Roe was “prevented” from having the abortion only in a technical sense. Ms. “Roe” agreed to be the test case for challenging Texas’ abortion law. In order to do that, she had to follow the law while challenging it, so she had the baby and put it up for adoption. She had the option (which was very real for her, considering the backing she had) to go to a state that allowed abortions and have the operation.
I don’t know the answer to the other legal question in your post.
[Attorney hat OFF]
Honest, information-seeking question for pro-lifers (anti-choicers, right-to-lifers, friends of Bob, whatever): say abortions are banned tomorrow. The effect will be to ban abortions for people with low income (putting aside back-alley abortions for the moment). Women with sufficent means will travel to Canada, Europe, etc., for abortions. Is it a general right-to-life position that banning abortions in America is sufficient, that then we as a country have done what we can, or does that side of the argument want also to criminalize traveling abroad for an abortion?
C’mon avalon, don’t be coy, tell us how you really feel!
That IS my exact arguement. Obviously, the best option would be to carry the baby to term, then give it up for adoption. IF THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE DONE, and a late term abortion is the other option, I believe my plan to be a better one.
I never asked you to prove the validity of my assertion. I already believe my contention is true. I need no “proof” to tell me what I already know. If anything, I have provided you the opportunity to challenge or disprove, if you so choose. Whether you want to or not is up to you.
If you take issue with my contention (and here is my original wording for those who are lost in this whole thread):
“It is my impression that the political movement associated with abortion rights would resist any attempt to legally curtail intact D&E.”
and
“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.”
then I invite you to show me the error of my ways. Not that you have to. Doesn’t really matter to me. Is it really so much of a reach to think that pro-abortion-rights political groups will come down on the side of abortion rights in any instance where a mother desires an abortion, regardless of circumstance? By definition, this is what said groups do. This hardly seems to me worthy of debate. As another poster put it, “DUH!”
jodih does make a good point when she says:
As I said, a valid distinction. However, when you contend:
[/quote]
In other words, if a woman were legally claiming a right to abort a healthy very late-term fetus, I do not believe NARAL or Emily’s List would write briefs in SUPPORT of her.
[/quote]
Maybe this is true, that these groups would sit on the sideline. But if there came a time for them to stand up and be counted, I believe I know which side these groups would come down on, with the woman’s right to choose.
Can I prove what they would do? No. But I have my beliefs. These beliefs are based on the personal testimony of abortion doctors, investigative reports on the numbers and reasons for intact D&E, and congressional testimony (all of which I did cite and link to). It is also based on numerous quotes in the newspapers (of which I cited one), and proposed law after proposed law, proposed restriction after proposed restriction, being challenged by these groups. If you will allow me these beliefs, then fine. We can agree to disagree. If you feel you need to show me the error of my ways, my opportunity to you still stands. In fact, I’ll make it even easier:
In addition to the court brief or injuction support I talked about earlier, If anyone out there can show me a law or proposed law restricting partial-birth abortion that was actually supported by Planned Parenthood or NARAL in court or legislation, then I will soften my stance posted in my two quoted remarks above.
In fact, I will make it even easier! I’ll even take the partial-birth scenario out. Show me where one of these groups has supported parental notification and a waiting period, and I’ll still concede that my original statements were overreaching!
How much more of a softball could I lob up to the plate for you to hit?
For the last time, and a great big “DUH!” to you too, it is not incumbent upon me or anyone to prove the validity or invalidity of your statements. If you care to prove them, be my guest. As long as you choose not to, I have every right to disagree with them as overreaching and unsupportable. Which, in case you missed it, I do.
Moreover, and as I said in my last post but one, there is a difference between “supporting” and “failing to oppose.” You are the one who made the indefensibly over-broad statement that NARAL or Emily’s List would (hypothetically) oppose any restriction on abortion. Considering that “any” obviously includes “late term on-demand abortion services,” I continue to believe this is incorrect, even hypothetically. Again, if a woman stood up to assert a “right” to abort a full-term, perfectly healthy baby, I doubt Emily’s List or NARAL would unequivocally support that. Why? Because it’s so obviously impolitic and alienating of the “moderate” pro-choice wing. This, of course, is a hypothetical situation that is worlds removed from parental notification law or even partial birth abortions, as they are obtainable now. Since you seem to feel it is appropriate to challenge another party to prove the error of your statements, I challenge you to prove that I am wrong in saying that NARAL or Emily’s List would not unequivocally support such a plaintiff. How you’d prove it, I don’t know, but you’re the one repeatedly demanding proof. Maybe by an exhaustive search of abortion-related case law and legislative history. Better get started! I’ll wait here.
I haven’t requested that you prove my statements to be correct.
I haven’t demanded that you prove my statements to be incorrect.
I don’t need proof of what I already know to be true. I am certainly content and secure in my beliefs as I have stated them.
There is a big difference between my offering to consider any evidence that would counter my beliefs (should anyone care to provide it), and demanding that others prove or disprove my point.
Since you feel my offer to consider countering examples is unreasonable, I guess I withdraw it.
Let’s say I believe all widgets are round. This is my firm belief. I’ve only seen round widgets and in my opinion I will never see a widget other than round.
Let’s also say that someone disagrees with that; says that it is an overreaching, simplistic, and indefensible belief.
Which would be easier? Me finding every widget in the world to show that they are all, indeed, round; or someone, somewhere, deciding it would be a lot easier to just show me one (just one!) square widget to make me shut up?
You would think this would be easy.
The fact that is seems not to be easy in the current debate tells me a lot about the chances of anyone finding that square widget.
In this case, I don’t care if I never see a square widget because I already know they don’t exist.
Okay, let me clarify. You can tell me if the math is obvious here and I’m being obtuse (which is not without precedent).
Are you suggesting that this human tendency toward environmental wreckage emerges only when the population reaches a certain critical mass–i.e., it is inherent in population densities above (but not below) a certain level? Or are you saying that humans are, on average, just naturally inclined to be poor environmental citizens, therefore the problem is exacerbated as the population grows? Or is there no natural/inherent human tendency either way, meaning it is possible through vigorous public education to produce good environmental citizens at the current (and higher) population levels, whether or not we currently are? What exactly do you mean by we are “wrecking” the environment (this is important, since you are linking this directly to the population’s size)? Is there only a choice between an acceptably pure environment (whatever the hell that even means) or unencumbered abortion rights?
This is what I mean by unclear, unsupported and–most importantly–not on point. Because, as you know, my real point was not to argue these issues (in fact, for argument’s sake, I conceded them) but to point out that I don’t believe your contention naturally leads to the conclusion that abortions are justified. If something bad (A) can be avoided only through something else (B), it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not the something else (B) is the more evil practice. The fact that A is avoided through B–even if true–is not enough.
Again, you are providing as a given–fetuses are non-intelligent and do not deserve protection–that which you need to be arguing. That fetuses may or may not belong to a class that threatens “life” (an interesting approach to use in supporting abortion) is not by itself relevant unless you can argue that this threat is a more morally offensive practice–which you haven’t.
Lemme get this straight, Bob, you’re disputing the notion that a fetus at the time of a typical abortion is non-intelligent and disputing the notion that humans are harming the environment and that our numbers are a factor in this?
I think that there are some basic facts being simply overlooked here. Since the original topic is specifically about partial-birth abortions, I am going to address the issues which are being ignored.
Milossarian
Revtim
Kyberneticist
If the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, then explain why the rigors of labor and hours of labor involved are considered safer than a c-section. Let’s not forget to add in the stress factor of premature labor itself upon the woman’s body that has not prepared for it.
So what if you make the head a little smaller. Isn’t the chest and shoulders delivered prior to the head? Generally speaking, aren’t attempts made to turn babys of a breech presentation because of possible delivery complications?
I believe that when someone honestly looks at what the partial-birth abortion procedure does accomplish, it changes one’s perspective. And what is does effectively accomplish is total removal of the possibility that the baby will take a breath. If the baby takes a breath, then the game is over. In the end, I believe this is what it’s about.
Prism 02
I know what you mean. Those were my same thoughts when I discovered for myself what this was a few years ago.
I am sure they do mourn the loss of their child. Does the procedure include a painkiller for the child prior to…?
Is this procedure the only option they had for their child? Was their child forbidden by law a natural death eased by painkillers?
Gaudere
Without medical intervention, a brain-dead adult, child, or baby would be dead. The pumping of machines only creates an illusion of life in that body.
A fertilized egg is only that particular status for a very short period of time. It becomes a zygote at the instant that the sperm and egg combine and when that occurs, the zygote is a DNA genetically complete human being, just as you are and I am. Granted that it is a very young unfolding, maturing, individual. But, an individual it is.
As such is the case, how could the Pill be a tool of murder? The Pill only prevents an egg from being released in the first place.
Is the IUD a tool of murder? I honestly don’t know the answer to that.
And as many as 2/3 of those “individuals” fail to implant on the uterine wall, and are expelled in the next menses. (This, in fact, is the cause of many of the visits to fertility clinics.) Is the woman’s uterus committing murder when it fails to accept a zygote? If a birth-control drug were available that decreased the chances that a fertilized egg would successfully implant, should it be outlawed as a tool of murder? If a drug were available that increased the odds of a zygote successfully implanting, with no side effects, should every sexually active woman be required to take it or be charged with negligent homicide?
What I omitted was this: A fertilized egg is only that particular status for a very short period of time. It becomes a zygote at the instant that the nucleus of the sperm and egg combine…
I concede that I may not know much “about birthin’ no babies”, but I believe the head is delivered before the shoulders. It seems as if the chest and shoulders would be more amenable to compression than the head; most vagnially-delivered babies have kind of funny-looking heads from getting squashed on their trip out, but their chests and shoulders seem to compress and then bounce back fine.
Prior to approximately the 5th month, the fetus cannot be aware of pain; the neural structures to register pain just aren’t there. After that, the ability to percieve pain may still be a little iffy. I am not certain of the development stage of Jodi’s friends’ fetus, but I can certainly understand how they would reason that a swift death before the nerves are fully developed would be preferable to birthing the child, drugging him/her up, and watching him/her die. There seems little point, both for the fetus or for the parents.
Not necesarily–an adult can be vegetative and yet breathe. You would have to feed him/her, but the fact that a person would not be alive without medical machines does not necessarily negate a person’s pershon-hood, IMHO; certainly there were times when my father would not have survived without extensive medical support, but he was still a person. If a human is utterly paralyzed, they may still be a person, but if their human brain is dead or non-existant, that person is effectively dead (no longer a person).
The question is not whether it is an individual; the question is whether it is a person. A brain-dead adult is a individual and a genetically complete human being. A zygote is a potential person (and I do take that into account), but it is not a person yet.
The Pill also prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg/zygote, should an egg be released and fertilized.
Man, I give up. Oh, all right, one more try before I say, “Uncle.”
My most recent post neither disputed nor confirmed the fact that fetuses at the time of an abortion are typically non-intelligent. You introduced that notion. I am, however, pointing out that you offered nothing at all to support that contention. You have carried on that proud tradition in the response I quoted above.
For the the third time, and again just in the interest of this argument, I will concede that humans are harming the environment. In case you haven’t a dictionary handy, “concede” by definition means I am not disputing that particular point. I likewise did not dispute the idea that the population size is a factor in this (though I did ask for clarification, which you have not provided). But I will ask (again, I believe, for the lucky third time) what concerning this fact leads you to believe that this justifies abortion. I’ll direct you to my most recent post to determine why I believe you haven’t made that clear (since you haven’t directly responded to the questions I posed), rather than repeating myself.
If you do decide to respond by asking me why I am disputing a fact I have conceded, or why I have concluded something when I merely requested a supporting argument, I will be forced to lodge a complaint with the appropriate debating authority and hope you are hit with the severest fine and sanction possible.
Sure, Bob; here’s what I’ve dug up offhand. It’s an admittedly pro-choice site, but the science seems solid. I’ll try to track down some other sources, but I’m a bit short on time tonight. I have seen it cited as fact in some abortion debates, without being called into question by pro-lifers, so I am inclined to think that it is fairly well established. (Some pro-lifers do claim it is closer to 20 weeks; most of the article is a refutation of this.) http://prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/library/blpainwhipp.htm
The writer is Dr. Sarah Whippman; she is explaining the findings of England’s Royal College’s working party re fetal pain. You can order the original paper at the end.
