Terribly poor logic. As a society, we permit certain things and ban others. And societal agreement is the only moral force necessary here.
Do we say we can’t enforce the laws against murder, because the only ones involved are the murderer, the victim (who’s dead anyway), the life insurance company and God?
Of course not. Therefore we can decide to permit or ban abortion.
I don’t personally believe that it can be banned without a change in the national mood, and a consensus view that the child is worthy of protection. This, rather than a ban, is my goal, since it alone would reduce abortion.
You seem to have moral standing to advocate all sorts of laws, elucidator. Saying you have none on this issue is a pure cop-out.
Unless, of course, that isn’t your view, and you’re just using it as cover.
Well, the choice is entirely yours. You can take me at my word, or you can go pound burdocks. I wholeheartedly endorse your campaign of persuasion, firstly, because I think it is precisely the correct venue, and secondly, because you admit to lacking justification to enforce your views without that concensus. That is a reasonable position, and I have no quarrel with it. But that train left the station about twenty years ago.
I rather admire principled futility and Quixotic endeavors. Therefore, I have no problem with simultaneously wishing you the best of luck while assuring you that I will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way.
Mr. Moto, what has been your own moral standing in efforts to bring deadbeat dads to justice and enforce child support laws? What efforts have you made to see that fathers have equal rights in custody hearings? What efforts have you made in support of on-the-job child care centers? Should there be an amendment to the Constitution banning the abandonment of a child by either parent once parenthood is established?
If you and your wife both work outside the home, can you honestly say that you both share equally in time spent in childcare and household responsibilities? Do you think that most husbands and fathers do?
If a woman’s life is endangered by her pregnancy, who should decide whether to terminate the pregnancy – the woman, the doctor, her minister, the mood of the society, the government? Please address this question on face value rather than saying that it doesn’t happen often. It does happen.
The woman is also worthy of protection. Try to think of her as a human being. If it helps, she was an unborn child once.
In those rare instances where the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy, every attempt should be made to save both the mother and the unborn child. The mother should not unilaterally say, “My life is more important, so let’s just kill this thing! Let’s not even bother trying to save it!”
If the fetus is viable, this may require delivering it prematurely–by Caesarean section, if necessary. If the fetus is not viable, then it cannot survive anyway without saving the mother’s life. Every single pro-life organization that I know acknowledges that.
And yes, these circumstances ARE rare. That does not mean we should avoid discussing them; however, it does mean that we cannot use these situations to justify abortion in general. One cannot justify abortion on demand on the grounds that it is occasionally need in certain rare, life-threatening circumstances. That would be like saying that people should be allowed to ignore traffic lights, on the grounds that this is sometimes necessary in emergency medical situations.
MM:Abortion is legal in America right up to the due date.
This is a VERY misleading statement. It would be more accurate to say that under certain restricted circumstances, abortion is legal after the first trimester. The Roe v. Wade decision established that
So “abortions are legal right up to the due date” applies ONLY to abortions necessary to protect the woman’s life or health. All other abortions may be restricted or prohibited in the later stages of pregnancy, and AFAIK that’s exactly what state laws do.
JT: *One cannot justify abortion on demand on the grounds that it is occasionally [needed] in certain rare, life-threatening circumstances. *
Nobody’s trying to. The legal point is that the fetus’s legal status as a human person, and consequently its right to life, changes over the course of a pregnancy, just as the fetus’s biological development does. Early in the pregnancy, the fetus isn’t sufficiently developed to constitute a fully human person, so the woman’s right to choose an abortion outweighs the fetus’s right to life. (That’s when “abortion on demand” is permitted.) Late in the pregnancy, the situation is reversed: a woman may constitutionally be legally prohibited from choosing an abortion (unless the preservation of her life or health requires it) because the fetus’s right to life now outweighs her right to choose.
Setting the transition points at the trimesters is obviously arbitrary and approximate, but it’s a reasonable attempt to make the law reflect the biological reality that over the course of pregnancy, an embryo starts out very different from a developed human person and ends up very similar to one. (That, I think, is what Zagadka was trying to convey, although I—and US abortion law—disagree with his position that the fetus’s transition to personhood occurs all of a sudden at the end of pregnancy.)
Getting back to the actual thread topic: I agree that it’s impossible to draw from existing abortion statistics the conclusion that Bush policies in general somehow caused an increase in the abortion rate. But it’s worth asking what did cause the increase that researcher Dr. Stassen claims to have found (new link because I can’t find the story on Stoid’s HouChro link any more):
It sounds reasonable to infer that economic conditions do put upward pressure on abortion rates (and I’d think that lack of health care coverage would be especially significant: paying for OB care out-of-pocket is hellaciously expensive, whether you plan to raise the child yourself or give it up for adoption).
But I’d also want to know whether more women are getting unintentionally pregnant nowadays than previously, and if so, why. The ineffective-sex-ed factor may be significant; certainly, abstinence-only sex-ed programs are not demonstrably effective in reducing teen pregnancy:
To know what impact this has had on abortion rates, though, we’d need recent statistics on abortions among teens with exposure to different types of sex ed, which I can’t seem to find.
(JM:[Abstinence] is the one known birth control method to be 100% effective.
You’ve heard of the difference between “ideal-use effectiveness rate” and “actual-use effectiveness rate” for contraceptive methods, right? The former is the pregnancy prevention effectiveness of a given method when used perfectly every time; the latter is the effectiveness as it’s actually practiced. The actual-use failure rate of abstinence—i.e., the rate at which people who are supposed to be using it end up using it inconsistently and incorrectly—is actually higher than that of many other birth control methods. Abstinence is only as good as the self-control of the people who are using it, and when it comes to sex, lots of people turn out to have less self-control than they thought they did.)
By the way, as long as we’re picking on illogical arguments: if economic conditions do have a significant impact on abortion rates, then just because Bush didn’t cause the current economic downturn doesn’t necessarily mean that firing him wouldn’t help. If his policies have been ineffective or counterproductive in promoting economic improvement for women who now can’t afford to have babies, then he’s contributing to the “economic-necessity-abortion” problem even if he didn’t cause it.
I won’t argue with any of that. It’s just that if a couple finds that they are going to have a child, there are only two people who are responsible for that situation, and neither of those two people is George Bush.
All excellent points. That part of the argument - that because better economies lead to fewer abortions, you should vote for Kerry - is much weaker. I personally think you’d have to try to do as poorly as Bush has, but economies do have ebbs and flows all on their own, too.
I would have framed the debate as, “Hate abortion? Focus your energy on increasing economic opportunity, instead of on changing the law.”
JM:It’s just that if a couple finds that they are going to have a child, there are only two people who are responsible for that situation, and neither of those two people is George Bush.
(Actually, in a case of pregnancy resulting from rape, only one person is really responsible for that situation, right?) Mostly, I agree with you. However, I think that promoting ignorance or misinformation about sex or contraception, which is what a lot of abstinence-only sex ed does, confers on the promoters some indirect responsibility for the unwanted pregnancies that result. They shouldn’t be on the hook for child support, but they are definitely part of the problem.
I’d just like to make one point concerning economics. I strongly favor adoption over abortion, and would be glad to see a day when we have no abortions and as many adoptions are necessary. The thing is, while I have no idea what it costs to have an abortion, I know that carrying a child to term can be expensive. Pre-natal care must be paid for somehow. Also, sooner or later, the woman carrying the child will have to stop working, if she works. In America, companies are only required to provide unpaid leave for pregnancy. On my last job, with what they pay me and what my routine monthly expenses are, not counting the additional ones incurred by pregnancy, I would literally not have been able to afford to carry a child to term without tapping into some retirement savings I’ve got socked away, and even then, it’d be close. Before that, when I was out of work for seven months, the economics would have been even tighter, and I would not have felt comfortable seeking out permanent employment while pregnant, although presumably I could have set up some arrangement where I’d start work after my due date. While I was laid off, I had no health insurance, which would only worsen the circumstances.
Now, I admit to possibly making the situation worse than it is. First of all, I’m a staunch believer that no one should attempt to raise a child on her own, and, barring rape, you’d better believe I’d at least hope the father of the child would assume some of the financial responsibility, although I have always assumed the responsibility of arranging and paying for my own birth control. Second, I’m pretty sure my family would step in to help me out, and the worst I’d have to endure is some long, unpleasant, possibly justified lectures concerning my own lack of responsibility. Third, I would hope my church would also step in and help me out. Come to think of it, would an adoption agency help with some of the expenses, or is this too close to baby selling?
The thing is, becoming pregnant does have an economic impact on a woman, and I’m pretty sure carrying a child to term is more expensive than having an abortion. While, as I said, I much prefer adoption over abortion, I also know it isn’t necessarily that simple.
Right. What have you done, in support of any of these things?
I worked for a short time as a clerk in the Allegheny County Family Court, in Pennsylvania. While there, I handled URESA cases and parernity determinations.
Please don’t throw my maleness back in my face. I certainly can’t help that I was born male. This accident of birth in no way invalidates my right to take a stand on this issue.
Even if it did, there are plenty of pro-life women.
Not that it’s of any consequence either way, but Mrs. Moto is a stay-at-home mom. Our kids are 23 months old (boy and girl twins) and three weeks old, our youngest son.
If a woman’s life is tryly endangered, abortion should be permitted. I have a problem with statutes providing for abortion if the health of the mother is endangered. This provision has been interpreted too broadly to include her mental and emotional well being, and under this interpretation any abortion could be justified.
Mr. Moto: *Maybe you never heard of /doc/{@54854}/hit_headings/words=4?]Doe v. Bolton. *
The link in your post goes to the opinion of J. Iredell in Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793.
MM:This case, decided at the same time as Roe v. Wade, established that late-term abortions are legal if a doctor finds a need for them.
That’s essentially the same thing as the Roe decision: late-term abortions are permitted to protect the life or health of the woman, and it’s up to a doctor to decide whether her life or health is actually endangered.
MM:Such a finding is routinely made by some doctors. Say, some of the ones getting paid piecework for abortions in some clinics.
Got a cite for this? It’s quite a serious accusation to claim that doctors are “routinely” lying and violating their medical oaths in order to provide unnecessary and illegal late-term abortions just because a woman requests one, and I would definitely need to see evidence for it.
Any doctor doing that on a routine basis is acting outside the law and could lose her or his license. Any clinic allowing such a practice would lose the right to remain open. And what we are discussing is what should or should not be within the the law. You will need to provide a reliable source for such an outrageous claim.
I spent twenty years teaching in inner city high schools where I counselled young women who were pregnant. I was an advocate for opening the school’s daycare training facility so that it would include children of the girls who attended the school. I babysat while my students studied and administered a final exam once to one of my students who was in labor.
In my “spare” time I volunteered at a crisis center doing work both on the phone and in person. Not all of the clients were pregnant, but many of them were, so I familiarized myself with legal options available in the state at that time.
I have exposed one deadbeat dad who was running from justice – two wives and two children. (He was also a con artist preying on other women.) I am an advocate for stronger enforcement of paternal responsibility and rights.
For 32 years I have been an advocate for fathers having equal rights in custody hearings. (The Equal Rights Amendment would have benefitted men as well as women.)
And of course, I support on-site child care centers to make work easier for fathers as well as mothers.
I do not think the Constitution should be altered according to the “mood” of a nation.
My husband and I share equal household responsibilities. That was true in my first marriage where my husband did all of the cooking and much of the cleaning and in my second marriage where we both have other priorites. I would never marry a man who would be so disrespectful as to sit down and relax while I was still on my feet working and taking care of the children. The men who do that and the women who think that that’s the way it’s supposed to be are telling themselves a lighter version of the same lie that white people told themselves about their entitlement to have slaves do the work for them – and every Uncle Tom who bought into it.
Now that I have answered your question, please just answer me this one thing. You said:
In what way did I throw your maleness in your face? Exactly what did I say that prompted you to say that? The only question I asked you that I wouldn’t ask a woman was about the housework and childcare. And if you aren’t doing half of it, it isn’t because you are male, it’s because you choose to be unfair.
Your maleness has nothing to do with your stand. You yourself admit that many women are pro-life. Further, many men are pro-choice. I have been married to two men who understand that being pro-women does NOT mean being anti-male! Of course you have a right to your opinion, as do I. And I have the right to try to persuade you that maybe you ought to think about 1) what happens to those babies after they are born and 2) the fact that women are deserving of life too.
I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. As the law stands now, it is a fair law. No viable babies are aborted unless their is a danger to the life and health of the mother. Women don’t abort fetuses they have carried for five or six months without it affecting them physically and emotionally unless they are sociopathic or truly “zero at the bone.”
Be aware that abortions that affected the life of the mother were allowed prior to Roe v. Wade.
I was just reminising about Y2K. That really was a boring year. The only thing that happened was that whole Presidential election thing. Nothing else happened. At all. The entire year. Nothing.
Perhaps. Is it asinine and fucking idiotic to observe that, since Nixon, the size of the federal debt (as a percent of GDP) has increased with each Republican administration and decreased with each Democratic one? Or that over the same timespan, Democratic administrations have reduced the size of the federal government (federal outlays as a percent of GDP) more than all the Republican administrations combined?
It is certainly reasonable to believe that another Republican administration will lead to a higher national debt and a larger federal government - if recent history is any guide.
Granted, correlation does not prove causation, but politicians are eager to take credit for a good economy, it only seems fair to hold them accountable for bad ones.
Not at all. Good economies are the result of prudent and practical policies, applied in adherence to sound principles of fostering entrepreneurship and personal responsibility. Bad economies result from unforseeable circumstances.
Mr. Moto, I take it then that you were unable to substantiate your claim.
Abortions performed for mental health reasons were permitted before Roe v. Wade if it endangered the life of the mother. I do not know if women had to have a history of mental health problems or if they just had to be diagnosed as mentally ill at the time of the pregnancy to the point of endangerment of life.
The fact that a court ruled in 1973 that it was legal to perform an abortion under such circumstances is not evidence that “Such a finding is routinely made by some doctors. Say, some of the ones getting paid piecework for abortions in some clinics.” In fact, the doctors performing the abortions would not be the ones diagnosing a psychiatric disorder.
In returning to the subject of the OP, I am pro-life in the most basic sense of the word. Not only am I anti-abortion, I am also anti-war and anti-death penalty, and pro-children. That’s why I boycott Wal-mart’s which has a history of paying women lower wages for the same jobs and being lax in promoting them. (The one exception is their optical department where I get free optometry services and reduced prices on lenses.)
In essence, I boycott Bush’s policies whenever possible. He is not pro-life. He is pro-exploitation of issues.
Adoption is not a end-all-be-all solution to unwanted children. Last I heard, there are lots of kids needing homes who are bounced around in foster care.
Mr. Moto stated that there are 1.3 million abortions performed in the US in 2000. About how many people in this country want to adopt? The answer is less than you might think:
But,
So, only 51,000 American-born children were adopted by “strangers.” So, the idea that these 1.3 million babies would quickly find homes doesn’t appear to be valid.
Yes, there’s somewhat of a demand for healthy white babies, but what about black babies, or those who were born with severe disabilaties or illnesses? What about the costs and fees associated? (Each state differs.)
Most importantly, what are we going to do with the “left-overs?”