If there were any reasonable way to prevent the spontaneous loss of fetal life, I’d be all for it. If there’s promising research, let’s fund it. If we’re currently taking all possible, reasonable precautions, that’s as good as we can do right now. If that’s not the case, we should do better.
The positions assigned to pro-lifers in this thread by others who “know better” is absolutely astounding, by the way.
How do you know that? A few hundred years ago, new born deaths were probably over 30% too. Once medical technology improved, we did everything we can to cut that down. Today we spend tons of money saving the lives of newborns at risk, and a damn good thing it is too.
The relative lack of attention to extreme measures to rescue fetuses (I know there have been a few operations) shows what society really thinks about this issue. Though I think the way we handle this probably makes the most sense, I doubt anyone would protest if right to life groups raised money for research in this area. Some people might have additional choices, which is good.
And I think the point is not that we think pro-life people hold these extreme positions, but that they should hold them to be consistent.
How do I know what? That if we could do better we ought to? I know that because it’s my opinion. What was your point again?
What about the opinion I expressed do you find inconsistent with the overall pro-life philosophy, as you understand it? Or was I just a convenient body to prop your straw man up against so you could argue what you preferred to?
It isn’t ridiculous. I spent a number of years as a woman who had - as best as anyone could figure - implementation issues. Very little money is spent solving the problem of a woman who apparently conceives fine (I produce eggs, my husband’s sperm were adequate and capable of fertilization). If people would give the same amount of attention and money to saving these WANTED babies as we give to the abortion debate…
Now, I don’t happen to believe life begins at conception - in part because I can’t fathom a world where I lost 30-odd children. But there are plenty of women with implantation issues who DO believe life begins at conception. To say that not investing time in that is “ridiculous” is insulting.
erie774, I am sorry about your losses.
Still, I have trouble reconciling these statements of yours:
If every human life form from zygote to fetus is a “baby”, then how can you “understand and accept abortion” in the case of rape/incest/maternal health risk?
Other points you raise which are frequent sources of misunderstanding or distortion by anti-abortion rights proponents are 1) unwillingness to accept the well-known failure rate for all forms of birth control (condoms in particular) which cause women to seek abortion even if one or both partners have taken precautions, and 2) the implication that post-abortion regret/psychic trauma are inevitable. Studies have shown that neutral feelings or expressions of relief are most typical for women following abortion.
Your uncertainty leads me to believe that either you think there is nothing to do, or that all reasonable funding is being put into research. Think of the level of funding that would be put into saving the lives of babies if the death rate for newborns matched that of fetuses. If a fetus and a newborn were truly equivalent, do you think we’d be doing this little?
Pretty much as argued above. (And nothing in your post says you are pro-life or not - you just sniped at others.) A truly pro-life person, who considers a fetus morally equivalent to a newborn, would be in the streets demanding more resources to save them. Sometimes newborns too damaged to last are let die, I believe, so no one is claiming that all can be saved. But surely more can.
Since they don’t my position is that right-to-lifers are more realistic than their rhetoric.
No, my post says nothing of the sort. I feel no obligation to defend a position I specifically disavowed.
Who’s we, kemo sabe? I’m on record in this thread as saying what I think we ought to be doing. If there’s more to be done, where do I sign up? I’ll donate money and allow my taxes to be assigned to such research. Right now.
This would be yet another logical fallacy. If someone isn’t out in the streets protesting and demanding resources to remedy the situation created by, well, name your cause (child abuse, the war in Iraq, rape, illiteracy, illegal immigrants, whatever), then that person clearly doesn’t really believe what he says he does. It that how it works? Give me one of your opinions. I’ll set up a specific hurdle you must get over to be a true Scotsman. Then you can tell me if you pass the test.
I consider them all babies but I would not want a woman to be forced to carry a baby to term that was the result of rape or that would kill her. I don’t like abortion but I would consider it a necessary “evil” (no, I don’t think it or the woman are evil, it’s just an expression) for those cases.
I know too well about the failure rate after my college girlfriend got pregnant while on the pill. The hormone level on her batch was slightly better than a placebo. But abortion is not the only option. Private adoption is available and the agreements cover medical and usually a stipend, effectively making the woman a surrogate mother. My wife and I adopted our daughter through foster care and the case workers spoke of how quickly new babies are adopted (unfortunately older or kids with issues languish).
As for post-abortion feelings, I can only go with my personal sample of 6 women who look back over many years. They said that they were relieved immediately after the abortion but looked back over time with a lot of “what if?” thoughts. Do you have cites for reactions both immediately and then over time?
Not quite. A better analogy might be if someone claims to be very concerned about child abuse, but devotes all their efforts in the cause to protesting and organizing solely against the rare cases of child abuse committed by gay kindergarten teachers. In a case like that, it’s reasonable to wonder if the person in question is really acting chiefly out of concern for children, or primarily from other motives.
The point is that if self-described “pro-life” organizations are sincere in saying that their chief concern is saving the lives of the unborn, then rationally they ought to be focusing their efforts and resources on the major causes of death for the unborn.
But they don’t. Abortion is a comparatively very minor contributor to embryo mortality, but it is the only one that pro-life organizations and activists seem to pay any attention to. Other causes of embryo death far outweigh the effects of abortion, yet the pro-life movement seems almost entirely unconcerned about them. I don’t see how they can reconcile this indifference with their claim to believe that protecting the lives of the unborn is vitally important.
I’m answering for myself, not for some monolithic pro-life entity. I said, in this very thread, that I support any reasonable means possible to save spontaneous abortions from occurring. At what point, at least for me, does your clever little gotcha run out of gas? When? At what point do you admit that you are attacking a straw man? Yep, we pro-lifers hate fetuses who die as a result of spontaneous abortions. We do! You can read it right here.
These Americans! They say they oppose the sexual abuse of children. They say so in polls. They vote for politicians who introduce legislation protecting children form such abuse. They hug their children and say they want them safe. But right now, in Thailand, there is horrible abuse of children in the sex industry. Innocent children, subjected to the depravity of evil men, every single day. And we all know it.
If you really opposed the sexual abuse of children, you’d be on a plane right now, physically preventing the horrors that are happening each and every day. At the very least, you’d be donating most of your salary. You’d be lobbying the U.S. government to dedicate tax dollars. Anything! I mean, this is bullshit. If you say you oppose the sexual abuse of children and don’t spend most of your earnings, energy and votes trying to eradicate the sexual misconduct occurring right now in Thailand, then you’re full of shit in my book. You’re hypocrites. Anyone who opposes the sexual abuse of children would clearly be exerting all of their energy trying to eliminate that horror in Thailand. But they don’t. Typical.
Kimstu: Are you distraught? No? Why not? I’ll tell you why* I’m* not.
These reasons are solid reasons. No matter how pro-life you are, they are* true.* They are real. Now does that mean being anti-abortion is illogical? Nah. Now, me, I’m too concerned about human overpopulation to subscribe to right-to-life politics. (In fact, I consider fertility treatments to be just as much “playing God” as abortion, & think it’s ridiculous to oppose abortion & advocate them.) But a pro-lifer might add this as #3:
death != murder
Healthy white babies are at a premium, yes. But not many people want the baby of a mother who drank heavily or used drugs during her pregnancy or a child born with obvious disabilities.
But only 10 million American women have ever considered adoption. (16% of those take concrete steps towards it, and only 31% of those complete the process.)
This site claims that there were approximately 854,000 abortions in the US in the year 2002. The number changes a bit year by year but if the pattern continues and abortion were banned tomorrow, the “demand” for infants would be met in under two years. What do we do with all the extra babies after all of the “supply” of families willing to adopt is exhausted?
Personally, I think the state of Tennessee is about to make an interesting discovery on the number of women who vote versus the number of fetuses that vote.
I just don’t understand why you want to fill out my death certificate when you masturbate.
Sorry, just couldn’t pass that one up.
What’s all this about not enough research into preventing miscarriage? Aren’t all American women supposed to be conducting themselves as if they are pre-pregnant ?
(via Feministing)
Ugh. Abortion debates are further removed from reality than Hollywood blockbusters. I’m not sure about atheists in foxholes, but I have known a few anti-abortionists change their colors, at least briefly, at convenient enough times…
I know a lot of people are put off by this recommendation, but it makes sense for a doctor to give this advice, unless he or she specifically knows that the patient would prefer to have an abortion than have the baby. The point of the recommendation is that we now have medical information that shows that folic acid prevents birth defects, and that it’s best to take it before the pregnancy occurs. It would be irresponsible of doctors not to let their patients know about this, in case that patient is a person who would not want to have an abortion even if the pregnancy wasn’t planned.
Of course, if a doctor brought it up, and was told “it doesn’t matter, because I will deal with an unplanned pregnancy with abortion,” that doctor would and should drop the recommendation.
Pro-life Americans been busy stopping abortion in Britain recently?
There’s a difference between situations where can can concievably make a significant difference, and ones in which you can’t. A huge group of Americans, all protesting for protecting kids in Thailand? Won’t make a speck of difference. A huge group of Pro-life Americans, all protesting for research into spontaneous miscarriage in America? They’ll be listened to.
Also, you seem to be confused about the argument being made. It’s not being suggested that pro-lifers literally give all they have to aid research, and spend every waking hour protesting - you seem to have invented that part. It’s not MASSIVE focus that should be put on that issue rather than elective abortion, but equivalent or larger. Breaking their backs to help? I don’t think most pro-lifers do that for abortion anyway. But significant focus? Certainly.
I get that this makes you feel good but it doesn’t answer my question. It’s too vague a justification. Would human life be more respected if every aborted fetus was counted in the census? Would it be more respected if every aborted fetus was assigned a Social Security number? At what point in the paperwork hoop-jumping is respect satisfied and at what point does it become ridiculous?
If you became your state’s fetus death-certificate registrar, how many forms do you think you’d have to fill out before starting to suspect the whole thing was pointless? I invite you to practice, filling out approximately 15000 death certificates for “fetal deaths and induced abortions” (roughly Tennessee’s 2003 total, as per this pdf file. You can just write in “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” and other generic information. If this starts to seem tedious and pointless to you, just remember that you are supporting forcing other people to do the job you won’t do yourself. If however the tedium and pointlessness is worth it to you to show your “respect”, then by all means apply for the job. I’m sure all your respectfully filled-out certificates will be filed in an appropriate back row of a dusty warehouse, because the point quite obviously isn’t to produce a government document with any useful purpose, but just another pro-life attempt to impose law in a place where imposing short-sighted morality has justly failed.
The people we’re talking about are already in the streets. They’re the ones trying to block access to clinics. They’re the ones pressuring politicians. It would be a hell of a lot easier to pressure them to get money for fetus protection research than to try to overturn Roe v Wade. They obviously don’t care about that issue very much.
As for you, all the posts here addressed the movement in general. If it didn’t apply to you, you didn’t need to object in the first place as if it did.