Incoherent rage re: El Salvador and abortion

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I don’t understand this at all. There are situations in which we’re allowed to kill beings with rights, e.g., adult human beings. These categories are clearly defined: self defense, for example, or acting as a soldier during wartime, or (in some states) euthanasia.

<snip>
If fetuses (or, as I’d argue, some fetuses) have rights, why can’t we create similar distinctions for fetuses?

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

I am not going to argue (or debate) about this. IMO, the rights of the mother–the sentient, actual being on the planet, trump those of the fetus-a potential life. Their rights are NOT equal, despite determined attempts by the pro-life contingent to make them so. I don’t like or approve of the badly named partial birth abortion, but I don’t think it should be outlawed either–I think the decision and responsiblity to terminate any pregnancy lies with the woman and her physician-no matter the reason or cause or timing. Would I find a 39 week abortion morally reprehensible? Yes.

There have been cases where the mother has been kept on lifesupport (she being braindead) so that gestation can get the fetus to where it is viable. I shudder at that but it is legal, apparently, to do so. (I haven’t a clue how to search for such a thing online, so please don’t ask me to.) While that appalls me, I don’t doubt that for that widower/father, that baby is perhaps a great comfort (another tangent–kids shouldn’t be consolation prizes in life).

I am somewhat distracted today and I doubt I have expressed myself well or clearly. Bottom line: as a woman, I refuse to let anyone else tell me or force me to reproduce if I do not choose to. YMMV.

62

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Perhaps, but I’d humbly suggest that you and the Church are not approaching the analysis with the same set of postulates. It’s not hair-splitting; it’s the appropriate analysis of the health and safety of both human beings involved.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I said I wouldn’t argue (I feel there is no point in discussing this topic) but I feel the need to say this much.

Excuse me, but baloney. It’s punishing a woman- possible even making her sterile-for the fact of life that she can get pregnant. Why? So she can go to eternal glory sans motherhood? How can anyone, in good conscience, remove that kind of choice from anyone else? You were unfortunate to have an ectopic, so no more fertility for you!

:confused:
An ectopic pregnancy is not another human being-it’s a potentially deadly condition that deserves prompt medical treatment, with the least amount of repercussions for the person who suffers it.

63

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]

An ectopic pregnancy is not another human being-it’s a potentially deadly condition that deserves prompt medical treatment, with the least amount of repercussions for the person who suffers it.
[/QUOTE]

How do you know that there’s not another human being there? What’s your proof of that proposition?

I readily concede that, if you begin from the premise that a fetus is not a human being, your conclusions are correct. And I readily concede that such a position is not untenable.

But neither is it utterly certain, which is what your statement offers.
So how do you know, and why should I accept your determination as the absolute truth, binding on me?

64

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]

There have been cases where the mother has been kept on lifesupport (she being braindead) so that gestation can get the fetus to where it is viable. I shudder at that but it is legal, apparently, to do so. (I haven’t a clue how to search for such a thing online, so please don’t ask me to.) While that appalls me, I don’t doubt that for that widower/father, that baby is perhaps a great comfort (another tangent–kids shouldn’t be consolation prizes in life).

[/QUOTE]

Actually, I believe there was a case like this recently, and it was the woman’s wish that she be kept on life support until the child could be born. (I don’t remember all the details, but apparently she was having health problems, and she had some legal papers sorted out). Considering it was a wanted pregnancy, why not?

Quite honestly, if I were in an accident while pregnant, and I was brain dead, I’d probably want my family to keep me on life support until viability outside the womb. But then they’d have to pull the plug.

65

[QUOTE=Bricker]
How do you know that there’s not another human being there? What’s your proof of that proposition?

I readily concede that, if you begin from the premise that a fetus is not a human being, your conclusions are correct. And I readily concede that such a position is not untenable.

But neither is it utterly certain, which is what your statement offers.
So how do you know, and why should I accept your determination as the absolute truth, binding on me?
[/QUOTE]

Because an eptopic pregnancy, by definition, is NOT viable. At all. It will never come to term.

66

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Because an eptopic pregnancy, by definition, is NOT viable. At all. It will never come to term.
[/QUOTE]

And how does the conclusion that it’s not a human being follow from that?

If an infant is born with a terminal illness, such that it’s certain the infant will die in days, I’m sure you would agree that the infant was a human being, even given her short expected lifespan.

67

[QUOTE=Bricker]
How do you know that there’s not another human being there? What’s your proof of that proposition?

I readily concede that, if you begin from the premise that a fetus is not a human being, your conclusions are correct. And I readily concede that such a position is not untenable.

But neither is it utterly certain, which is what your statement offers.
So how do you know, and why should I accept your determination as the absolute truth, binding on me?
[/QUOTE]

Bricker the fundamental difference is eleanorigby isn’t using the power of the state to force you into a room waiting to see if you rupture from within.

You and I can disagree on whether or not life begins at conception, however once the state takes over and forces it’s will upon your wife and daughters, whether it’s forced abortions or forced pregancies, it’s time to take a stand.

68

[QUOTE=Bricker]
And how does the conclusion that it’s not a human being follow from that?

If an infant is born with a terminal illness, such that it’s certain the infant will die in days, I’m sure you would agree that the infant was a human being, even given her short expected lifespan.
[/QUOTE]

The infant born only to die in a few days most likely (nowadays) didn’t rupture inside her mother, causing (I’m not an OB nurse, so I could be wrong here) essentially internal bleeding, shock and death. I wouldn’t call something that could kill me from the inside a human being–I call it a threat to my life. Thank god we live in a time when there is some non-fatal treatment for this condition.

69

[QUOTE=holmes]
Bricker the fundamental difference is eleanorigby isn’t using the power of the state to force you into a room waiting to see if you rupture from within.

You and I can disagree on whether or not life begins at conception, however once the state takes over and forces it’s will upon your wife and daughters, whether it’s forced abortions or forced pregancies, it’s time to take a stand.
[/QUOTE]

Wait a second. How is the “power of the state” wielded?

If someone is forcing legislators at the point of a rifle barrel to vote for pro-life propositions, then I agree with you. But it seems to me that you and I have an agreement about “the power of the state” is to be directed. Why should your view of view of what a human being is be the only one that the law recognizes? Why can’t my view have a fair shot at being recognized under law?

You characterize this as “forcing” something on my wife and daughters. I say that YOUR view forces death upon my unborn son and daughters, nieces and nephews. Why is your view automatically right, and mine automatically wrong?

70

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
The infant born only to die in a few days most likely (nowadays) didn’t rupture inside her mother, causing (I’m not an OB nurse, so I could be wrong here) essentially internal bleeding, shock and death. I wouldn’t call something that could kill me from the inside a human being–I call it a threat to my life. Thank god we live in a time when there is some non-fatal treatment for this condition.
[/QUOTE]

Where is the definition of “human being” writ such that it excludes “something that can kill you from the inside”?

71

BrickerWe’re still talking about El Salvador, right? It looks to me that they have little choice in the matter.

72

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Wait a second. How is the “power of the state” wielded?
[/QUOTE]

Ultimately, by sending men with guns to take you into custody if you violate the state’s decrees (though usually an official demand with that scenario lurking discreetly in the background suffices).

What does a situation where some external group forces the state to wield its power in one direction rather than another have to do with the ultimate nature of that power?

I seem to have missed the section of holmes’s post advocating state-mandated abortions. Perhaps you could point it out?

73

[QUOTE=Bricker]

[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]

Bricker, I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that the Catholic church will allow a segment of the fallopian tube containing the embryo to be removed, but won’t allow the more fertility-sparing procedure of opening the tube, removing the embryo, then repairing the tube.

Or not allowing the use of MTX to do a “chemical surgery” to achieve the same ends non-invasively.

The mental gymnastics needed to rationalize such hair-splitting seems to me to be a disservice to the patient. IMHO.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but I’d humbly suggest that you and the Church are not approaching the analysis with the same set of postulates. It’s not hair-splitting; it’s the appropriate analysis of the health and safety of both human beings involved.
[/QUOTE]

I quite frankly can’t figure out any set of postulates which support the conclusions that:

  1. It is acceptable to remove the embryo, given that it is necessary to save the mother and notwithstanding the fact that it will kill the embryo, but

  2. It is unacceptable to do so by one method rather than another, given the advantages of the former as listed in Qadgop’s post.

74

[QUOTE=JRDelirious]
… and in any case I think Steve was misusing the term “Jump the Shark”, I don’t see the relevance.

Anyway, back to the main subject – the “Salvadoran Solution” is one example of the oft-posed question of how the heck is an absolute ban on non-lifesaving abortion going to be enforced: essentially, every female with a serious pregnancy complication becomes confined under medical watch until the complication becomes critical, however long that takes, so the authorities KNOW she really NEEDED the abortion. The Salvadoran rule does seem to be more rigid than that of the Church, though – an ectopic pregancy being nonviable no matter what, nobody is required to sit around and risk death waiting for a miracle; as mentioned, they just limit what methods may be used (Why allow the most invasive and difficult method? Wild guess: probably because they fear the less-invasive could be also used to terminate regular pregnancies under pretext of medical necessity, and they don’t quite trust us). Sounds like someone in the Salvadoran Justice Ministry freaked out over the possibility that people would begin faking medical complications and took the next step further (… because, they trust anyone even less), or they are just venting a bit of the totalitarian/fascist impulse that ever since the end of the civil war they cannot channel in the direction of exterminating peasants…
[/QUOTE]

Emphasis added.

I think JR hit the nail right on the head wrt why pro-lifers are thought by some to be misogynistic: They don’t trust women to make decisions regarding their bodies or their health. They assume the worst, that women want have sex irresponsibly and kill babies, so therefore they want to make abortions as difficult to get and as invasive and dangerous as possible. It’s about controlling women, scaring them into being good and punishing them when they’re bad.

See also: the people that want to withhold the hpv vaccines that would save thousands of women from dying of cervical cancer because it might encourage them to have sex, too.

75

I would submit that questions of when human life start and such are a bit of a hijack for this particular thread. This particular thread was started because of the legal situation in El Salvador, which endangers the lives and fertility of women with ectopic pregnancies even more than what I gather is the official position of the RCC.

So I would like to ask Bricker what his thoughts are on the abortion laws in El Salvador, given that they appear to have been influenced to some substantial extent by the Catholic church.

Is it unreasonable to think that the official RCC line allowing some treatments for ectopic pregnancies is just mouthing platitudes to placate liberal Western societies that would be/are outraged by this requirement for women to wait till the fallopean tube ruptures before the embryo can be removed? What exactly should we think about the involvement in the formulation of the specifics of this law by members of the church hierarchy, and their pushing for this harsher treatment of women? Can we hold them to be representatives of the RCC, or should they be viewed as some sort of conservative renegades going beyond what the Church herself would advocate?

I must confess I find the article linked in the OP very troubling. While I strongly oppose the position of the RCC on abortion/contraception, I generally do have some understanding of where it’s coming from (at least on the abortion side of things - rather less so on the contraception side). But I find the situation in El Salvador as described in that article to be absolutely abhorent, utter anathema to any claims of loving life. Forcing a woman to risk her life to remove a doomed embryo only after it ruptures her reproductive organs in order to satisfy some warped understanding of religious dogma? Shame on anyone who would offer even a half-hearted defense of such a thing.

76

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I am not going to argue (or debate) about this. IMO, the rights of the mother–the sentient, actual being on the planet, trump those of the fetus-a potential life. Their rights are NOT equal, despite determined attempts by the pro-life contingent to make them so.
[/QUOTE]

I completely agree, and I agree with your emphasis on the word “potential” (although the word “life” is problematic here, it’s a problem of semantics; a word like “sapient being” is more accurate, I think).

All I’m saying is that this is the battlefield on which abortion is, in my opinion, best defended: the fetus does not have any more rights than a ficus prior to a certain point, and when it gains rights, it doesn’t gain them all at once, magically; it gains them slowly, as it develops into a self-aware, sentient, sapient entity.

As a society, we’re accustomed to drawing bright lines in cases where no bright line rightly exists: look at the voting age, tax brackets, “preponderance of evidence” standards, and so forth. These lines are necessarily arbitary, and absolutely necessary: we can’t function without them.

So in the matter of abortion, we have to figure out where along this continuum we’re going to place a bright line. Some folks place it at conception, which I think is ridiculously early. Some people place it at birth, which kinda squicks me out, with its implication that it’d be okay to abort a fetus during labor for no good reason. A lot of folks place it at viability, which is, I think, a better place for an arbitrary line, as long as we remember that it’s arbitrary, a rough recognition of the fetus’s growing rights, and not itself ethically central.

Daniel

77

[QUOTE=Bricker]
You characterize this as “forcing” something on my wife and daughters. I say that YOUR view forces death upon my unborn son and daughters, nieces and nephews. Why is your view automatically right, and mine automatically wrong?
[/QUOTE]

Huh? How does having the choice whether or not, to have an abortion force anything on your family? Unless you believe that given the chance, your family would gladly terminate their pregencies…that sounds like a personal problem to me.

As opposed to El Salvador in which even as their pregancies risk their lives, women are really and truly forced to continue on with it, until their baby dies insided them or nearly kills them.

Or do you not believe that women in El Salvador are **forced by the ‘state’ ** to continue with their ectopic pregancy, which will not be viable…until such a time as the baby is dead or they nearly are; regarless of the damage such an act will most likely do to them?

Let’s cut to the chase, would you be okay if you lived in El Salvador, one of your family members had an ectopic pregancy and the state forced her to wait? Would you if you had the means take her to another country? Would you feel you had a gun to your head? I would.

Now compare the real world results of having abortion legal? Your family wants to have their children? No problems. No one’s ‘legality’ forced them to.

You do see the difference, yes?

78

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I’m not an OB nurse, so I could be wrong here.
[/QUOTE]

Paging Cyn OB/GYN RN to the pit for Ectopic Preganancy.

79

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Where is the definition of “human being” writ such that it excludes “something that can kill you from the inside”?
[/QUOTE]

I’d say that’s a moralistic approach from someone who is usually very careful to exclude moral judgements from his posts.
Ectopic pregnancies will result in nothing but a terminated pregnancy. To force a woman to stay in incredible amounts of pain while a trapped fetus grows inside of and then ruptures a fellopian tube, then dies is not merely inhumane, it’s monstrous. Bad enough that these things happen without the mother being aware til such time she requires surgery. Forcing a woman to undergo an ectopic pregnancy is nothing short of torture.

80

[QUOTE=holmes]
BrickerWe’re still talking about El Salvador, right? It looks to me that they have little choice in the matter.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, no. I am arguing against the claim that taking the US pro-life movement’s “logical conclusion” will lead to El Salvador’s position. So the substance of the pro-life movement positions here is directly relevant to my claim.