through 1993, 1990, 1985, 1980 and 1975 (those were the most recent 10 years shown on the study) was approximately 140,000.

According to these statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm) (also gathered by the CDC) the number of maternal deaths related to pregnancy complications has averaged about 7.5 per 100,000 live births for the years 1982 - 1996.

This (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05t1.pdf) site (also from the CDC) shows the birth rate for the past 20 years. If we average out 7.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births for the years 82 through 96 then the approximate number of maternal deaths for that period is 4,379 or 291 per year.

Let's compare only the years where this data overlaps shall we?

--- Year --- | ---- 21+ week abortions --- | --- Maternal deaths ---

   1996                    &nbsp   18,390                              292
   1995                    &nbsp   16,954                              293
   1994                    &nbsp   16,471                              296
   1993                    &nbsp   17,290                              300
   1990                    &nbsp   14,290                              312
   1985                    &nbsp   10,632                              282

Total:                          94,027                              1,775

Now I believe that abortion should unequivocally be an option in the third semester where the mothers *LIFE* is in danger. If the mother's life isn't in danger and it's a third semester pregnancy then IMHO the state has an overriding interest in rights of the unborn which should trump any issues of choice. From the data I've located (from a neutral source) it seems highly unlikely that all 94,000 21+ week abortions were life threatening situations when maternal deaths for those same years is only a couple percent of that total.

Grim

cuauhtemoc

01-15-2003, 01:25 PM

I don't know what Partial Birth Abortion is, and I give up trying to find out. If you try to explain it to me, I won't listen, because I know that your description of the procedure and its implications will be colored by your political views. I am suspicious of all "facts" presented as relating to abortion, so I just disregard them. I'm tired of hearing some supposed fact or statistic, using it to formulate my opinion, and then having to revisit the issue when I learn it was all just so much sensational bullshit. Since I'm a man, I'll never have to confront this issue personally, so I don't have to form an opinion.

So why am I here? To congratulate the abortion-politicizers for having disillusioned at least one person into complete apathy. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Bippy the Beardless

01-15-2003, 01:27 PM

Soup Nazi should we also call Rapists 'Free lance life providers'?
How could we get unbiassed abortion statistics? These seem to be so important to the question at hand. Are there any medical journals that would be considered trustworthy by both sides of the fence?

Cheers, Keithy

Whack-a-Mole

01-15-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by cuauhtemoc
I don't know what Partial Birth Abortion is, and I give up trying to find out. If you try to explain it to me, I won't listen, because I know that your description of the procedure and its implications will be colored by your political views. I am suspicious of all "facts" presented as relating to abortion, so I just disregard them. I'm tired of hearing some supposed fact or statistic, using it to formulate my opinion, and then having to revisit the issue when I learn it was all just so much sensational bullshit. Since I'm a man, I'll never have to confront this issue personally, so I don't have to form an opinion.

Ahh...the "Stick Your Head in the Sand and Hope the Problem Goes Away or Doesn't Bother You" method of thinking.

That the issue is difficult, that there are vested interests on both sides of the fence spinning data and rhetoric there way is a given. Happens with many things. That doesn't mean it should be ignored. Seek out your own info from sources YOU feel are reliable or trustworthy. Read things from both sides fo the debate. Let it all stew in your head for awhile and your very own opinion will come out so you need not rely on others.

beagledave

01-15-2003, 01:46 PM

Another point from USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/elect/ee/ee034.htm)..

Claim: Abortion-rights supporters defend late-term abortions arguing women whose health is threatened or who have damaged fetuses are more likely to have late-term abortions.

Fact: The primary reasons women chose to have late-term abortions have nothing to do with either their health or the fetuses'.

Why women have late-term abortions (multiple reasons)

Didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation: 71%, Hard to make arrangements: 48%, Afraid to tell partner of parents: 33%, Took time to make decision: 24%

NurseCarmen

01-15-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by beagledave
Huh. Umm, well no.

well heck, how bout a quote from the ACLU, right back at ya.

Don’t doctors provide elective third-trimester abortions?

No. Only a handful of doctors in the United States perform third-trimester abortions, and these few do so only when the fetus is severely or fatally impaired or when the woman’s health or life is seriously at risk.

tiny ham

01-15-2003, 01:53 PM

Also purely anecdotal, but my roomate in college got two abortions within one school year and found it to be 'less annoying' than using condoms.

So yes, there IS a segment of the society that does that.

beagledave

01-15-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by NurseCarmen
well heck, how bout a quote from the ACLU, right back at ya.

1) See above bit from USA Today.

2) The web site I cited, even though from an advocacy group, quoted doctors (Haskell and McMahon) who actually performed these late term abortions, the quotes are attributed to them. (Keep in mind that this was in response to your 99% claim). Could you please indicate for me which data source the ACLU claim comes from?

sqweels

01-15-2003, 02:05 PM

Beagledave, are there any statistics on elective vs therapudic abortions strictly in the 3rd trimester?

beagledave

01-15-2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by sqweels
Beagledave, are there any statistics on elective vs therapudic abortions strictly in the 3rd trimester?

Why yes there are ;)

From here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm)..stats from the Allan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood)

Women who have later-term abortions -- 16 weeks or more since last menstrual period -- give a variety of reasons for their decision. Women gave an average of 2.2 reasons:
71% did not recognize that she was pregnant.
48% had difficulty arranging for an abortion; it took time to raise the money; they had to first get a Medicaid card; they couldn't arrange transportation, etc.
33% were afraid to tell parents or patner of the pregnancy
24% needed time to make a decision
8% hoped that a bad relationship would change
8% felt pressure to not have an abortion
6% had something change during the pregnancy
6% did not know that timing was important
5% did not know that she could get an abortion
2% found out late in pregnancy that the fetus had an abnormality
11% other reasons

It must take some of that "new math" to get to the quoted 99% done for serious maternal health or fetal defects. ;)

_

NurseCarmen

01-15-2003, 02:23 PM

here you go (http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=143) Your USA Today [http://www.usatoday.com/elect/ee/ee034.htm]cite[/url] also has a nice factoid showing that only 1% of all abortions are 3rd tri (when D&X's are performed). My cite has a nice counter to that in Doesn’t the law permit elective third-trimester abortions?
No. Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability (the point at which the fetus can survive outside the woman, usually at the beginning of the third trimester). For the most part, these laws conform to constitutional principles establishing that women have the right to choose abortion before fetal viability, but that states may regulate and even proscribe abortions after viability except where necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.

Now to the point of refuting the quotes: You have got to be kidding me. I could cite a link from Iraq where Bush is avowing his allegence to Satan. Would you beleive that? The Haskell quotes wreak of propaganda that is belched up by BOTH sides and spread throughout the web as fact.

you with the face

01-15-2003, 02:36 PM

from beagledave's link:
Women who have later-term abortions -- 16 weeks or more since last menstrual period -- give a variety of reasons for their decision...

16 weeks is hardly late-term. That's early second trimester, and most women barely show at that point.

ceyjen

01-15-2003, 02:37 PM

My problem with partial-birth abortion is neither political nor personal. I understand the necessity of the procedure at times when the mother's life or health is at risk.

What I have a problem with is the duplicitous nature of the idea when the mother's life or health is not at risk.

In some states, if a woman is more than 22 or 24 weeks (can't remember exactly) pregnant and is attacked or hit by a drunk driver and she loses the baby, the attacker or drunkard can be charged with manslaughter (unsure whether voluntary or involuntary). So the law in some states considers an unborn fetus that is 5 or 6 months into gestation human enough to be killed.

But then a woman may walk into a clinic and have her unborn child disposed of no matter how far along she is.

There was a case in Arizona not too many years ago where a 14 year old girl who was a ward of the state was something like 7 months pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. The case was tied up in the legal system long enough that by the time she was allowed to have the abortion (at about eight and a half months), the procedure actually amounted to nothing less than inducing labor then killing the baby. There was no threat to her health. She had had a normal pregnancy. It was simply a matter of an immature girl who changed her mind.

Apos

01-15-2003, 02:38 PM

---I'd like to propose everyone substitute the words "birth control" and "contraception" with the words "life prevention" in every post, article, and document—then see how moral it sounds...---

If it were really life prevention, I'm not sure why it would be immoral. One prevents life by not having sex in the first place just as much as one does by using contraception. But that term seems unacceptable to anyone who can see that, from ejaculation on, you are always dealing with things that are already alive, and certainly killing a fetus is more than just a "prevention" of life.

---1) See above bit from USA Today.---

An excellent example to dissect. An uncited poll from the Guttmacher Institute, which, as if characteristic of USA today fails tell us things like the alpha, the sample size, and what population an EPSEM was done for (if at all)

To things strike me about that particular data: first that multiple reasons are allowed, meaning that we have no idea how many actual women account for how many of the responses. We have no idea if specific options were mentioned, or if it was open-ended, and then how open-ended responses were grouped together. But more importantly, we have NO percentage for the number of women who cited health reasons for the third-trimester abortion. That seems pretty strange if the idea is to show that it's an uncommon or non-primary reason: you'd normally say "only 2% of respondants mentioned health reasons."

So, all in all, this is not a very helpful cite for really convincing people.

---From the data I've located (from a neutral source) it seems highly unlikely that all 94,000 21+ week abortions were life threatening situations when maternal deaths for those same years is only a couple percent of that total.---

This, too, is not a particularly strong case. First of all, it's not at all the case that the maternal deaths were forseeable, or even that abortion could have prevented them (for instance, my girlfriend has lupus: if she got pregnant, it could cause a flare up which could kill her, utterly regardless of whether she had an abortion at some point or not). Worse, if abortions really do save mother's lives in these cases, then having an abortion would prevent a death or serious injury. So we can't just count them as a sort of representation of what pregnancies were potentially dangerous. Not to mention that this gives us no information at all about conditions that involve deformed or doomed babies.

---Still, I support continuing to use the act of birth to define the beginning of humanity, because it seems so natural.---

Well, I don't see birth as a particularly important moment morally. Why would it be?

beagledave

01-15-2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by NurseCarmen
here you go (http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=143)

Umm you didn't tell me where the ACLU got their data points from.

Your USA Today [http://www.usatoday.com/elect/ee/ee034.htm]cite[/url] also has a nice factoid showing that only 1% of all abortions are 3rd tri (when D&X's are performed).

Okay....of course no one in this thread (certainly not me) is claiming that 3rd trimester abortions make up a huge percentage of the total number of abortions...so not sure what your point is..

Now to the point of refuting the quotes: You have got to be kidding me. I could cite a link from Iraq where Bush is avowing his allegence to Satan. Would you beleive that? The Haskell quotes wreak of propaganda that is belched up by BOTH sides and spread throughout the web as fact.

Umm, Dr Haskell and Dr McMahon are/were abortion providers. Their quotes are from an interview for a medical journal, and testimony before congress. (further analysis of McMahon's data was done by Dr. Katherine Dowling, a family physician at the University of Southern California School of Medicine) Not quite sure how those are analagous to Iraqi newspaper comments about Bush.

If you want another source, Knock yerself out. This (http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr1833.htm) is from testimony before the House of Reps Judiciary Cmtee.

CrazyCatLady

01-15-2003, 02:44 PM

Umm, am I the only one noticing that beagledave is using stats on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions to rebut a comment on partial birth abortions? It was my understanding that PBA's were done on pretty much full-term pregnancies, i.e. those at 36-40 weeks. I'm fairly sure the statistics on that time range are rather different than those for 20-24 week (the first cite) or at 16 weeks and up (the second cite).

Please, if I'm misunderstanding the terms, correct me. If not, does anyone have any statistics for abortions past 36 weeks?

Apos

01-15-2003, 02:46 PM

---So the law in some states considers an unborn fetus that is 5 or 6 months into gestation human enough to be killed.---

One really shouldn't look to the law for consistency. Especially because of cases like this: these sorts of laws are often proposed and supported by anti-abortion people precisely BECAUSE they help cut away at the legal case for late abortions: they help establish rights to the fetus.

cuauhtemoc

01-15-2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
Ahh...the "Stick Your Head in the Sand and Hope the Problem Goes Away or Doesn't Bother You" method of thinking.

Ahh... the "Hammer people into neat little boxes so they can more easily participate in USA Today opinion polls" method of whatever it is you're doing.

Snickers

01-15-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by NurseCarmen
99% of the partial birth abortions aren't done on the basis of "Mommy has decided she doesn't want it". They are done due to a medical condition of the fetus or when the mother's life is at risk.

Thank you, NurseCarmen, for bringing this up. I read through the article linked in the OP and questioned the 2200 D&X abortion figure myself - simply because it wasn't qualified. The article doesn't state how many of the D&X's were performed because of some other reason, such as the baby's death, fatal condition, or threat to the mother. Nope, we're just supposed to assume these were all abortions, with all the connotations that word carries. And that's simply not the case.

Now, IANADoctor, pro-lifer, or what have you. However, my father is a doctor, and it's his opinion that D&X's are a vanishingly small percentage of abortions, and are usually performed only when the baby cannot live or the mother is threatened. The 0.17% of abortions figure cited in the OP's linked article lends more credibility to this opinion. The truth is - these procedures are not carried out very often. And they're largely not done as abortions - hell, I've read stories of women on this board who've had them due to miscarrages.

But pro-lifers (or what have you) like to jump on them because the nature of the procedure is grisly and shocking. And they like to characterize all abortions as D&X's because it's got shock value. And that disgusts me. Yes, let's do go ahead and ban a rarely-used procedure that more often than not saves lives because of other complications. Brilliant reasoning.

Yep, put me in the No camp. Do not ban these procedures - just don't. Keep 'em legal.

And sorry, beagledave, a cite from the National Right to Life Campaign doesn't count as objective, in my book. Not on this topic. The Religious Tolerance's website gives it a little less biased coverage and states that D&X's account for only 1% of abortions: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm. Grim's first cite says the same thing. This site - http://www.aradia.org/DandX.html - says that in 1995, three third trimester abortions (not necessarily D&X procedures) were performed out of approximately 25,000 in Washington state. Those're about the least biased I could find, and the second is admittedly pretty biased.

Snicks

Grim_Beaker

01-15-2003, 03:12 PM

NurseCarmen

Regarding your quote:

... but that states may regulate and even proscribe abortions after viability except where necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.

In Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=410&invol=179) the courts defined health to be defined "in light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors relate to health."

Since all abortions have an emotional and psychological component to them this basically allows any woman to have an abortion if she feels the pregnancy is "emotionally damaging" to her. Basically, abortion on demand. Besides which I believe the late abortion standard should be endangerment to the woman's life, not some vaguely written definition of health.

... only 1% of all abortions are 3rd tri (when D&X's are performed).

If you'll refer back to the statistics in my first post you'll find that the 94,000 late term abortions over those years are the results of the 1 - 2% of abortions. 94,000 in 6 years. We didn't have 94,000 American combat deaths in Vietnam. 1% is a *very* big deal.

Grim

Siege

01-15-2003, 03:39 PM

The problem is, many of the same people who are in favor of making third trimester abortions illegal are also in favor of adding additional requirements for getting an abortion, such as requiring counseling take place in a separate visit which occurs more than 24 hours before the procedure takes place. In addition, in some states there aren't that many doctors who will perform abortions, especially late term ones. So, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, the nearest doctor who'll perform one is over 100 miles away, and her state requires counseling 24 hours before the actual abortion (this is not an unlikely scenario), things become much more complicated.

CJ

beagledave

01-15-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
Umm, am I the only one noticing that beagledave is using stats on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions to rebut a comment on partial birth abortions?

When i look at the top of my browser..the thread title that I see is "Partial Birth Abortion & Late Term Abortion --should they be prohibited".

So my comments include both PBAs and other abortions included under the description "late term".

I note that you and others are questioning the definition of "later term" abortions starting at 16 weeks. I would point out that this definition comes from the Guttmacher Institute, the affiliate of Planned Parenthood...so perhaps you'd want to pass on your objections to them. ;)

Grim_Beaker

01-15-2003, 03:54 PM

Apos

Regarding:

First of all, it's not at all the case that the maternal deaths were forseeable, or even that abortion could have prevented them (for instance, my girlfriend has lupus: if she got pregnant, it could cause a flare up which could kill her, utterly regardless of whether she had an abortion at some point or not). Worse, if abortions really do save mother's lives in these cases, then having an abortion would prevent a death or serious injury. So we can't just count them as a sort of representation of what pregnancies were potentially dangerous.

I wasn't as clear as I should have been in my original post. My position is as follows:

Third semester abortions should not be allowed except in cases where the woman's *LIFE* is in danger. I would probably even be ok if "health" was included provided that the definition of "health" used is unambiguous and pertains only to serious issues (i.e. permanent debilitation, drastic shortening of the woman's life span, etc.). My point in making the comparisons in my first post was to point out my skepticism that a threat to a woman's life exists in a majority of the 21+ week abortion cases.

The maternal death rate was for women who had live births. Presumably, since these were live births, these women opted to not have an abortion. I think it's reasonable to assume that the maternal death rate for women who decided to have their babies would be similar to the maternal death rate of women who opted for abortion (if those women decided to have the baby rather than have an abortion). If we apply the 7.5 average maternal deaths per 100,000 live births figure to the women who had the aforementioned 21+ week abortions we could expect that about 7 of the women would have actually died from the process.

Even if I were incredibly lenient and said that for this group of women the chances of them dying were 100 times the national average that's still only 700 maternal deaths. It seems highly improbable that these abortions are occuring because the mother's life is in danger. Obviously there are other reasons why these women are choosing abortion at such a late date.

Grim

CrazyCatLady

01-15-2003, 04:19 PM

Yeah, Dave, but the 99% figure you kept waving about was specifically about PBA's. I can quote NurseCarmen's post if you want. :D

Apos

01-15-2003, 07:00 PM

---The maternal death rate was for women who had live births. Presumably, since these were live births, these women opted to not have an abortion.---

Which ruins the whole train of thought. Women who are at serious risk are much less likely to then HAVE a live birth... because presumably a lot of them go on to have abortions.

---I think it's reasonable to assume that the maternal death rate for women who decided to have their babies would be similar to the maternal death rate of women who opted for abortion (if those women decided to have the baby rather than have an abortion).---

Again, that's just sloppy, because the number of women that die from live births is reduced by the number of women who choose to have abortions for medical reasons, forseeing the risk. What you really need are a population of women that can represent the current population as a whole, but who cannot choose to have late-term abortions in response to risk.

You also have a host of other factors to consider. For instance, it could be that those women who don't have abortions are poorer and get poor medical care to begin with (and thus are much more likely to die of complications with pregnancies). Some of these factors could work one way, and some the other: the end result being that this doesn't really provide useful information for making either case.

Also, beagle: I see you've posted much more informative stats since I starting posting.

Since you didn't summarize it for everyone: the rate of medical reasons for abortion is listed at 6% (while rape is 1%) for abortions overall in that cite. For late-term abortions, we again are left with a multiple reason questionaire and no tabluation for all medical reasons (just for late-discovered abnormalities, at 2%) though it is perhaps slipped into the "other" category (11%).

AGI and PFSR are both reputable, though again the cite doesn't give me any of the data I need to evaluate the validity of their statistics or methods.

If third-trimester abortions are restricted except for medical and rape reasons in 40 states, what's going on? Is this an issue of making laws for those remaining 10 states, or is it a matter of enforcing the laws better? What's the federal interest here?

kanicbird

01-15-2003, 07:09 PM

If the fetus is viable if removed from the mother and removing him alive does not pose a health risk greater then aborting him, why is he killed instead of allowed to live outside the mother? why not just remove him and put him up for adoption (as there is a great demand for adopted babies)?

beagledave

01-15-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Apos

Also, beagle: I see you've posted much more informative stats since I starting posting.

Since you didn't summarize it for everyone: the rate of medical reasons for abortion is listed at 6% (while rape is 1%) for abortions overall in that cite. For late-term abortions, we again are left with a multiple reason questionaire and no tabluation for all medical reasons (just for late-discovered abnormalities, at 2%) though it is perhaps slipped into the "other" category (11%).

AGI and PFSR are both reputable, though again the cite doesn't give me any of the data I need to evaluate the validity of their statistics or methods.

The limitations (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib14.html) of U.S. stats on abortions.

There are few authoritative data to support claims regarding how many late-term abortions are performed, and little understanding of the complexities involved in securing such data. This Issues in Brief describes how abortion data are obtained, what they consist of and why they have inherent limitations.

At the very least, in terms of "reasons" for abortions (late term or otherwise)..the AGI surverys rely, problematically, on reasons supplied by the women getting the procedures.

The reasonable reader might conclude that there are social pressures that might influence abortion recepients to offer a more "palatable" answer to that kind of question. (In a vague sense, similar to the number of people who claim that they voted in an election, compared to the number of people who actually did)

For CrazyCatLady..to get back to your PBA question: They are performed in the second and third trimesters..not just after 36 weeks.

Indeed, there has been (at least in the past), a campaign of disinformation about when and why PBAs have been performed. See this (http://www.tnr.com/textonly/032497/txtpowers032497.html) piece from the New Republic..hardly a right wing journal.

"A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies." --Lead sentence of a story in The New York Times, February 26, 1997, page A-12

and

The media's reticence is especially odd since the truth seems rather gettable. The difficult spade-work on the story was begun impressively last year by a few journalists who reported that the real number of partial-birth abortions did not jibe with the statements of the abortion-rights advocates. Ruth Padawer, a staff writer for The Record newspaper in Bergen, New Jersey, broke the story last September, simply by doing a little Journalism 101: she called local clinics, asked how many of these abortions they performed, did some math and wrote up her conclusions: "Interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year, three times the supposed national rate. Moreover, doctors say only a `minuscule amount' are for medical reasons." Days later, David Brown and Barbara Vobejda of The Washington Post reported similar findings. And the American Medical News reporter who wrote the Fitzsimmons story, Diane Gianelli, first reported way back in 1993 that the annual total of partial- birth abortions might be in the thousands, and that the majority are elective.

At this point, I think I can point out that the claim that "99%" of PBAs are performed for serious maternal health issues or serious fetal defects has been shown to be false by a wide range of sources..including independent reporters from The Nation, The Washington Post, The Record Newspaper.

Unfortunately, the Washington Post online archives do not go back to 1996...but do a search on the reporters and you'll get the jist of their piece..

The September 17 edition of the Washington Post contained the results of an investigation conducted by staff writers Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several abortionists (not those in New Jersey), and concluded:

"It is possible-- and maybe even likely-- that the majority of these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy.... Instead, the "typical" patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical."

tracer

01-15-2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by k2dave
If the fetus is viable if removed from the mother and removing him alive does not pose a health risk greater then aborting him, why is he killed instead of allowed to live outside the mother? why not just remove him and put him up for adoption (as there is a great demand for adopted babies)?
If there's such a great demand for adopted babies, why are there kids in foster homes?

Dignan

01-15-2003, 08:26 PM

Two people had annecdotal evidence that there are women that use abortion as a method of birth control. Interesting side note, I have evidence that there are people that use guns to rob banks and/or kill people.

Originally posted by tracer
If there's such a great demand for adopted babies, why are there kids in foster homes?

Because the demand is for white babies that are healthy.

Apos

01-15-2003, 09:43 PM

---At the very least, in terms of "reasons" for abortions (late term or otherwise)..the AGI surverys rely, problematically, on reasons supplied by the women getting the procedures. ---

Well, again, unless I can see the actual statistical findings, I can't comment on the internal or external validity of their findings at all. The questions being both potentially open-ended, self-reported, and non-exclusive simply aren't anywhere near the only potential problem. All I can say is that AGI is a pretty darn good, respected group when it comes to researching these things.

BURNER

01-15-2003, 09:52 PM

After takeing the rest of the day to think about it , I have the ultimate answer to the main question of the OP. My answer is: If you cant give birth then you have no right to tell anyone anything about abortion. If you are not a woman then your opinion about abortion is irrelevant. You cant empathize,sympathize,identify with or ever be in a position to go through with one, so stop being such bullies. It isnt your bodie, so please keep your politics and lofty morals off of it. For the women, unless you are the one carrying the foetus you dont have much of a say either. Abortion may be a horrible crime to you. Dont assume it is that way for everyone. Just like everything else, if you dont like it then dont do it. If you respect the rights of others you will have your own rights respected in return.

ElwoodCuse

01-16-2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by BURNER
My answer is: If you cant give birth then you have no right to tell anyone anything about abortion. If you are not a woman then your opinion about abortion is irrelevant. You cant empathize,sympathize,identify with or ever be in a position to go through with one, so stop being such bullies.

Does that mean men can't be against rape either? I don't think that analogy holds up.

(I'm pro-choice anyway, though.)

istara

01-16-2003, 02:20 AM

I am with cjhoworth and other on this. You can't ban a medical procedure that is required to save a woman's life.

In other words: by the logic that a late-term abortion is murder, if you *don't* abort to save the baby, and the mother dies, then that is murder too.

Oh, so you think it's okay to kill a full term baby in the normal prosess of being born with just the head still in the birth canal by stabbing it in the back of the neck and sucking the brains out. You call this a fetus!? Just because all of a sudden mommy decides she doesn't want it. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand? How any doctor who would perform this legalized murder could sleep at night is beyond my comprehension!
His4Ever - I find your comments sensationalist and appalling. They do you no credit. I have no issue with people being allowed their own points of view.

istara

01-16-2003, 02:27 AM

Sorry - pressed return or something before I was ready.

To continue [...their own points of view] but I find your choice of terms a worrying misrepresentation on doctors. Do you describe heart surgery as "stabbing someone in the chest"?

Also, please bear in mind that not everyone believes in your God, or any god, and even if they do they may not share the same religion/scripture/doctine as you do. "Thou shalt not kill" is not a part of everyone's personal belief system.

I don't think you are representing your side of the fence very well at all.

Apos

01-16-2003, 03:25 AM

---If you are not a woman then your opinion about abortion is irrelevant.---

One might as well argue that if one is not currently a fetus, one cannot have a releveant opinion about abortion.

---"Thou shalt not kill" is not a part of everyone's personal belief system.---

Even for those for whom it is, the real questions are "thou shalt not kill WHAT and WHY?"

Consuela Bobuela

01-16-2003, 05:11 AM

Dr George Tiller, here in Wichita, Ks. is one of the few physicians in the country who perform late term abortions. He was shot 4 years ago outside his Women's Health Care Services clinic, but he survived. He now wears a kevlar vest when he is in public.

Here is a link to the standars form patients must sign when having a preganancy terminated at WHCS. Scroll down the page and pay close attention to number 11.
http://www.drtiller.com/ic1b.html

I am fervently pro choice. It's my body and my decision.

Jamie

Grim_Beaker

01-16-2003, 12:27 PM

Apos

Which ruins the whole train of thought. Women who are at serious risk are much less likely to then HAVE a live birth... because presumably a lot of them go on to have abortions.

I agree that women who are at a serious health risk are more likely to opt for abortion and that further this is likely to reduce the percentage of women who die related to pregnancy complications. More on this below (Opinion 2).

Again, that's just sloppy, because the number of women that die from live births is reduced by the number of women who choose to have abortions for medical reasons, forseeing the risk. What you really need are a population of women that can represent the current population as a whole, but who cannot choose to have late-term abortions in response to risk.

I also agree that this is a crude measurement. Certainly other factors are not being accounted for here.

This (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/pdf/mm4838.pdf) site has a table showing the maternal mortality rate all the way back to the year 1900. Then the rate was approximately 825 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. This rate continued to drop, especially during the 50's, presumably because of advancements in medical care. The first state legalized abortions were performed in the mid 60's. Therefore:

Opinion 1. IMHO It is reasonable to assume that current day maternal mortality rates for women who had a late term abortion (assuming they decided to keep the baby instead) would be at least as low as the rate during 1960 (a year when legalized abortion was not an option). The maternal death rate during 1960 was approximately 20 deaths per 100,000 live births. Using this maternal death rate the number of expected dead for those 94,000 abortions would have been about 19. If we used 1900 era maternal death rates (again, prior to legalized abortion) then the approximate number of maternal deaths would have been around 776.

Opinion 2. IMHO, even though other factors are not accounted for there is no factor I can think of that can explain the number of late term abortions solely based on a "life risk" criteria.

A few questions for you then Apos.

1. Is it your opinion that most (i.e. 51% or 47,953) of the 94,027 pregnant mothers during that 6 year period chose to have an abortion because of a life threatening risk?

2. Assuming that the 94,027 late term abortions were performed because of a life threatening reason, what factor(s) (that haven't been accounted for by anyone in this thread yet), in your opinion, could reasonably cause the maternal death rate to raise to the level wherein that number of late term abortions would be justified. In other words, what factor(s), do you think could account for a potential maternal death rate that is over 10,000 times current day levels and over 100 times 1900 levels.

Grim

silverfish

01-16-2003, 01:43 PM

Opinion 1. IMHO It is reasonable to assume that current day maternal mortality rates for women who had a late term abortion (assuming they decided to keep the baby instead) would be at least as low as the rate during 1960 (a year when legalized abortion was not an option). The maternal death rate during 1960 was approximately 20 deaths per 100,000 live births. Using this maternal death rate the number of expected dead for those 94,000 abortions would have been about 19. If we used 1900 era maternal death rates (again, prior to legalized abortion) then the approximate number of maternal deaths would have been around 776.

The problem here is that you are assuming the maternal death rate for all live births to be the expected death rate in the case where the mother chose late term abortion, if the mother didn't choose the abortion. But to assume that you have to know that the mothers are of no particular risk in those cases, which is the proposition that you seem to be trying to support. If the mothers are at risk in this case, then that could well explain why the number of deaths would be more than expected, because the expectation would be based on an erroneous assumption.

I therefore think that any conclusion reached from this will be circular, in that you have to assume that these women are not at risk for the figures to make your case.

Grim_Beaker

01-16-2003, 03:41 PM

silverfish

But to assume that you have to know that the mothers are of no particular risk in those cases, which is the proposition that you seem to be trying to support. If the mothers are at risk in this case, then that could well explain why the number of deaths would be more than expected, because the expectation would be based on an erroneous assumption.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to convey here. I think what you're saying is something like:

"Women who choose to have late term abortions are likely to have higher health risk rates then women who decided to give birth and that therefore they are also more likely to have a higher maternal death rate. Due to this higher probable rate it wouldn't be accurate to apply the maternal death rate for live births to the aforementioned set of women who chose late term abortions."

Is this the essence of what you're saying?

If so, some thoughts and some questions for you. In 1960 there were no legalized abortions in the United States. Unless a woman had an illegal abortion (and IMHO even then it is unlikely that she would have had access to an expert medical opinion on which to assess whether the pregnancy posed a risk to her life) it seems reasonable to assume that, barring a miscarriage, the baby would have to be carried to full term and born.

1. Can a woman without professional medical training reasonably assess the risk a pregnancy poses to her life?

2. Could a woman reasonably obtain such a risk evaluation from a competent physician in 1960?

3. If expert medical assessment isn't available (i.e. answers to questions 1 & 2 are both "No") is it reasonable to conclude that illegal abortions performed during 1960 were prevalently for other reasons? (i.e. social, financial, emotional, etc.)

4. Unless a woman opted for an illegal abortion in 1960 is it reasonable to assume that (barring miscarriage) the baby would be born?

5. Is it reasonable to assume that some of the women in 1960 who gave birth would have opted for abortion instead had it been a legal option?

6. Is it reasonable to assume that the maternal death rate in 1960 includes those women who would have opted for abortion?

Also, I'd like you to answer the same questions I asked Apos. Here they are again:

1. Is it your opinion that most (i.e. 51% or 47,953) of the 94,027 pregnant mothers during that 6 year period chose to have an abortion because of a life threatening risk?

2. Assuming that the 94,027 late term abortions were performed because of a life threatening reason, what factor(s) (that haven't been accounted for by anyone in this thread yet), in your opinion, could reasonably cause the maternal death rate to raise to the level wherein that number of late term abortions would be justified. In other words, what factor(s), do you think could account for a potential maternal death rate that is over 10,000 times current day levels and over 100 times 1900 levels.

If I've misinterpreted the meaning of your statement above. Please clarify what your message.

Grim

silverfish

01-16-2003, 04:31 PM

"Women who choose to have late term abortions are likely to have higher health risk rates then women who decided to give birth and that therefore they are also more likely to have a higher maternal death rate. Due to this higher probable rate it wouldn't be accurate to apply the maternal death rate for live births to the aforementioned set of women who chose late term abortions."

Is this the essence of what you're saying?

No, that is not what I am saying. I am not making any claims on what the rate of death would be for woman who choose late term abortions. However, you seem to be assuming that the women who have chosen late term abortion have the same risk of dying as for women generally who give birth, which only applies if women now don't tend to go for late term abortion because of medical risk, which seems to be the conclusion you are drawing. If this is the case, your argument is circular.

I think it likely that women who would now have had late term abortions would probably have given birth if they lived in the 1960's. However, if those women were at particular risk, then for obvious reasons their mortality rate would be higher than the average for all live births.

Grim_Beaker

01-16-2003, 05:36 PM

silverfish

However, you seem to be assuming that the women who have chosen late term abortion have the same risk of dying as for women generally who give birth, ...

I've been assuming that differences in maternal death rates would not be drastically different between the two. With you so far.

... which only applies if women now don't tend to go for late term abortion because of medical risk, which seems to be the conclusion you are drawing. If this is the case, your argument is circular.

Ok, is this closer to your characterization of my stance?

"Women who have late term abortions are not at risk. Therefore, women who have late term abortions are not doing it because of a life threatening risk."

I can see how it may sound circular. However my actual position is closer to this:

Evidence: Maternal death rates are extremely low.
Conclusion: Women have late term abortions for non life threatening reasons.

As far as I can tell I'm not using circular logic. I'm using the data regarding maternal death rates to form a conclusion regarding why a particular reason is not a probable cause. This is no different in format then a statement like:

"Marge never eats cookies. Since she buys cookies anyway it must be for a different reason then eating them."

I think it likely that women who would now have had late term abortions would probably have given birth if they lived in the 1960's. However, if those women were at particular risk, then for obvious reasons their mortality rate would be higher than the average for all live births.

I can see what you're saying here. Let's posit a group of 100 women, 50 (Group A) who are at a high risk level due to medical reasons during a pregnancy and 50 (Group B) who are relatively risk free during their pregnancy. Further, let's say that none of the women opt for abortion. Now let's say that the results turn out to be 20 dead from Group A and 1 dead from Group B for a total of 21 dead due to pregnancy complications. That evaluates to an average maternal death rate of 21% for both of the groups put together, yet the maternal death rate for Group A is 40% while the maternal death rate for Group B is 2%.

However, let's look at the data on the scale that we've been discussing. The table showing the maternal death rate during 1960 shows those death rates in relation to 100,000 live births. Now, let's posit several arbitrary sets of data and see how the results come out. In all of these scenarios Group A will be the high risk group and Group B will be the low risk group. Also, the maternal death rate used will be that from 1960.

Scenario 1:

Group A: 50,000 women
Group B: 50,000 women

Deaths from:

Group A: 20
Group B: 0

Chance of dying:

Group A: .04%
Group B: 0%

Scenario 2:

Group A: 25,000 women
Group B: 75,000 women

Deaths from:

Group A: 20
Group B: 0

Chance of dying:

Group A: .08%
Group B: 0%

Scenario 3:

Group A: 5,000 women
Group B: 95,000 women

Deaths from:

Group A: 20
Group B: 0

Chance of dying:

Group A: .4%
Group B: 0%

Scenario 4:

Group A: 1,000 women
Group B: 99,000 women

Deaths from:

Group A: 20
Group B: 0

Chance of dying:

Group A: 2%
Group B: 0%

Even if the high risk group was comprised of only 1% of all pregnant women, and all of the deaths were from that group, the chances of dying are still only 2%.

Grim

Stratocaster

01-16-2003, 09:23 PM

But what if you carry it even further?

Scenario 5:

Group A: 20 women
Group B: 99,980 women

Deaths from:

Group A: 20
Group B: 0

Chance of dying:

Group A: 100%
Group B: 0%

Isn't that silverfish's point (using an admittedly extreme example)? If women in life-threatening situations are those that seek these kinds of abortions, then using the death rate of the general population would draw a wrong conclusion.

I believe you are right (Dave's cites support this), but I'm not sure I buy your "statistical" evidence, at least in the way you're spelled it out.

silverfish

01-17-2003, 08:48 AM

I've been assuming that differences in maternal death rates would not be drastically different between the two. With you so far.

Yes, I see. I don't think it is justified though, just via the data, as there may be differences between the cases, and we don't know how big the differences are in this case.

Ok, is this closer to your characterization of my stance?

"Women who have late term abortions are not at risk. Therefore, women who have late term abortions are not doing it because of a life threatening risk."
[QUOTE]

That's what it sounded like, yes, although less transparently circular.

[QUOTE]Evidence: Maternal death rates are extremely low.
Conclusion: Women have late term abortions for non life threatening reasons.

As far as I can tell I'm not using circular logic. I'm using the data regarding maternal death rates to form a conclusion regarding why a particular reason is not a probable cause. This is no different in format then a statement like:

"Marge never eats cookies. Since she buys cookies anyway it must be for a different reason then eating them."

The problem with this is I don't think it fits you argument. Your argument seems to be more that most women don't eat cookies, therefore marge is a typical women, so her cookie buying must be for another reason. In that case, though we might assume that she eats them, and is therefore atypical of women, because that is what most people do with cookies. This doesn't apply in the case of late term abortion, as there are other plausible reasons.

The problem is assuming that marge is typical. The argument might not be circular as such, but I thing you are assuming that late term women would have similar death rates to 'normal' women, which doesn't seem justified to me. The reason it appear circular is that the assumption of similar death rates is one that is closely linked to the disputed claims that women who have late term abortions do so because they are not at particular risk, which isn't far from saying that they aren't at particular risk.

Also, with the scenarios you seem to be using 20 dead each time, without scaling for the population concerned, whereas it would be expected that a higher population would have a higher death toll, for anyone.

Grim_Beaker

01-17-2003, 11:56 AM

silverfish

The argument might not be circular as such, but I thing you are assuming that late term women would have similar death rates to 'normal' women, which doesn't seem justified to me.

...

Also, with the scenarios you seem to be using 20 dead each time, without scaling for the population concerned, whereas it would be expected that a higher population would have a higher death toll, for anyone.

In the above hypothetical scenarios it is scaled for population. The numbers I was using (100,000 total births with 20 maternal deaths) comes directly from the table I cited above. Here (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/pdf/mm4838.pdf) is the cite from the CDC again for easy reference. The 20 deaths is not an arbitrary figure I pulled from thin air, it's the actual maternal death rate per 100,000 women in the U.S. during 1960. According to this (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t991x01.pdf) file from the CDC the number of births in 1960 was 4,257,850. 20 maternal deaths per 100,000 births equates out to approximately 851 maternal deaths for 1960. Even if we assumed that ALL of those maternal deaths during 1960 were from the high risk group it would take an extremely skewed distribution between Group A and Group B in order for there to be a significant risk to the members of Group A. Please note that the distribution between Group A and Group B is what actually determines the risk to life that pregnancy poses to Group A (per my examples which show that the fewer women in Group A the greater the risk to that group, assuming that the majority of deaths came from that group). Yes, Group A will likely have higher death rates. However I don't think that Group A will have drastically higher death rates. IMHO I highly doubt it's more than a hundred times the rate of 'normal' women.

Just for illustration, a last example (again, this is actual real world data, only the distribution between Group A and Group B and the assumption that 100 of the deaths would be for Group A and only 1 for Group B is hypothetical):

Total group amount: 505,000 (at 20 deaths per 100,000 this will give us 101 deaths, 100 for Group A, 1 for Group B. The above hypothetical "100 times higher" death rate)

Group A: 2525 (.5% of the total)
Group B: 502475 (99.5% of the total)

Death rate for

Group A: 4%
Group B: .0002%

Actually in this case the death rate isn't 100 times higher. The number of deaths is 100 times higher but the death rate is actually 20,000 times higher for Group A. I can't think of *any* medical condition which boosts the death rate for *any* health problem by 20,000 times.

Bob Cos

Isn't that silverfish's point (using an admittedly extreme example)? If women in life-threatening situations are those that seek these kinds of abortions, then using the death rate of the general population would draw a wrong conclusion.

I believe you are right (Dave's cites support this), but I'm not sure I buy your "statistical" evidence, at least in the way you're spelled it out.

I completely agree that the stats I've posted do not answer the question to the degree of accuracy that I would like. However, the distributions between Group A and Group B would have to be highly skewed in order for it to really make a difference. In your hypothetical scenario 5 Group A is only .02% of the total. What are the chances of that? I'll state right out that I don't know the actual distribution and that my stance is based on my opinion that it is reasonable to assume that the number of women in Group A is not so low as to present a great risk to them even if *all* the maternal deaths came from that group. As such I don't claim that the case is proven. As in 100% undisputed fact.

Dave's cites support the notion that women generally don't have late term abortions for life threatening reasons. My statistical evidence seems to suggest that maternal deaths are unlikely, even with a highly skewed distribution, and even assuming that current day medical science generates the same death rate as 40 years ago.

Just one question for anyone who wishes to respond (silverfish, Bob Cos, Apos, whoever).

Do you support the ability for a woman to have a late term abortions for a non life threatening reason?

Consuela Bobuela

01-17-2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker

Just one question for anyone who wishes to respond (silverfish, Bob Cos, Apos, whoever).

Do you support the ability for a woman to have a late term abortions for a non life threatening reason? [/B]

Yes.

Grim_Beaker

01-17-2003, 12:55 PM

Consuela, I don't want to assume anything beyond what you have posted so I wanted to ask you a clarifying question. Would that include a healthy woman and fetus who decided to have an abortion at 9 months for a purely trivial reason?

Consuela Bobuela

01-18-2003, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
Consuela, I don't want to assume anything beyond what you have posted so I wanted to ask you a clarifying question. Would that include a healthy woman and fetus who decided to have an abortion at 9 months for a purely trivial reason?

I would have to allow this or risk being a hypocrite. However, I don't think a lot of women would be lining up 9 months pregnant waiting to get an abortion on a whim.
Look, it's not something I would advise, but I won't say to a woman she can't do it. Why can I say it's ok at 8 weeks but not at 24 weeks?

J

Stratocaster

01-18-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
I completely agree that the stats I've posted do not answer the question to the degree of accuracy that I would like. However, the distributions between Group A and Group B would have to be highly skewed in order for it to really make a difference. In your hypothetical scenario 5 Group A is only .02% of the total. What are the chances of that?If one believed that women principally sought late-term abortions because of life-threatening conditions, the chances become greater. This would skew the distributions significantly.

Change the deaths to 10 for group A and 10 for group B in scenario 5. Now the chance is 50% for group A and a tiny, tiny percentage for group B, if that's more plausible. The point is that if one believes women seek this procedure principally because they're in danger (I do NOT), your stats don't dispute this, unless I'm missing something (always a possibility). It would be the same, I think, as arguing that most of the people going to cancer hospitals couldn't be doing so because of a life-threatening condition, because their numbers would suggest a significantly higher death rate per 100,000 than we see on average. Well, of course they do, and if I already believed cancer hospitals were for critically ill patients, then your stats would do nothing to sway me the other way.

Again, I do NOT believe that most late-term abortions are for life-threatening conditions. I don't believe it's even a significant percentage, much less a majority. Dave's cites, for example, support that. But I don't think your extrapolation is necessarily a sound counter argument for the reason mentioned.Just one question for anyone who wishes to respond (silverfish, Bob Cos, Apos, whoever).

Do you support the ability for a woman to have a late term abortions for a non life threatening reason? I do not. I do not believe abortion can be justified in ANY situation or stage of pregnancy except when the mother's life is in imminent and significant danger and abortion can remedy that condition. I believe that is a rare circumstance, and that an extremely large percentage of abortions are for other reasons.

SojournerSamson

01-18-2003, 08:32 AM

Forty three states have Safe Haven laws.
If mothers have an alternative can"t men and women of conscience encourage safe, legal, and rare abortion at the woman's discretion?

Stratocaster

01-18-2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by SojournerSamson
Forty three states have Safe Haven laws.
If mothers have an alternative can"t men and women of conscience encourage safe, legal, and rare abortion at the woman's discretion? Don't follow you. Can you clarify?

elfkin477

01-18-2003, 09:42 AM

[i] Originally posted by k2dave
If the fetus is viable if removed from the mother and removing him alive does not pose a health risk greater then aborting him, why is he killed instead of allowed to live outside the mother? why not just remove him and put him up for adoption (as there is a great demand for adopted babies)?

Because the demand is for white babies that are healthy. [/B][/QUOTE]

I dare say healthy babies of any color have a much better shot at being adopted than a child older than three or teen of any color who finds themselves suddenly in foster care due to being abused or orphaned. The " why don't pro-life people adopt all the unwanted kids, then, if they're so concerned about the babies" argument fails to take in to consideration the number of children who enter the system after they're babies.

SojournerSamson

01-18-2003, 09:54 AM

There will always be abortion;legal or illegal.
There will always be abused, unwanted,unloved children.
If women can choose to leave a newborn at a hospital, or fire station, with no legal penalty,and if women can safely choose to bear a life or not,then late term abortions will be extremely unusual.
Not all women have access to medical care.
Not all women have a family or support system.

Apos

01-18-2003, 06:33 PM

---1. Is it your opinion that most (i.e. 51% or 47,953) of the 94,027 pregnant mothers during that 6 year period chose to have an abortion because of a life threatening risk?---

No, don't be silly. I'm not saying anything conclusive to this issue, simply pointing out that your argument can't give us an accurate estimate figure. It fails for the simple reason that people respond to incentives, changing their behavior. There have to be far better ways to measure the reasons why women get late-term abortions... and there are, and they've already been quoted in this thread.

You seem to be one of those people who can't distinguish between being skeptical of an argument and being against the potential conclusion you desire.

---Do you support the ability for a woman to have a late term abortions for a non life threatening reason?---

Depends: can I demand that people stop slaughtering veal for food too? I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak for that statement, but to me, very honestly, the ethical considerations are roughly the same. I think it's WRONG that women do it that late for anything other than a strongly countering moral reason, (and wrong period to simply do it all other things equal) and at that point, discomfort or not wanting to give up a baby for adoption has ceased to be a good enough reason.

However, I'm not sure that I can make such a decision for others anymore than I can force my vegitarianism on them.

Blalron

01-18-2003, 11:38 PM

Killing a fetus is no different morally than killing a rat. What makes us uniquely human is our intelligence and personality, which fetuses and newborn babies lack.

Stratocaster

01-19-2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Blalron
Killing a fetus is no different morally than killing a rat. What makes us uniquely human is our intelligence and personality, which fetuses and newborn babies lack. Is it OK to kill comatose patients? Assume the patient is "brain-dead" from hypothermia, a condition that is reversible.

Blalron

01-19-2003, 02:54 PM

Is it OK to kill comatose patients? Assume the patient is "brain-dead" from hypothermia, a condition that is reversible.

No, because there already is an established conciousness and personality that is just beneath the surface (if it is reversible). A newborn has never had an established sense of self, they don't even recognize themselves in the mirror until around age 2.

istara

01-19-2003, 03:44 PM

I am not sure from a religious point of view it is appropriate to keep the "brain-dead" alive artificially, in terms of those in a permanent vegetative state (not hypothermia). After all, might that not stop their soul from being able to travel to Heaven?

SoujournerSamson (cool name, welcome) has hit the nail on the head for me. There will ALWAYS be abortions. There ALWAYS have been. There will ALWAYS be times that they are medically necessary. Let's try to make the procedure as well-informed and uncommon as possible, but when it needs to happen, let it happen with dignity, and proper medical treatment, and not vilification of an already traumatised and suffering woman.

The thing that gets me with the NO! ABORTION! EVER! crowd is how do you guys really view these late term abortion women? I mean how many of them are callous, uncaring women who just couldn't be bothered to get rid of the foetus several months earlier? Whereas how many of them are actually hugely traumatised individuals, suffering physically and mentally, probably wanting desperately to have the child, but making the difficult, tragic choice through medical need or concern for the life quality of that child to have to end its life?

And yes, I do call it a "child." Because it doesn't really matter what you call it. The point is, that these women and their doctors are NOT murderers, and vilifying them in that way to my mind is crime against God. Forgiveness, compassion, understanding anyone???

Stratocaster

01-20-2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Blalron
No, because there already is an established conciousness and personality that is just beneath the surface (if it is reversible). A newborn has never had an established sense of self, they don't even recognize themselves in the mirror until around age 2. Let's not euphemize, okay? What there is, is a flat-line, a completely lack of brain activity. It will likely emerge when the hypothermic symptoms are remedied. But this entity currently has no consciousness or personality. None. Maybe he will someday. Maybe a fetus will too.

Consciousness and personality were your standards, not mine.

Stratocaster

01-20-2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by istara
And yes, I do call it a "child." Because it doesn't really matter what you call it. The point is, that these women and their doctors are NOT murderers, and vilifying them in that way to my mind is crime against God. Forgiveness, compassion, understanding anyone??? Look, you don't like people climbing on their soapboxes, how about you get down off of yours? Do you understand one could just as easily ask you where your "compassion and understanding" are with regard to the unborn. You would find fault with that charge, because of the axioms you hold. If so, then don't hold others in contempt for the same thing.

Grim_Beaker

01-21-2003, 06:04 PM

Sorry to resurrect this thread. I've been away from a computer for a few days and haven't been able to respond. However I did want to make one final response.

Consuela

I would have to allow this or risk being a hypocrite. However, I don't think a lot of women would be lining up 9 months pregnant waiting to get an abortion on a whim. Look, it's not something I would advise, but I won't say to a woman she can't do it. Why can I say it's ok at 8 weeks but not at 24 weeks?

The reason why you might plausibly (not necessarily that I do) say abortion is ok at 8 weeks and not at 24 weeks is that at 8 weeks there really isn't any kind of central nervous system. Many people strongly believe that we get our humanity and self identity at it's basic physical level from our brains. At that stage we don't have brains but at 9 months that baby is definitely (in my book anyway) a person. At 9 months it's really only a technicality of position. IMHO There's *no* difference from a human rights perspective between a healthy baby in a mother's womb at 9 months and that same baby one hour later after delivery. For you to equate abortions at 8 weeks with abortions at 9 months is disappointing and saddening.

Bob Cos

...
But I don't think your extrapolation is necessarily a sound counter argument for the reason mentioned.

Yes. I agree that the argument isn't necessarily sound. However, to me, it is highly suggestive and when used in conjunction with Dave's cites I think it does make a stronger case that abortions are performed (even in the late term) for predominantly non-life threatening reasons.

I do not. I do not believe abortion can be justified in ANY situation or stage of pregnancy except when the mother's life is in imminent and significant danger and abortion can remedy that condition. I believe that is a rare circumstance, and that an extremely large percentage of abortions are for other reasons.

We're in the same boat then Bob. I can understand where you're coming from wrt your objections about the strength (or lack thereof) of the statistics that I've posted as it pertains to this topic. I appreciate your honest criticism of my argument even though for practical purposes we agree on the conclusion (late term abortions shouldn't be allowed for non life threatening reasons). I think it speaks well of you.

Apos

No, don't be silly. I'm not saying anything conclusive to this issue, simply pointing out that your argument can't give us an accurate estimate figure. It fails for the simple reason that people respond to incentives, changing their behavior. There have to be far better ways to measure the reasons why women get late-term abortions... and there are, and they've already been quoted in this thread.

I will accept that there are better ways of determining the reasons why women have late term abortions. I hope I didn't suggest otherwise. However I would argue that the statistics I've posted, while not being absolute 100% proof (one extreme) are similarly not absolutely worthless (the other extreme) with regard to this topic. I believe there is *some* merit in the information gleaned from those cites and that they are supporting evidence (not primary evidence, supporting evidence) for other information posted.

You seem to be one of those people who can't distinguish between being skeptical of an argument and being against the potential conclusion you desire.

Well Apos, I can understand that I may have come across that way. I believe I can accept criticism regarding my argument without needing to categorize posters as "the other side". I realize that you haven't said "anything conclusive to this issue" and rather that you're pointing out what you believe to be a flawed argument. That's all well and good as far as it goes but I would have liked it more if you had posted something more conclusive about the issue. How do you feel about it? Why? What is your supporting evidence? How did you arrive at your conclusion(s)?

Depends: can I demand that people stop slaughtering veal for food too? I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak for that statement, but to me, very honestly, the ethical considerations are roughly the same.

I disagree that the ethical considerations are the same (though they may be for you). That is a topic for an entirely different thread altogether so I'll just acknowledge it at this point and move on.

I think it's WRONG that women do it that late for anything other than a strongly countering moral reason, (and wrong period to simply do it all other things equal) and at that point, discomfort or not wanting to give up a baby for adoption has ceased to be a good enough reason.

On this point then we're largely in agreement.

However, I'm not sure that I can make such a decision for others anymore than I can force my vegitarianism on them.

This question is largely dependent on the "person status" of the fetus. If it can be agreed (big "If" I know) that a fetus at 9 months is, in fact, a person then the decision to prevent a non life threatening abortion in that case is no different then making the decision to prevent a person from murdering a new born.

Grim

Edlyn

01-21-2003, 07:46 PM

This thread has been interesting and I appreciate all the stats that was brought into the discussion. It was an eye opener for me.

I have two questions that have been burning in my mind for a few years now and I wonder if anyone yet has a answer for them. They are: (1) Exactly what life threatening condition(s) could exist for the woman and (2) why are partial birth abortions performed exactly in the manner that they are? Everyone dances around it, but no one seems to discuss it clearly and frankly.

cj: You really surprised me the most in this thread.

istara: You forgot one in your list. At least one form of birth control has ALWAYS been available and it's extremely effective.

And I have to add this comment since Apos brought it up. If a woman foresees risk to her health if she became pregnant, why would she not get her tubes tied? Wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do? Just a thought. :)

onerebelgent

01-21-2003, 08:14 PM

Burner, you're post is ludicrous. (and so is whatever point you were trying to make. HA! You make me laugh)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Adopting 3 children is a good start. Now if all of the other pro-lifers would follow the example then there wouldnt be anymore unwanted children."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, that's it, let's just make the responsible people of the world "clean up" after everyone else. If that's the way you would have it, it would probablly come with conditions (like sterelization for repeat shirkers). People "put down" not just puppies, but the adult dogs that would create them at alarming rates unchecked.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a damn shame that no pro life group will step up and provide legitimate alternatives and help for the mom and child.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again. These groups have given of their time and money to help. Just because you don't like the advice doesn't mean it aint legitimate. It's the Pro-choice groups that don't have legitimate answers, only profit making ones.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let me say it again, if you arent the one carrying the baby then you should mind your own buisness. No one has the right to tell another person what to do with their own bodie."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hears a better one for ya,.......

If it aint you producing every single beat of my heart....BACK OFF!
At least if their born and go through the Hell of an orphanage, they STILL have a chance (look at Dave from Wendy's Fame - Orphan himself and BIG $$$$ supporter of programs).

People that hide behind the self serving quise of "it's better off this way" disgust me.

WAIT! Let me change my position!

I AGREE TO PARTIAL BIRTH! MATTER OF FACT WHY STOP WITH BIRTH? LET'S MAKE IT WHERE WE CAN ABORT ANYBODY AT ANY AGE IF IT WORKS OUT BETTER FOR US AT ANY JUNCTURE!!!!!!

"sorry son, your mother and I have decided to abort you. And I was really looking forward to teaching you how to drive NEXT WEEK TOO!!!!!!"

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS PARTIAL MURDER. PERIOD.

BURNER

01-22-2003, 12:31 AM

Yeah, that's it, let's just make the responsible people of the world "clean up" after everyone else. If that's the way you would have it, it would probablly come with conditions (like sterelization for repeat shirkers). People "put down" not just puppies, but the adult dogs that would create them at alarming rates unchecked.

If you make abortion illegal then you must accept responsibility for your actions. If you are unwilling to take in the unwanted child then you have no right to force another person to. A.K.A. put your money where your mouth is.

Hears a better one for ya,.......

If it aint you producing every single beat of my heart....BACK OFF!
At least if their born and go through the Hell of an orphanage, they STILL have a chance (look at Dave from Wendy's Fame - Orphan himself and BIG $$$$ supporter of programs).

Advice you would do well to follow yourself. Asking for others to "back off" while going on the attack is the tactic of a coward. I also find it interesting that you would mention orphanages as being better than abortion. I guess you dont have what it takes to raise a child and would rather force the burden on someone else. Way to create a double standard.

In closeing I would just like to say that letting your temper get out of hand with outbursts like this cant be good for your health. Please try to remember that this is just the internet. A little bit of common courtesy goes a long ,long way towards makeing you seem like less of an extremist loony.

Ben Hicks

01-22-2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by BURNER

If you make abortion illegal then you must accept responsibility for your actions. If you are unwilling to take in the unwanted child then you have no right to force another person to. A.K.A. put your money where your mouth is.

BURNER, near my house is an enormous public park, stretches on for acres and acres. It was established over 200 years ago and has served generations of local citizens who loved and appreciated it. On clear summer days it's a true idyll. I like to go there with my friends and play football and rugby and also visit the local museums that reside therein.

The local council, however, wants to run a dual carriageway through it. They say it will help local businesses function more effectively by clearing traffic congestion on both sides of the park.

Naturally, I am opposed to the destruction of the park(and believe me, the dual carriageway will destroy it.) and I've made my views known to the council. However, that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to pay the local businesses the money they would lose by not having the dual carriage way ruin this area of outstanding national beauty.

In other words, it is totally logically consistent to object to the destruction of a think without being willing to pay for its upkeep. As such, your "You wanna save it? You pay for it" argument really does fall flat on its face. Hopefully you won't try to pick it up.

BURNER

01-22-2003, 07:30 AM

Naturally, I am opposed to the destruction of the park(and believe me, the dual carriageway will destroy it.) and I've made my views known to the council. However, that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to pay the local businesses the money they would lose by not having the dual carriage way ruin this area of outstanding national beauty.

Central park in NYC has several carrage ways, allong with roads and jogging paths and it is doing just fine. Also , "you wanna save , you pay for it" is totaly aplicable here. If buisness is already getting slow and the town wants to use this project to jump start it, and people oppose it, then if thoes buisnesses fold up you will pay by haveing to go to another town to aquire things that were once just up the street. It wil cost you more time and gas money to travel, whereas if you had let the plan go , you would have a renewed local prosperity and no need to travel.

Ben Hicks

01-22-2003, 07:50 AM

BURNER, I think you're missing the point (surprise!) or you're being intellectually dishonest by deliberately misunderstanding my analogy. I wouldn't have to

Central park in NYC has several carrage ways, allong with roads and jogging paths and it is doing just fine. Also , "you wanna save , you pay for it" is totaly aplicable here. If buisness is already getting slow and the town wants to use this project to jump start it, and people oppose it, then if thoes buisnesses fold up you will pay by haveing to go to another town to aquire things that were once just up the street. It wil cost you more time and gas money to travel, whereas if you had let the plan go , you would have a renewed local prosperity and no need to travel.

I think you're missing the point (surprise!) or you're being intellectually dishonest by deliberately misunderstanding my analogy. I wouldn't have to pay for it in the same way I would have to pay for newborns under the scheme you're proposing. Yeah, it might cost me a little more to drive a little further but I'm still not paying for the park. You're suggesting I pay for the newborns. I have no moral obligation to do that. If, as the result of a hypothetical illegalisation of abortions, there is a tax hike or something, then I would have no problem paying that but that is not what you're asking me to do. You're asking me to give direct care and aid to the newborns. I am under no moral obligation to do that any more than I am under a moral obligation to go to the congested side of the park, walk into a small business and say "Here you go Mr small business owner, sir. Here's $1000.00 to cover any expenses incurred by the cancellation of plans to build the dual carriage way as a result of my protest against it".

In short, I don't need to justify my opposition to the destruction of a thing, any thing by throwing money at it the way you're asking me to. It is enough that the destruction is immoral.

And that is a lot more clear cut when it comes to the abortion debate than it is when it comes to discussing the future of my local park.

Ben Hicks

01-22-2003, 07:51 AM

Oops, one day I'll master the cut 'n paste tools on this thing ;)

BURNER

01-22-2003, 08:02 AM

I wouldn't have to pay for it in the same way I would have to pay for newborns under the scheme you're proposing. Yeah, it might cost me a little more to drive a little further but I'm still not paying for the park. You're suggesting I pay for the newborns. I have no moral obligation to do that. If, as the result of a hypothetical illegalisation of abortions, there is a tax hike or something, then I would have no problem paying that but that is not what you're asking me to do. You're asking me to give direct care and aid to the newborns. I am under no moral obligation to do that any more than I am under a moral obligation to go to the congested side of the park, walk into a small business and say "Here you go Mr small business owner, sir. Here's $1000.00 to cover any expenses incurred by the cancellation of plans to build the dual carriage way as a result of my protest against it".

I completely see your point. My understanding is that if you dont want it then you shouldnt have to pay for the consequences of it, whether it fails or is a success.Now apply your point to other people.

You're suggesting I pay for the newborns. I have no moral obligation to do that
Neither does anyone else, the perspective mother included. She cant be forced to pay with time and energy for something she doesnt want in the first place. Or can she be forced to pay and you are just being a hypocrite?

You're asking me to give direct care and aid to the newborns. I am under no moral obligation to do that

Neither is anyone else. If you are unwilling why do you feel "moraly" correct in forceing another person to do it? Why should they have to do something that you are unwillling to do?me thinks I scent hypocracy again, do as I say and not as I do perhaps?

Stratocaster

01-22-2003, 09:16 PM

Ben, don't argue with this guy. It ain't going nowhere.

greenteeth

01-22-2003, 09:59 PM

Good God!!!! I can't beleive what I'm hearing!!! Some of you actually think it would be ok to abort a baby at nine months when the physical health of the mother isn't at stake?!?!?!

So... is it ok to kill the baby at 2 weeks old? What the freakin difference?!?

I'm not pro-choice, but I at least can understand the arguments for 1st term and 2nd term abortion, but third term!?!?

Apos

01-23-2003, 04:21 AM

---I believe there is *some* merit in the information gleaned from those cites and that they are supporting evidence (not primary evidence, supporting evidence) for other information posted.---

I don't see how. There are far too many variables involved, and no statistical figures by which we can control for them. Judgements of what is life-threatening can be wrong. People change their behavior when told that something is life threatening. People have different resources for doing anything about it. People recieve widely ranging quality of medical care. Technology for saving life has changed over time. New problems have developed over time. This is simply the wrong sort of data for determining what we want to determine.

---I disagree that the ethical considerations are the same (though they may be for you).---

I understand, but it is hardly a matter for another thread. IMO, it cuts directly at the issue of whether the decision to have an abortion is ethical or not.

---If it can be agreed (big "If" I know) that a fetus at 9 months is, in fact, a person then the decision to prevent a non life threatening abortion in that case is no different then making the decision to prevent a person from murdering a new born.---

I'm afraid the range of dispute here is much wider, because I don't agree that naming it a "person" or not by some arbitrary semantic criteria has any relevance to its moral status. It doesn't matter what we CALL "a fetus at 9 months": it matters only what it IS (it's actual, physical characteristics that distinguish it from or relate it to other beings), how that relates to what is done to it, and what moral relevance that has.

That is, I don't think arbitrarily labeling something a "person" or not has any relevance to the debate, for either side. It is, simply put, a waste of everyone's time to focus on.

Consuela Bobuela

01-23-2003, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Ben Hicks

Naturally, I am opposed to the destruction of the park(and believe me, the dual carriageway will destroy it.) and I've made my views known to the council. However, that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to pay the local businesses the money they would lose by not having the dual carriage way ruin this area of outstanding national beauty.

In other words, it is totally logically consistent to object to the destruction of a think without being willing to pay for its upkeep. As such, your "You wanna save it? You pay for it" argument really does fall flat on its face. Hopefully you won't try to pick it up. [/B]

You may object to anything at anytime, that is true. But if you try to stop the workers from doing their job on the carriageway and/or harass and threaten them you are crossing the line.
If that is the extent of your vehemence, perhaps you should put up or shut up....money that is.
Likewise, if you are going to stand outside a clinic and demand of women to give birth to an unwanted baby, I feel you you should be willing to help out financially and physically.
Would you follow up on the welfare of these children after they are born? You should if you feel so strongly. Don't you agree?

Ben Hicks

01-23-2003, 07:25 AM

Bob - Don't worry, I think I've finally learned my lesson. I think the denizens of this forum would agree, whatever their stance on abortion, that BURNER isn't worth educating.

Consuela

You may object to anything at anytime, that is true. But if you try to stop the workers from doing their job on the carriageway and/or harass and threaten them you are crossing the line.

I never mentioned forcibly stopping the workers from doing their job anywhere in my analogy so I think it's unreasonable of you to assume that I would. Obviously picketing directly in front of the JCB's of the workers would be grounds for me to be forcibly removed, same as if I were to chain myself to the door of an abortion clinic. However, if I protest outside of the park (read: outside of the 60ft buffer zone outside of an abortion clinic) and rely on petitions and speeches etc... to get my point across successfully, I'm well within my rights.

Likewise, if you are going to stand outside a clinic and demand of women to give birth to an unwanted baby, I feel you you should be willing to help out financially and physically.

Let me ask you, if I were walking across a bridge and saw a woman planning to throw her newborn baby off into the water and I stopped her, would I be financially liable for that baby? After all, it is unwanted and I am forcing the mother to take care of it against her will. However, something tells me that, in this latter instance, you would not find me financially liable. I certainly wouldn't be demonised for my actions.

merge

01-23-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Blalron
No, because there already is an established conciousness and personality that is just beneath the surface (if it is reversible). A newborn has never had an established sense of self, they don't even recognize themselves in the mirror until around age 2.

LOL... this is the funniest thing I have ever read on this topic...

Now it is ok to kill something that has no pesonality???
So forget this whole partial birth thing... just have the kid... and wait as long as 2 years as long as they don't recognize themselves in a mirror....

Ok.... Abortion will never be illegal... I wish all activists on both sides would just accept this as fact...

Meatros

01-23-2003, 09:08 AM

Uh oh...Burner's a bit upset...

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2890307#post2890307

Grim_Beaker

01-23-2003, 12:21 PM

Apos

I don't see how. There are far too many variables involved, and no statistical figures by which we can control for them. Judgements of what is life-threatening can be wrong. People change their behavior when told that something is life threatening. People have different resources for doing anything about it. People recieve widely ranging quality of medical care. Technology for saving life has changed over time. New problems have developed over time. This is simply the wrong sort of data for determining what we want to determine.

It is true that there are many variables not being accounted for. I haven't been questioning that. I guess where we've been disagreeing is that I have believed that the disparities are too large for unaccounted variables to compensate for. Thus my earlier statements indicating what I felt were reasonable conclusions absent the more detailed data. On the other hand your position seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong here) that it is not reasonable to draw any substantive or supporting conclusions whatsoever from the data provided. What level of detail do you feel is necessary here? Do you feel that detail is possible to reasonably obtain?

I understand, but it is hardly a matter for another thread. IMO, it cuts directly at the issue of whether the decision to have an abortion is ethical or not.

If you feel the subject is appropriate to this thread then I would be interested in hearing your take on it.

I'm afraid the range of dispute here is much wider, because I don't agree that naming it a "person" or not by some arbitrary semantic criteria has any relevance to its moral status. It doesn't matter what we CALL "a fetus at 9 months": it matters only what it IS (it's actual, physical characteristics that distinguish it from or relate it to other beings), how that relates to what is done to it, and what moral relevance that has.

That is, I don't think arbitrarily labeling something a "person" or not has any relevance to the debate, for either side. It is, simply put, a waste of everyone's time to focus on.

When I said "If it can be agreed ... " I wasn't referring to labeling or rhetorical devices. I was referring to the actual "personhood" status of the unborn in question. The "IS" question on a physical level you mentioned in your post. So, to clarify, if the unborn IS a person then the moral questions surrounding them are the same as they are for any other person we happen to interact with.

Also, if you're so inclined I'd like a response to this:

That's all well and good as far as it goes but I would have liked it more if you had posted something more conclusive about the issue. How do you feel about it? Why? What is your supporting evidence? How did you arrive at your conclusion(s)?

Specifically, what criteria do you, personally, use for determining personhood status? One would assume that your position regarding abortion would naturally flow from what you believe the criteria for personhood to consist of. I considered asking what sort of data would be acceptable to you for determining the prevalence of life threatening conditions for third term pregnancies. However, I have no idea what your position on this subject is. If you believe third semester abortions for non life threatening reasons is not moral but are unwilling to advocate a change in legislation then the point is really moot isn't it? Provided I could find ironclad proof showing that late abortions are performed for non life threatening reasons it still wouldn't make a difference in your position for all practical purposes.

Grim

Apos

01-23-2003, 02:30 PM

---On the other hand your position seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong here) that it is not reasonable to draw any substantive or supporting conclusions whatsoever from the data provided. What level of detail do you feel is necessary here? Do you feel that detail is possible to reasonably obtain?---

The whole problem is that we can't even tell. If this were a statistical data point, my complaint would be that we have no measure of error: we can't form any sort of confidence interval. But this isn't even a statistical finding for the value we want in the first place. On the other hand, the data provided earlier IS a statistical measure of what we want, and DOES (presumably) come with things like alpha, the proceedure for randomization, etc.

---So, to clarify, if the unborn IS a person then the moral questions surrounding them are the same as they are for any other person we happen to interact with.---

Again, this is not a useful way to argue. All the moral arguments for "persons" were constructed with non-fetal humans in mind, using "person" as a sloppy shorthand for reffering to the group to which those arguments applied. But you can't simply extend the designation "person" to a fetus and then transitively apply to them only the conclusions of the related moral arguments. You have to go back and pre-justify those arguments for this different sort of being (utterly regardless of whether it can be called a person or not).

It's also important because I don't see morality as any sort of either/or binary where all persons have moral interests and all non-persons do not.

---Specifically, what criteria do you, personally, use for determining personhood status? One would assume that your position regarding abortion would naturally flow from what you believe the criteria for personhood to consist of.---

Again, personhood is irrelevant to me. What is important are the capacities of the being in question. Does it, for example, have an interest in not feeling pain? At some point, fetuses begin to have the capacity to feel pain, and hence do have such an interest. But then, so do any number of other creatures that we have no moral qualms about causing large amounts of pain to in the interest of food production. It is even possible for beings to have a capacity to feel pain (and hence it be morally wrong to cause them pain, all other things equal) but not have the capacity to fear death or have interests for the future which are frustrated by death.

So, for me, the question of the wrongness of killing a zygote/embryo/fetus rests on what capacities it has, and what countervailing interests are set against them.

Grim_Beaker

01-23-2003, 03:10 PM

So, for me, the question of the wrongness of killing a zygote/embryo/fetus rests on what capacities it has, and what countervailing interests are set against them.

I already asked about capacities in another thread but I'll do so here again, except in greater depth. You've mentioned a capacity for feeling pain as one capacity presumably along a continuum of capacities. Or perhaps a matrix would be the better structure to represent a beings capacity, with perhaps emotional, mental and physical all being dimensions within the matrix. Maybe there are other dimensions you would add to the list. In any case your statement regarding the wrongness of killing a being (whether that being is a fetus, a tape worm or a sheep) is dependent on it's capacity and/or set of capacities. Of course, this begs the question... "What capacity or capacities make it wrong to kill an entity without it's consent?"

Grim_Beaker

01-23-2003, 03:18 PM

Actually, to be more complete the questions should be something like:

"In your opinion what and how strong are the countervailing interests in considering late term abortion? At what point does the capacity or set of capacities in a being override the aforementioned countervailing interests?"

ElJeffe

01-23-2003, 03:32 PM

I'm a bit confused here. How is the frequency of late-term abortions that don't involve the health of the mother AT ALL relevant to the question of whether or not they should be outlawed? By that argument, as soon as the murder rate drops below a certain level, we should legalize murder. Hey, if there's only a few hundred murders a year, no sense having a whole law against it, right?

I'm against later-term and partial-birth abortions, except in cases where the mother's health is at risk (and, as has been mentioned, not for fluffy reasons of "emotional distress", but real, tangible, and serious health risks). If there is one abortion that is for other reasons, that is one too many. Sorry, but after a certain time frame, the life of the baby outweighs the convenience of the mother. If the mother has second thoughts at eight months... I don't care. If the mother doesn't realize she's pregnant until eight months... I don't care.

My general feelings on the matter are a bit more complicated. I'm pro-choice, but just barely. I think the act is regrettable, and while I don't think all abortions should be outlawed, I think that we, as a society, should try to work to bring the number of abortions as low as possible. As to when they should be allowed? Well, I think that at Day 0, abortion is acceptable (or at least as acceptable as it gets). At 9 months, it's unacceptable. Saying that the little 8-lb biped in your belly that moves and kicks and responds to stimulus and has brain waves and could survive on its own outside the womb is anything less than a full-fledged human is ludicrous to me.

However, that raises the question: At what point is the cut-off? Well, that's tricky, and it's the question that makes me pro-choice only reluctantly. Saying that at Day X it's a blob of matter and at Day X+1 it's a human presents obvious difficulties. Any cut-off point we use is going to be fairly arbitrary, but the arbitrariness of the cut-off doesn't invalidate the need for one. Most of our laws have an arbitrary element to them (speed limit, anyone), yet we don't argue that these laws are important. Abortion is no different.

Perusing the literature, it appears that most of the biological systems that we would consider to make up a human - brain activity, a beating heart, a nervous system, all the organs, and so on - are pretty much in place by Weeks 8-10. It's been determined that the parts of the brain that can detect pain are there somewhere around Week 15, or so (if I remember correctly). In light of this, outlawing abortions (excpet for health reasons) after the first trimester seems fairly logical. And so that's pretty much where I stand. Of course, my mind is always subject to change, but in this case, I would tend to change in the direction of the pro-lifers, if anything, given my tenouous support of the pro-choice position as is.

So anyway, getting back to the point... Can anyway enlighten me as to how the frequency of these dreaded non-health-related PBA's is relevant to the issue of whether or not they should be banned?

Jeff