I agree 100%. Most mothers I think would be willing to sacrifice her life for the life or continued well-being of her baby’s. For example, Elian Gonzolas’s mother did just that.
She wouldn’t. I do not assign differences in value to human lives. I would never force a mother to kill a child, baby, or fetus if she felt her own sacrifice was necessary for the life of her offspring.
My point was that the pro-life position, being pro-life, could in good conscience take into consideration the life of the mother when contemplating the moral aspects of this situation.
I admit the wording of the final sentence in my original quote sounds harsher than I intended. Think of it as a rhetorical question rather than an absolute. I certainly don’t have a pat answer for this particular situation. Who can honestly say otherwise if one has to die so that another can live.
Of course, as I’ve posted above elsewhere (see quote by C. Everett Koop), the “death of the mother” scenario is a red herring in this debate. Abortion or no, no mother will be forced by doctors to die due soley to a pregnancy.
The most logical labels for people who fall on opposite sides of issue X are pro-X and anti-X. (I don’t see how the “most factually accurate terms” could be something like pro-X and anti-Y.) As the issue here is abortion rights, the intellectually honest labels are pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights.
Cmkeller pointed out that the pro-abortion-rights side objects to the term pro-abortion. In my experience, they’re not too crazy about “pro-abortion-rights” either, as demonstrated by the reception to cmkeller’s use of this term.
Some women are influenced or forced into having abortions by others. In this context, ‘pro-choice’ is shown to be a misnomer. The debate should focus on the legal right to an abortion.
I was all ready to beat you brainless on this, but jodih did it quite sufficiently for me.
Perhaps “anti-choice” isn’t the best term, but it certainly is better than “pro-life.” That implies that those who support a woman’s abortion right’s are anti-life, and that’s f**king insulting.
divemaster (responding to a quote that sometimes a mother would give up her life for a child)
W-rong! Elian Gonzalez’s mother, by just about all accounts from those who would know, was attempting to come to the U.S. to be with a boyfriend, and had virtually no political thoughts.
First of all, it would probably surprise you all to learn that “pro-life” was actually invented by the media, whose attention span is apparently limited to two syllables and got tired of typing “right-to-life,” which is pretty darned accurate…they believe that the fetus has a right to life.
But even so, the idea that the pro-abortion-rights crowd is anti-life is merely an implication. I didn’t see anyone in that crowd explicitly calling anyone “anti-life”…until the pro-abortion-rights crowd, unwilling to settle for implications, explicitly started calling their opponents “anti-choice.”
jodih:
Be that as it may, applying the label “anti-choice” tries to paint anti-abortion-rights folks as fascists who are interested in personal power (which, of course, is what the pro-abortion-rights leadership does believe) rather than as people who actually believe that a fetus has as much right to live as an already-born human being. Rather than debate the genuine issue at hand (whether or not abortion is murder), they attempt to turn people against their opponents by labeling them as controllers.
That’s why I said intact D&E. And thanks, Dr. J, for correcting me on what the D&E stand for.
Interesting debate…but I have never seen the abortion debate (partial-birth or otherwise) framed in those terms.
That’s true for many individuals. However, the anti-abortion-rights crowd is trying to use the issue to paint such organizations as NARAL and NOW as such, with, it must be admitted, quite a bit of success.
Gaudere:
For now, I’ll accept the analogy, and stick to the term “poro-abortion-rights” (which I used to a large degree in my earlier post as well). However, certain aspects of their position leads me to think of them as pro-abortion in the way you object to, such as their opposition to parental consent laws (making abortion a “choice” that is more available to minors than most other “choices” the law allows) and their vehemence toward anti-abortion-rights “sidewalk counselors.”
True if you define “all circumstances” as being “all pregnant women.”
False, if you define “all circumstances” as being “all women who wish to choose intact D&E.”
The main thrust behind the abortion-rights political movement is that the right to choose shall not be restricted or curtailed in any manner, is it not?
An article in the paper just yesterday reported on the New York Senate race. The gist was that both Lazio and Hillary! were pro-choice, but that Hillary! would get the endorsement of the typical abortion-rights groups.
There was a quote from the group ‘Emily’s List’ that said they would never endorse a candidate who supported any restrictions to Roe v. Wade. By implication, this would refer to any given abortion procedure, including intact D&E.
It is my impression that the political movement associated with abortion rights would resist any attempt to legally curtail intact D&E. I don’t think I will live to see the day when someone from Emily’s List, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, or similar would, given a situation with a woman requesting the procedure, step up and say “you know, we don’t think what you want should be legal.”
That ain’t gonna happen.
milossarian points out:
As that may be, I think my point still stands. My choice of a poor example does not invalidate my contention that many a mother would willingly risk her life for that of her child.
Um, just my 2 cents, but IMO the National Right to Life website is NOT a place to find unbiased references. Care to back up your position with neutral source? ( if you can find one! I’m thinkin AMA or something from JAMA, etc) Also:
Well, Duh! Those groups support CHOICE. I don’t think we’ll see NRLC and the like stand up and say " Gee, I think I’ll start minding my own business." either.
It may or may not surprise you to learn that I actually don’t care much about how the various parties are labelled. My point was and is that it generally accurate to refer to people on one side of the agenda as “pro-choice” (the choice implied obviously being whether or not to have an abortion), while it is generally inaccurate to refer to people on the other side as “pro-life,” if you look, as you yourself have, at the implications of the implied opposite. In other words, you object to “pro-choice” because it implies that the opposition is “anti-choice,” which you claim is inaccurate. I maintain that, within the context of the abortion debate, that is perfectly accurate; these people are, as a matter of fact and not rhetoric, anti-choice. I object to “pro-life” because it implies that the opposition is “anti-life,” which I continue to assert IS inaccurate. Those of us who are “pro-choice” are just that – in favor of the right to choose. We are not against life. Now we can debate this to kingdom come, except that I’m really not inclined to because it won’t get us anywhere, and it’s really not important (in my mind) how we refer to the two sides of the debate, so long as we both know what debate, and what side, we are talking about.
With respect, this is disengenuous. The way this whole subject got started was by you objecting to “anti-choice” because it implies that people against the right to choose abortion are against all choice, including whom to vote for. As I’ve already explained, I think this is a spurious assertion. But you can hardly complain about the implications inherent in “anti-choice” and then dismiss the implications inherent in “pro-life” because they are “merely implications.” You can’t have it both ways.
Frankly, I’m even less interested in who started calling whom what first than I am in what terms we agree to use.
The term obviously has some political weight for you that, suffice it to say, it does not have for me. Personally, I do see the issue in terms of power, but political power rather than personal power. It is, for me, an issue of certain individuals and groups attempting to assert power over the persons of others. The question, of course, is whether that is justifiable. As should be obvious from my posts, I generally believe that it is not. I think that anti-choice people and groups DO attempt to assert power over women by limiting their right to choose – and I think that’s pretty much beyond debate. That the believe in a fetus’s right to live is the reason for this assumption of power, and leads obviously to the argument of whether the assumption of power is justified or not, but it doesn’t change the fact that an assumption of power (a limiting of choice) is precisely what is being advocated.
Do you not see that one leads inevitably to the other? Murderers are subject to societal control, because murder is against the law. Therefore, whether or not abortion constitutes murder stems quite naturally (or leads quite naturally, depending on which way the debate flows) from (or to) the question of society controlling women by limiting the right to choose. I may reasonably “label” you as attempting to control me (and all women) when you attempt to make abortion illegal, becausse that is quite obviously what you are attempting to do. Again, I don’t really think this is even subject to much debate.
Which is precisely why I refuse to be labelled so inaccurately myself.
DIVEMASTER quotes me as saying "Being “pro-choice” is not synonymous with being “pro-partial-birth abortions in all circumstances” and then says:
Actually, the statement remains true under either definition. Partial-birth abortions are late-term procedures that many people who consider themselves as pro-choice would not want available on demand. If this makes a person less than 100% “pro-choice,” so be it, but the majority of society is, under that definition, somewhat less than 100% pro-choice, and simultaneoulsy less than 100% pro-life. In other words, this is not an issue that lends itself to absolute declarations of what is “right” and what is “wrong,” and when.
No. The main thurst behind the abortion-rights political movement is that the right to choose shall not be abrogated, and in particular shall not be eroded from where it is right not. For many, a zealous defense of the right to choose means defending ANY attack on it, from parental-notification laws to bans on on-demand late-term abortions. For many, but not for all.
This is not implicit in such a statement, as the holding in Roe v. Wade was not and is not so broad as to automatically allow on-demand abortion services under all circumstances (ie, abortion of a healthy, full-term fetus). If you believe Roe stands for such a broad proposition, then you have misread it.
And it is my impression that the political movement associated with right-to-life would resist the providing of any abortion services, at any time, under any circumstances. The compromise that would be acceptable to the majority of American society almost certainly lies somewhere in between these two extremes.
I think that depends entirely on what procedure you are proposing, and when. Termination of a healthy, very late term pregnancy? I seriously doubt Emily’s List or NARAL would unequivocally support any such thing. The point is that each side often paints the other in terms of the most radical extreme – just as you have done to the pro-choice side in your post. I think the issue is far to complicated to be distilled so simply.
If I had only posted rhetoric, then I would agree that my source would not be worthy of this discussion. However, this link, and my previous posts, reference:[ul][li]The American Medical News[/li][li]The Washington Post[/li][li]The New York Times[/li][li]The New Jersey Beacon[/li][li]C. Everett Koop[/li][li]ABC’s This Week with…[/li][li]direct Congressional testimony[/li][/ul]and probably others. These report investigations, interviews, and testimony. I doubt JAMA would have this information, especially if it is published elsewhere. Is the information reported in the New York Times, for example, made more valid if I provide it through a different link?
Now, if your contention is that the reports are bogus, that the interviews never took place (thus introducing bias of fabrication), I am willing to consider any support you mave have. If, for example, C. Everett Koop never said the words attributed to him, I will readily withdraw any argument dependent upon said quote.
However, if you feel my link is guilty only of bias by ommission; that is, they only have supported one side of the debate, well, yes. Agreed. That doesn’t necessarily make what they say untue, however. I feel the information I have posted is factual, and I have expressed a little bit of opinion based on that. If you want to find opposing sources, I welcome the chance for debate. But don’t expect me to track them down for you. That’s your job!
Also from weirddave:
I’m glad this is so obvious to you. That was the whole point. Seems obvious to me too. My point here was that by definition these elements of the abortion-rights movement will always resist any proposed restrictions to abortion access, including intact D&E. I was responding to a statement by jodih that seemed to indicate a break between what it means to be “pro-choice” and restrictions on abortion. (see below for further discussion).
Which brings me to: (from Jodih)
**
You have pointed out something I should have made more clear in my original post. I am not talking about the majority of pro-choice citizens. I don’t believe most of the country favors much of the hard-line approach of NARAL et al. I am talking specifically about the political/organizational wing that I think we both agree is more extreme. Evidently I believe they are more extreme than you do. I don’t think any of the goups I’ve mentioned would ever file a brief or support an injunction against a woman desiring an abortion, regardless of the circumstance. Again, if you can show me otherwise, I promise not to get beligerent and run off.
First there is a suggestion that the ongoing discussion of “control” as a philosophical issue is merely a means of avoiding discussion of the real question: is abortion murder? You respond directly to this point by discussing the philosophy of control and completely ignoring the subject of whether or not abortion is murder. No amount of glib writing will change the fact that this is the major logical flaw in the pro-choice argument and the principal reason why we–all of us–are always talking past each other.
There is no other question to be answered. If it is not murder, we should Federally fund every abortion, for Christ’s sake. If it isn’t, the method we select is not really an important issue, is it? This is not to say the question is easily answered. Only that, for the most part (not completely), everything else is simply not relevant. I believe that was CMKELLER’s point. Even if it wasn’t, it’s mine.
I was pro-choice untill my wife and I became parents. The first ultra-sound that was performed on my wife, I believe she was 8 weeks pregnant. My son was about the size of a tadpole. When the nurse said “watch this” she bumped him with the “probe”(?). That sucker moved around like he was trying to get away. Amazing! At that moment I knew that I would walk through fire for him. It may have only been involuntary reflexs, but he was ALIVE, and no one can deny that. If we would have had him sucked into a drain it would have been such a waste. In my opinion its the PONTENTIAL of all the wasted children, who through no fault of their own, were deemed “not worthy” or “defective” in one way or another. The world is a poorer place without them.
I prefer “anti-abortion” and “abortion-rights”. “Pro-life” is quite the misnomer, for fetuses, of course, are not the only living things that exist. “Life”, in its broadest definition, would include all living things: the Biosphere, the Ecosystem. Being pro-life should mean favoring the continued existence of the Ecosystem by preserving the balance of nature. Yet the burgeoning human population is, as we all know, a serious threat to the Ecosystem. Abortion opponents understand this well enough to deny it.
It is here that we should apply the brakes and re-iterate that abortion-rights supporters do advocate any sort of population-control scheme involving abortion. But if the anti-abortion movement gets its way, overpopulation and the prospects for the environment can only get worse. (They say that there is no middle ground with abortion, yet if you consider the Chinese government to represent the true pro-abortion extremists, then perhaps the pro-choice position really is the middle ground.)
Sqweels, just what is the conclusion of this point, then? Let’s concede for the moment your unsupported statement that overpopulation and a weaker environment will result if abortion rights are restricted in any way. Does that justify abortion? Again–see my immediately prior post, so I won’t repeat myself–this is not relevant at all if the fetus is an innocent who deserves not to have his life ended. If the fetus has no rights, then you need no justification along these lines–do whatever you want.
Please tell me you are not saying what I think you are saying. I thought the main thrust behind the pro-abortion-rights movement was to give a woman an individual choice, not to effect a means of population control, or to save the environment. “Save the environment–have an abortion!” That would make an interesting bumper sticker or campaign slogan…
A little bit of housekeeping from an earlier post (responding to weirddave):
The New Jersey Record was the paper with the investigative report on the number of partial-birth abortions at the clinic in question, not the Beacon. (I’m not sure how my brain morphed ‘Record’ into ‘Beacon.’)
The American Medical News is published by the American Medical Association. This is one source I referenced for several interviews describing the technique, necessity, and frequency of partial-birth-abortions.
The cite I linked contains more than a few interviews with the developers of the intact D&E technique as it is now performed. A more accurate and direct source you could not ask for, though maybe the congressional testimony given by physicians (which you could also read at my link) runs a close second.
Didn’t the supreme court rule that a fetus or embryo was a life??? Can you say, murder? why not give the kid a chance? IF a mother’s life is at stake, she’s had her years in the sun, time to give the kid a chance. Shouldn’t get selfish.
Yeah, the ones who hit first usually are less interested in who hit first.
Well, that depends, then, on what the intent of the laws against murder are. Is it because someone decided that society has control over the choice of murder? Or is it because society has determined that every living human being has an inherent (or, if you prefer, inalienable) right to life…in which case, the only issue is whether the fetus is classified as a living human being, with the same inalienable right?
sqweels:
Indeed. That’s why (as I said earlier) the movement was named by it’s founders the right-to-life movement, i.e., including the fetus in the inalienable human right to life. It’s a shame that others ended up summarizing their position in an inaccurate way, but it wasn’t them who made the term take hold.
Not exactly. The question is, when does this right go into effect? Also, at what point does government take an interest in defending this right? We don’t protect everyone’s right to life–just those living in the country. Citizenship is bestowed at birth. Does that also mean that government protection of rights should also be bestowed at birth? Along those lines, if you kill a pregnant woman and her baby, is this double murder?
Related question:
Is it realistic to suppose that any amount of legislation can prevent abortions? After all, abortions can be self-administered. Is not the effect anti-abortion legislation merely the prevention of safe abortions?
According to the constitution, at all times (as long as the subject conforms to the definition of a living human being), unless deprived of that right by due process.
So? We’re talking about abortions that occur in this country.
Actually, isn’t the child of American citizen parents is automatically an American citizen no matter where he or she’s born? (lawyers on the board, please correct me if I’m wrong) In that case, citizenship could be said to be bestowed prior to birth.
This question is not at all distinguishable from the basic question of whether or not abortion is murder.
If the fetus is a living human being, as abortion-rights opponents claim, then there is no such thing as a safe abortion anyway.
And yes, it’s realistic to assume that legislation can prevent abortions. Once upon a time, many states did have legislation banning abortions. While I won’t claim that none occurred during that time-period, are you going to seriously tell me that there were even remotely as many of them then as there are now? In fact (again, please correct me if I’m wrong, lawyers), wasn’t Roe from Roe vs. Wade in fact prevented from obtaining an abortion by such laws and ended up delivering the baby alive and putting him or her up for adoption?