If I may suggest, one possible conclusion to draw from the Canadian example is that the absence of abortion laws does very little to damage the society as a whole. This leads to wondering what purpose is served by laws in places other than Canada. Personally, I’m not particularly fond of laws that serve no purpose other than to make some people happy that such laws exist, and I can’t find an objective reason for the existence of abortion laws. Is having more babies, including those unwanted by their own mothers, sufficient grounds? It’s unclear to me how.
Many laws, and presumably including abortions laws, are not there for the benefit of society but for the protection of the individual. Society might benefit by killing off the elderly or invalid – yet few people would consider that acceptable. But I get that Cat’s argument is that the abortion laws are not reducing abortion levels since they supposedly have low abortion rates in Canada. But I think it’s a jump to make that they would not be low, or lower, if there were more restrictive abortion laws. And as I wrote before, Denmark keeps meticulous statistics of these things going back many years. So I can go in and see that there are around 800 requests for late abortions each year, whereof about 100 are denied. If Denmark did not have restrictions on abortions, those are hundred babies that would not be born. Of course not counting the many, which don’t bother seek approval to begin with since they know they have no chance. So yes the abortion rate would be higher. And Denmark also has fairly low abortion ratios btw. Around 12 abortions per 1,000 female within the fertile age. By comparison The Faroe Islands, which is a part of Denmark – but have much stricter abortion laws, have around 3 abortions per 1,000 female within the fertile age. And a Google tells me Canada lies around 14. Anyway, it’s impossible to compare across cultures and countries.
Also it bears notice that the number of abortions in Denmark is considerable higher for some groups of girls than others. If you single out ethnic Danish girls they only have a ration of around 10, however certain immigrant groups, have much higher. For instance Iranians have about 30 abortions per 1,000 – three times as many. And also Iraqi, Pakistani and Somali girls have nearly twice as many abortions as ethnic Danish girls. These are also the same groups with a strict sexual culture, and girls which are often denied sexual education by their parents. So it seems to me that is a good indicator that sexual education will help bring down unwanted pregnancies and abortions and “pro-life” people ought favour more such education.
What makes you think abortion laws have any ulterior motives? Abortion laws serve to protect the foetus nothing else. I doubt many people think of it as a tool for society to have more babies. Of course if you don’t think the foetus is entitled to protection, then your case is clear. But this is where the compromise comes in.
I think you need to go back and reread what I said in context. It was specifically a response to someone who asked for clarification about what I thought would be fair (not propaganda) to say during abortion counseling. And this was specifically under the assumed conditions of a legal abortion climate, so arguing about the merits of abortion in this case is irrelevant.
Sure it does. Women are free to give up their babies for adoption and relinquish all future obligations to their children. There’s no method currently to adopt a fetus.
Because there’s no definitive point at which an embryo becomes a “child”. Towards the beginning it resembles nothing more than some body cells, which no person has any qualms about destroying during the normal course of their day. Towards the end it resembles a full human baby. There are some benchmarks, but none that a large group of people is going to agree is a definitive dividing line at which point the fetus becomes a “child”.
Not even all religions or denominations agree on when life begins. The right of people to control their own bodies is compelling enough that we can’t just ‘err on the side of caution’ and arbitrarily decide that life begins at conception. It’s a spiritual or philosophical question, and therefore best left, at least in early pregnancy, to the mother to decide based on her own spiritual or philosophical beliefs.
As a relate aside, even post-birth, children can legally be killed in certain circumstances, such as to save the life of a conjoined twin.
And why would I believe that for a moment ? The same people who pass those laws show no concern for the life or health of the mother, or that of the baby the moment it’s born. They get abortions when THEY want it for themselves, and coerce women into getting them when it’s convenient for them. They simply don’t act like people who care about the welfare of anyone save themselves.
This has nothing to do with protecting the fetus, and everything to do with hurting women.
I do not think the argument of when “Life” began is a good argument, even if one believes in the Bible story of Adam and Eve, then one would have to conclude that human life (at least) began there. Life is a passed on thing,from generation to generation, no live sperm or egg… no human. It should be when personhood begins. It is a known fact that if there is no life in the sperm then no child will result. So if life were the issuse then each time a man ejuclactes many thousands of human lives are destroyed.
It is a religious belief by some, that a soul is infused in the cells at conception.
Monavis
Re: The OP:
I would concede to banning all but first trimester abortions under the following circumstances:
First trimester abortions would be allowed under any circumstance, without parental notification, freely.
Sexual education would be offered in tow components:
-
The FACTUAL information about pregnancy, how it occurs, and STD information.
-
The FACTUAL information regarding birth control methods, how they are used etc.
This would be offered as another poster suggested in 4th, 7th, and 10th grade. For the the first two offerings, ALL students MUST attend the first component. They may opt out of the second with both their own written consent and that of their parents. The third offering, they may overrule the objections of their parents and attend if they wish.
IF they opt out of all three offerings they also sign away their rights to the CPS system. They are now Fully responsible (Read private insurance) for all medical care for any children born from an unwanted pregnancy. In the event that they are unable to care for the child and CPS has to intervene, the child will be placed for permant and immediate adoption without any recourse.
This is correct, proof of this can be demonstrated by all the major “pro-life” organizations opposition to contraception. I wish the democrats would push this an an election issue, one more Scalia type Catholic on the supreme court will mean reversal of not only RvW but the reversal of legal contraception as well.
Even if this would mean the reversal of Griswold (which it wouldn’t) the idea that legal contraception would be revoked anywhere in the US is off the chart. If it did happen, you would see the single biggest voter backlash in the history of democracy. Utah would elect Democrats.
No state is going to outlaw contraception, even if the states were so permitted. You might well see more restricted availabilty, and even as an outlier some methods of contraception might be banned in some states, but you are being more than a little alarmist.
Please tell me that you left out the part about allowing later abortions to protect the health of the mother in order to save space & time.
I did. I had to post and run, and it slipped my mind.
I think it’s safe to assume that abortion rates would indeed be lower if there was a systematic effort on the part of government to arrest doctors, close clinics, imprison pregnant women, etc. I’ll even grant that the rate could be cut significantly (but not completely) in proportion to how draconian these efforts become, but it remains unclear to me what good they would accomplish. How many doctors (or prenatal care generally) does the Faroe Islands have? Restricting abortion would be relatively simple in such an isolated place.
I don’t. The biggest tangible effect of banning abortion is more babies (alongside a number of less tangible outcomes like increased poverty and diminished educational and occupational opportunities for women), but I don’t ascribe any complicated motivation to the pro-life. It’s my contention they’re too short-sighted and indifferent to outcome to have such.
I can only speak for Denmark. I don’t know of any doctors, or anybody else, which have been arrested for violating abortion laws since 1973. I don’t think it has happened. Very few people are against the laws as they are now, with the restrictions, and in fact when it was suggested that the limit should be raised to 18 week, it was the very doctors whom perform abortions who spoke out the most against it.
Banning late-term abortions. It’s not at all clear that banning late-term abortions lead to more babies. Might even lead to less babies and more (early) abortions. Anyway, changing the definition of what we consider human because it is economical profitable, doesn’t really seem like a good argument to me. I also fail to see how the restrictions on late-term abortions have harmed Scandinavian societies in any great way.
I don’t know enough about the situation in Denmark to comment further. I can only reiterate that the lack of abortion law in Canada did not lead to chaos or infanticide or any negative results that I know of.
I’m not making any argument about when or if the label “human” attaches to a fetus.
I’ll gladly stipulate that it doesn’t, or at least not in any significant way. In fact, I proposed:
I didn’t get anything approaching a serious reply or counter-offer. Anyway, my concern is not for the negligible effect of a third-trimester-abortion ban, it’s that the quest for more legislation would continue. It’s only a compromise if all sides agree to accept it, at least for a while.
Right. I’ve pointed out a consistent, non-hypothetical factor linking those countries where abortion is very controversial. If you want to continue ignoring that consistent relationship and taking a contradictory POV based on pure speculation, knock yourself out.
If you are seriously suggesting that these cases aren’t happening because you aren’t hearing about them, then you are living in la-la land. They are always more frequent than people realise. Always.
I’m hesitant to play your numbers game, first because it’s inherently impossible to quantify and second because even if you had numbers they wouldn’t tell the full story (for example, they don’t take into account the negative physical and psychological consequences - because they had to bring their case before a committee and delay even further - to those 700 women who were granted late abortions). But here are the numbers we do have. In 2006 26 women gave Danish addresses in English or Welsh clinics for abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy. Now if you add to that 26:
[ul]
[li]Women who had abortions between the 12th and 18th week[/li][li]Women who gave a fake British address[/li][li]Women who travelled to another country for their late abortion[/li][li]Women who self-aborted (I guarantee you this is a far higher number than you realise - particularly in certain communities, such as east Asian, where at-home herbal abortions are common)[/li][/ul]
I would not be surprised at all to find that the number was at least 100, or even higher.
Of course Denmark’s rate of late abortions is lower in general anyway precisely because of the accessibility of early abortions. Unfortunately in most countries early abortion is far less accessible. And it’s notable that in these countries, the people who argue in favour of strict time limits are generally **not **also arguing in favour of making it easier to obtain an abortion within those time limits. So even if you can argue that early abortion is always an option in Denmark (although that’s obviously not true for at least 800 women…) that is just not the case everywhere else.
Right, because we can all agree on what is morally wrong, and everything morally wrong is/should be illegal. Come on, you know better than that. And I think your murder analogy is the abortion-debate equivalent of Godwin’s Law.
Yes, and you’re assuming this number simply continues with the pregnancy. Maybe they find a way to get around the law.
They didn’t vote no because of the abortion issue, or at least most of them didn’t, whatever fallacious stories you may have heard.
It’s not me that should answer you since I’m not “pro-life”. One can point out that it is bad form to make frequent changes to basic laws but nobody can give you any promises on the future. Gay marriage and adoption are separate issues that have nothing to do with abortion. I’d also restrict second trimester abortions. From the 12th or 14th week, making it progressively more difficult the further into the pregnancy.
And what’s your point? I’m not allowed to speculate on what I believe? That removing the restriction on late-abortions is something I would find controversial is not speculation - that is fact. That removing the restriction on late-abortions is something the overwhelming political majority in Denmark would find controversial is not speculation - that is fact, verified last time in 2007.
Of course opposition to abortion is connected to religion. Or is in many places. Not here though. I’m not religious. Our PM for seven years is an atheist. Our restrictions on late-term abortions are not religiously founded and almost nobody brings up religious arguments when they are discussed. But you are mistaken if you think abortion is not controversial in Denmark. The current abortion laws are widely supported, but late term abortions are very controversial. Something people mention when talking about inhuman regimes and serious human rights violations. I’m not saying all the hysteria in the USA is connected to late-term abortion, merely suggesting that the worst of the hysteria might be lessened if they could find a more reasonable compromise, doing away with late-term abortions.
You, not being people I guess. Anyway I suggested no such thing. Of course there is a black number of unreported cases.
Perhaps. Anyway unless you are saying that every last girl who cannot have late-term abortion in Denmark travel abroad for it, then it’s not an argument for that the Danish restrictions on late-term abortion are ineffectual. And even if they were, that would not necessarily be a good reason to do away with them. We cannot decide what is done in other countries. We can decide what we find right and make laws on those grounds. Female circumcision is illegal in Denmark. Some parents take their girls abroad to have it done. Most Danes think it is morally wrong, but what can we do? That it happens in other places is no reason to remove laws prohibiting it in Denmark.
You better stop putting things in my mouth. I’m beginning to find it tiring. Did I say we could all agree on what is morally wrong? Although I have no doubt that a majority of Danes find late-term abortions morally wrong. A few months ago there was a case where a Chinese doctor was denied citizenship in Denmark because she might have performed late-term abortions in China, and that was officially considered a breach on human rights. I though it was a wrong decision, but couldn’t actually find anybody who agreed with me.
It should?
I did not equate late-term abortions with murder – though I might have – I made the point that because a law is not removing a problem, that is no reason to do away with the law. I.e. we are not allowed to murder, yet murders still happen. We are not allowed to steal cars, yet car-theft still happens.
I am?
Maybe they do. Some of them. If there is a loophole in the Danish laws, it should be handled. If they travel abroad. Not much we can do about it. Except through the EU perhaps. May also do away with the double illegality principle, like we did in cases with female circumcision. But there will always be some who will have it done regardless.
I heard that a number of no-voters had thought the EU might want to meddle in Irish abortion laws, and that this was a factor, although perhaps not deciding, in the election. Google agrees.
You’re free to label yourself any way you wish, of course, but seeking to throw barriers in the way of abortion access has always struck me as a pro-life goal. In any case, my natural questions to your desire to make “it progressively more difficult” are:
[ul][li]Why?[/li][li]How?[/li][li]Is there a penalty for someone who finds a way around your imposed barriers?[/li][li]If so, what did you have in mind?[/ul][/li]
The first one, I guess, is the least important. The others, though, will need clear answers before any sort of compromise can be sought, let alone reached.
Ok. So I’m “pro-life”. Fine with me. Others in the thread thought otherwise. I’m also not seeking a compromise, since there already is a compromise here that I find acceptable. I was just dragged into the whole mess because I made the small suggestion that having some kind of compromise in the USA might remove some of the worst hysteria for you. So apparently I’m living in la-la land. According to Wiki 80% of Americans thinks third trimester abortions should be illegal and 66% thinks first trimester abortions should be legal. But apparently I’m very wrong to suggest this might in any way indicate that most Americans would like to ban late-term abortions, or that it might remove some of the wind from the “pro-lifers” if such laws very made.
- Why – because I recognize there is a difference between an 8 week old fetus and a 20 week old fetus and 32 week old fetus. And at some, unclear, point along the pregnancy I do consider deliberate abortions to be murder. This is such a nearly universally acknowledged thing around here that I find it surprising anybody would have to ask why. But looking at polls it seems it also is such a very widely help opinion in the USA.
- How – by making late term abortion illegal. With exceptions for special cases in case of genetic defects &tc. These can be dealt with on a per case basis by some kind of expert council.
- Penalty – of course, although it’s not the most important thing. For the doctor probably something on the line with quackery.
Contraception may not be out-lawed yet, but where people who believe birth control is wrong are gettin druggists to not sell them birth control, they won’t sell the morning after pill (or carry it) Because they are afraid that a conception “May” have taken place.
I think a doctor should have contraception on hand in towns and places where the druggist won’t sell it.
Monavis
Indeed. What you say is true. But to claim that overturning Roe will lead to Griswold being overturned (slightly possible, I guess, but unlikely) and that overturning Griswold will lead to contraception being banned in the United States (utterly impossible), as the post to which I responded claimed, is a very different thing indeed.
As a minor note, American abortion law is purely an academic debate for me personally. I’m quite satisfied with the Canadian compromise on the issue.
An argument from popularity isn’t a reason, though I guess I could see the value in mollification with a feel-good law that accomplishes very little, if it would make extremists fall silent, but I have doubts that it will.
It’s not useful if your explanation of how you’d make late term abortion illegal consists of you saying you’d make late term abortion illegal. Are you planning to hire additional law-enforcement officers to investigate? Planning to alter medical ethics so that doctors and nurses are required to inform government of patients seeking late-term abortions? What kind of “expert council” are you proposing? Is one doctor enough? Two? Ten? Are states required to pay for the establishment and maintenance of these councils? What about sparsely populated states like Wyoming or Alaska, where a pregnant woman might easily be hundreds of miles from a council?
What about the woman? Do the penalties increase in severity as the pregnancy progresses? Does aborting a 30-week pregnancy carry a stiffer penalty than abortion a 12-week? What range of penalties did you have in mind? Can a doctor explain away an emergency late-term abortion after the fact to the above-mentioned council, claiming the situation was too dire to wait for an appointment?