And of course mass abortion is supposed to keep crime rates down (presumably including murder). The downside for Democrats is it means fewer votes for them at election time.
Do you think that this comment adds anything of value to the debate?
Can you cite one person that has ever advocated “mass abortion”?
What do you imagine it accomplishes to make inflammatory and insulting remarks like this? Who are you trying to convince with this stuff?
Breaking down the steps from sex to conception to pregnancy to birth:
- Couple chooses to have sex; either inadequately protected, or the protection fails.
- Woman’s body releases an egg from her ovary. (this can happen before 1, but that doesn’t matter)
- Man’s body makes semen and sends it up through the vesicles, into the woman.
- A sperm cell meets the egg and joins with it.
- The fertilized egg implants on the wall of the uterus.
- The fertilized egg divides again and again.
- Cells begin to differentiate into different functions.
- Skin, proto muscles, proto nerves, proto blood vessels form.
- The little proto heart starts beating.
- The fetus starts to look baby-like.
- The brain develops enough that it starts functioning and can register pain.
- The fetus is viable outside the womb.
- Birth
- The baby becomes aware enough to interact with other people.
Now my question is - where on this progression is it OK to end the process, and why do you think that?
I have a vasectomy, which means it stops after step 2. The pill keeps step 2 from happening. An IUD keeps step 5 from happening. Medically, “pregnancy” is usually defined as step 5, however some religious people say that they consider step 4 to be the beginning of “life” that must be protected.
I see a gradual process with no obvious discontinuities. Up until step 11, I don’t see any ethical issues at all with stopping it. I know others here have argued for 12 and 13, and even 10.
Where should the line be, and why?
Wouldn’t that be nice…
A couple decades ago I would have inserted something here about how “so-called right-to-life” people aren’t really interested in fewer abortions taking place, that their real agenda is reimposing and enforcing unwanted pregnancy as a looming threatening consequence of sex.
My opinions of the average everyday rank-and-file right-to-life partisan have mellowed. Chalk it up to the Straight Dope, in fact. I have not been swayed to your point of view, but I am now convinced that the majority of people who espouse right-to-life sentiments really are primarily concerned about what they view as the killing of unborn babies, and that they do not cynically advance that rhetorically as a means of infringing on women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy.
(I would not say that about the right-to-life movement’s leadership)
So, OK, is there anywhere we can go from here with this? I haven’t met clusters of right-to-life folks who had any apparent interest in working with pro-choice activists to see if we can find common ground in preventing unwanted pregnancies. On the rare occasions when I’ve been part of any somewhat-similar discussions, the RTL folks quickly gravitated towards “don’t have sex” and a few of them said that various forms of birth control also killed unborn babies and it went nowhere. Look, I’m not remotely interested in being part of a chastity campaign.
But yes, I would work with RTL folks on a campaign to reduce the risk of pregnancy for sexuall active people as a means of reducing abortion rates. I do think the phenomenon of RTL and prochoice folks coming together over anything could generate publicity and social curiosity/interest.
Like I said earlier, I believe overturning Roe would have a bigger impact, although I can see that birth control and sex education can have an effect too.
It’s a bit of a nitpick, but 11 and 12 should be reversed. Between 23 and 24 weeks is when the neuron development connects sensory nerves to the brain that will eventually receive them, but it’s not until 30 weeks that the brain development is complete enough that doctors are certain a fetus feels pain. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists maintain that fetuses can probably feel pain at 27 weeks.
Currently, the limit of viability (the point at which 50% of fetuses would survive outside the womb) is 24 weeks in the developed world in the NICUs that provide the highest level of care, with a 50% disability rate. Legally, the US Supreme Court found viability to be “at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks”, setting the trimester framework, although some states use doctor determination in each individual case to determine viability of that particular infant, based on not just age, but weight, gender, and development.
My daughter was born 23 weeks and 6 days from my last menstrual period, and she did not feel pain. Not during IV sticks, or CPR, or even when they put a breathing tube down her throat. She could move and grimace and otherwise do things that would indicate pain, but she didn’t do them when subjected to painful stimulus. That began to change around what would have been 27 weeks of gestation, right in line with what the scientists say.
Anyway, I’ve already given my answer: viability. And I’d base it not on arbitrary weeks of gestation, but physician determination of both the fetus and the technology available to sustain it. If the best NICU in the area is a Level I or II, a fetus won’t be viable at 24 weeks. A Level I or II NICU cannot even stabilize a 24 weeker for transport to a higher level of care. If the NICU is a Level III or IV, it might be viable.
Not really wanting to pick a fight here, but wasn’t that basically Margaret Sanger’s eugenics position?
Are you asking us or telling us? If you’re asking,then the answer is no.
if you are telling, then a cite where she advocated mass abortion would be in order, don’t you think?
No, it was not.
I was suggesting something we can do that wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be a political landmine for either side – overturning Roe would be both very difficult and controversial, and probably a political boon for the left (due to enraging liberal and moderate women across the country). But pushing for good and comprehensive sex ed and free/easy access to birth control is something that could and should be done now, and that would make liberals happy and reduce abortions (which should make conservatives happy).
Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion.
edited because others answered better before I could.
Also Jefferson is a big boy, he can answer for himself. He doesn’t need a white knight riding to his rescue. Let him speak for himself.
It was a question, hence the question mark. It should be taken as “Here is something HD had heard, but never bothered to check into. He’s hoping some smart Dopers can clarify the thing for him.”
My thanks to you, WhyNot, and CurtC for sharing your opinions.
Wasn’t trying to white-knight for anyone. It wasn’t even supposed to be an answer. It was a question I had.
You make a good point. I can see the value of that compromise as “Here’s something that out to be easy (or at least easier) to achieve. Can we agree to do this much together?”
If we insist on using labels, I’m pro-rights. Individuals have rights. A fetus isn’t an individual. Mothers are. Therefore there is nothing to protect which would give someone working on behalf of the government the right to prevent a mother from having an abortion.
I don’t know about the others, but I wasn’t giving an opinion-I was stating a fact. She did not advocate for mass abortion.
In the interest of understanding you position, when precisely does the fetus achieve individuality? In Gonzales v. Carhart SCOTUS had some interesting discussion about at which point during birth a fetus becomes a child.
I worded it awkwardly, but try to look at things from my perspective. On the one hand, I’ve got “someone told me once” and on the other hand now “Czarcasm told me something else”. Neither one provided a cite, both sincerely believed they were relaying facts to me.
I guess I’ve just got to spend some time doing my own research on the subject and reach my own conclusions. Any place you’d recommend I start? Something that explains Margaret Sanger’s views on eugenics and “irresponsible and reckless people”?
No clue. I don’t know enough about law or embryology. We of course require a cut-off, else we could call killing 10 year olds abortion. Off the cuff, when the fetus ceases to have a parasitic relationship with the mother, so I guess when the cord is cut. Or perhaps when labor begins.
The alternative to the more obvious cutoffs is that we set the limit at viability and if a mother desires an abortion but is prevented from doing so by the government, the mother must give birth to the baby and turn it over to the government if she does not want it anymore. This latter case of course presents a myriad of moral, scientific, and economic issues,