# "Party of Death" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810 "2006-06-15T15:35:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/181 "2006-06-21T02:14:38Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > Saying the book is about the pro life movement, and does not need to to defend the war is fine, but only if the book is about the pro life movement, or any other topic that the war is irrelevant to. > > Unfortunately, “Party of Death” isn’t just about the pro life movement. It also makes a claim that the Democratic party is the party of death. Now, we may disagree on whether the death penalty and the war are compelling counter arguments about which party is the party of death, but I think we can agree that they are relevant to the topic of which party is the party of death. Did you by chance read the book? I feel like a broken record here. The author clearly states that his "Party of Death is NOT equivilant to the Democratic Party. He is referring to a philosophy that he feels degrades human life to something that can be redefined at will. He includes Republicans in the “Party of Death,” if they espouse the same philosophy. The reason the he includes “Democrats” in the title, is because he believes that the Democratic Party has basically gotten into bed with people who espouse this kind of thing, for political expediency, whether or not they actually personally believe in it. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/182 "2006-06-21T02:25:23Z")
As far as personhood goes, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person, otherwise they would be protected under the Fourtheenth Amendment, which says in part > [@](#): > > Quote: > nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Actually, the pertinent part of the XIVth Amendment that SCOTUS referred to was: > [@](#): > > Section 1. All persons **born or naturalized** in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Obviously a fetus has never been born or naturalized and is therefore not a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/183 "2006-06-21T02:43:24Z")
> [@volvelle](#): > > I’m talking about choices about how we live our own lives. I presume the state enforces seat belt laws, not because not wearing one can get you killed, but because it can get you severely injured and they have to pick up a lot of the resultant medical costs. FWIW I think you should be able to do whatever you want with your own body, including not protecting it–but being forced to wear a seatbelt doesn’t even come close to the same time-zone as being forced to remain pregnant and give birth to a child you don’t want. I have good insurance, and the state would never have to pay for my injuries. Seems to me that the state should have much less interest in whether or not I wear my seatbelt than they should have in whether or not babies are killed. > [@](#): > > I’m just not seeing it. I’m sure it’s a lot less profitable than going into pretty much any other medical profession. Besides, “someone might make money off it” is a pretty dumb reason to deny a medical procedure. I don’t care if people make money off of it or not. I am just saying that someone making money off of something may have a motivating reason not to give women information about her alternatives. > [@](#): > > In the ways I already described. Many people don’t have three days. You’re adding the cost of travel and lodging to the cost of the procedure, plus the amount of time a person has to obtain an abortion and recover from it. cosmosdan suggested that the person could call on the phone to get the information over the phone, and set the appointment for 3 days later. Where is the hardship in this? > [@](#): > > Would it make sense to require adoption agencies to tell potential mothers to wait three days before making a decision to continue with a pregnancy, or hand out “Have You Considered an Abortion?” brochures? Don’t people giving up babies for adoption have 9 months to think about it? And there are waiting periods in which they can get the baby back if they change their minds. And yes, I believe adoption counselors do go through the various options with the mothers. Certainly, they give them extensive counseling to be sure that they are mentally/emotionally ready to give the baby up vs. keeping it. > [@](#): > > Abortion providers provide abortions. There are already plenty of organizations who provide help for mothers in need of it. Obviously. And I think it is ethical of the abortion provider to be sure the mother is aware of all of these organizations. > [@](#): > > I may be wrong, but I think that even most people who want abortion restricted are not restricting it until after the second trimester. Three months is an unbelievably short amount of time to obtain the procedure. Some people may not have even realized they are pregnant by this point. I have no idea what most people want…I was talking about my personal preference. I don’t agree that 3 months is not a long enough time. These days, the at-home tests can tell you if you are pregnant about 12 days after conception. You miss one period, you take the test, and you still have 2 1/2 months to decide what you want to do. > [@](#): > > It’s disingenuous because you say you don’t believe abortion should be illegal, yet the things you propose would, in practice, make it available to only the tiniest minority of people. Why would it in practice make it available only to the tiniest minority of people? > [@](#): > > As DianaG already pointed out, abortions in the third trimester are incredibly rare, and I would challenge you to find a case where “psychological trauma” came into play at this point (the only case near that vein of which I’m aware involved a woman attempting to obtain a so-called partial birth abortion because the baby, which she wanted, had died in utero, but her body wasn’t close enough to going into labor). The point is that it CAN be done…it is perfectly legal, and I don’t agree with it unless the life of the mother is in danger. I don’t care if there is one done a year or 1000. It makes me physically ill to think of a baby about ready to be born being dragged out of the womb and having its brain sucked out. Seriously, I cannot understand why anyone would think that this is something that needs to be kept legal. It is this kind of thing that Ponnuru was talking about when he refers to the “Party of Death;” people who can justify killing a baby about to be born are literally an inch away from justifying killing a baby that has already been born. > [@](#): > > I’m willing to bet that information is already available from any doctor or planned parenthood clinic. There’s no reason to force it on someone who has asked for an abortion. If they want the baby, they’d ask for it. There’s no reason not to give women information about all the programs where she might get help. No one has given one reason why this would be a bad thing, other than some emotional reaction that it is overly paternalistic. Please give me one good reason why having this information would be harmful. > [@](#): > > Again, were talking about the difference between offering and requiring. OK, if you want to get technical…how about requring to offer? > [@](#): > > I’m thrity-two, but I would have gotten it at twenty-one if I’d had insurance that covered it. Just because a doctor thinks being a parent is the greatest thing on the planet doesn’t mean I do, and it’s none of their business. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that it is none of their business. However, medical professionals give their opinions about elective procedures all the time. Sometimes doctors refuse to do plastic surgery if they think the person has an unhealthy reason for desiring it, or they ask the person to have counseling first. It’s about being sure that the patient knows what they are getting into. Of course, there are some doctors who will carve up a face like whoever worked on Michael Jackson. He wanted the surgery, but is it ethical for a doctor to do that? I’m not sure it is. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/184 "2006-06-21T03:28:31Z")
> [@volvelle](#): > > If you’re truly concerned about the mental and emotional well being of women, then get out of the way and let them get the procedure they’ve decided they want. I’m sorry, but DianaG is right about the paternalistic attitude on display here. The “it’s for your own good” and “I’m just trying to look out for _you_” attitude is how we treat children, not grown women. I find this argument ridiculous. There are dozens of ways in which we as a society try to look out for and protect the interest of adults who might be uninformed. That’s all I’m suggesting. I find, “don’t be ridiculous they’ve already heard” completely naive at best. > [@](#): > > Frankly, no, I think that’s a silly thing to worry about. I’ve never heard of any abortion doctors who are rakin’ it in, and considering the amount of scrutiny and danger they put themselves in they way of, it’s not exactly an attractive career. I take this to mean you really don’t know. In all honesty neither do I but the world being what it is I wouldn’t be surprised. Why do you suppose they do it if not in large part for profit. I’m not saying most abortion clinics, but I’d wager enough to matter. I’ve seen plenty of businesses create policies that were definitely detrimental to their customers for the sake of profit. Do doctors ever prescribe medication to get a kickback? Do some preform unnecessary surgery for money. I’d be interested in knowing how many abortion clinics are actually owned by someone who is there daily and how many are owned by someone else who sets the policies effecting profits. > [@](#): > > A “simple waiting period” isn’t going to change anyone’s economic status. You’re still assuming that most women who have abortions wouldn’t do so if given other options. Please…#1. yes it’s completely obvious that a waiting period won’t change a woman’s economic status. What it might change, which was made perfectly clear, is their awareness of support programs that might allow them to keep a child when they abortion was the only economic solution. #2. I’m assuming no such thing and never said or implied it. What I think may be true from Sarafeena’s 1st hand experience {if you have any I’m all ears} is that enough woman would change their mind to make the effort worthwhile. How many is that? I don’t have a number or a percentage. > [@](#): > > Even if that’s true for some percentage, that still leaves a lot of women who _wouldn’t_ change their minds, and putting obstacles in their way because of your “concern” for some other subset is an unfair hardship. A delay is not an obstacle. Asking those that are sure of what they want to tolerate a waiting period to help the smaller percentage is not asking too much IMO. Especially since they get exactly what they wanted without change and the few can be greatly effected in a positive way. > [@](#): > > This whole “I don’t want abortion outlawed, I just want it to be harder to obtain” sentiment is disingenuous. Restricting it to the point that it’s nearly impossible to obtain at the state level is no different than outlawing it at the federal level. I don’t recall saying anything about restricting it to the point of near impossibility. Care to correct me? My suggestion is a waiting period and some information oriented counseling after which anyone who still chooses abortion would be granted one. In what way does that make it a near impossibility? > [@](#): > > Right, because in American culture, there’s _no way_ someone hasn’t heard every side and option in the abortion debate a million times already. This is just another ridiculous assumption that simple common sesne should tell you isn’t true. > [@](#): > > You’re assuming women don’t know what their choices are. I think they do. Even so, doctors are _already_ required to give out information on abortion alternatives. Really. I didn’t know and I’m glad to hear it. In case you didn’t actually read some of the posts there are definitely some women who don’t know what all the options are. It’s not insulting their adulthood to try to insure that the minority, who don’t know all the options have the chance to be made aware before they make an important choice. > [@](#): > > “Protecting” an adult woman from herself by limiting or hindering her options is _not_ pro-choice. “Mandatory counseling”? I’m sure that someone who wants an abortion as a result of rape, or who just plain already knows that they don’t want a child, are really going to benefit from that. Once again, we have dozens of laws to protect those who may not know all the options available to them. I can’t see a waiting period as an undue hardship for the women you think have their minds made up in a completely informed adult manner. While I deeply sympathize for any rape victim who gets pregnant I don’t see ending their emotional hardship two or three days sooner a justification to impose undue emotional trauma on others. That kind of trauma suffered by a woman who has an abortion and then regrets it lasts a lot longer than two or three days doesn’t it? A few of those rape victims might opt for another choice as well. > [@](#): > > I’m so glad you know what is or isn’t a hurdle to a woman who is, but doesn’t want to be, pregnant. Please try and be realistic. You spoke of the incredible burden of transportation and time. I proposed that a woman who gets in touch with a clinic could have the information mailed to her and a phone conversation with an information counselor. She makes the trip only after a brief waiting period thus making one trip only. Is that a reasonable solution or not? > [@](#): > > I’m not aware of any other medical procedure that requires this sort of “concern”. When I got a vasectomy, nobody counseled me about the joys of parenthood I’d be missing out on. They just said “you’re aware this makes you infertile?”, I said “yeah”, and they said “fine, sign here”. Pretty simple. I haven’t looked it up but I’d wager there’s some kind of interview and a wait prompted by simple scheduling for many elective surgeries. The added concern here is two fold. Even those who see a fetus as just a clump of cells can’t deny the life potential there and I would hope the idea of giving that potential some consideration before choosing to end it isn’t too outrageous. We must also realize that not every woman who applies for abortion sees that fetus as just a clump of cells either. For you the choice to get a vasectomy was “I don’t want to have any {more} children” How reversible are vasectomies? For at least some women the choice is “I don’t want to have _this_ child” It is out of concern for the few making that kind of decision and the respect for that life potential that the choice to have or not have an abortion might be a considered more serious. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/185 "2006-06-21T04:09:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I take it then that you oppose abstinence-only sex education, and the Bush Administration rules against funding any birth control program that mentions abortion? Yes and yes. In fact I didn’t know the Bush admin had that rule. ONe more reason to be disgusted by them. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you aren’t this way, but many in the pro-life movement talk about providing information for an informed decision while making rules withholding the information they don’t want out. That’s one of the reasons they come across as anti-sex and anti-woman, not pro-life. Yep > [@](#): > > An ideal world would have a very low abortion rate due to an effective birth control information program. agreed. In fact I’m surprised about the pregnancy rate. Effective birth control is available isn’t it? > [@](#): > > BTW, vasectomies are a lot more permanent than abortions. I was a bit older than 21 when I got mine, but far from being at the end of my reproductive career. No one made me wait, and no one gave me oodles of [del]propaganda[/del] information to read. A friend of mine actually went to get his reversed. How viable is that? My guess it it varies from doctor to doctor and clinic to clinic. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, there is a difference. My other question is at the time you chose to get one did you have children? If a young man of 21 or 22 with no children asks to get a vasectomy would the doctor be morally responsible to talk to him about the seriousness of the decision and even ask him to think about it for a few days or would he be a meddling bastard? > [@](#): > > Does the oodles of information handed out when someone is made to wait for an abortion include birth control information? That might be darn useful under the circumstances. We sure hope so. I think good sex education including birth control and abortion should be mentioned fairly early. It seems irresponsible to wait. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/186 "2006-06-21T05:09:16Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > That is a good question. I am not sure I am equipped to answer it, as I am not sure I have formed a personal philosophy on that yet. In my mind, the decision to go to war is infinitly more complex that the pro-life philosophy I have been discussing. I definitely feel that there are justified wars. A war that is clearly in self-defense is justified, such as the war against Japan in WWII, where they attacked & declared war on us. That’s an easy one…someone attacks you, you defend yourself. The problem is, what defines true self-defense is incredibly complicated in our world. The threats are hugly more frightening than the idea of someone flying over here and dropping bombs on a military base. The weapons are designed for mass killings, and civilians are targeted. A different circumstance is a war that is not fought necessarily in our own defense, but in the defense of others (the European war in WWII is a pretty good example of this.) Was the war against the Nazis justified, even though they never attacked the US? I think most people would say it was. We were aiding our allies, who were clearly put in a position of having to defend themselves against an aggressor. In addition, we helped to stop the mass murder the Nazis were perpetrating, which many feel was the right thing to do. This is where it gets dicey, though. Do we have a right to declare war on a country ONLY in order to come to the aid of people who are living in that country and being persectued by the government? If so, how can we justify it in some circumstances and not others? Is it only OK to do if we can prove that the bloodshed will be minimal? Is it only OK if we don’t have any other possible agenda at work? That wasn’t actually the questions I wanted to ask but since we’re there. In WWII Japan attacked us but Germany also attacked our ships that were supplying Great Britain. Not only that Roosevelt was certain that if we didn’t help our allies in Europe then we would eventually face Hitler alone. It took him years to convince an American public that still remembered WW1 all to well. In other words Germany was a direct threat to our security as well. > [@](#): > > I am not saying any of this as a justification of this particular war. I am just saying that I think there are an awful lot of considerations. There are a lot of reasons to have a war, there are a lot of reasons not to. These must be weighed and considered for each individual circumstance. I am not sure it would be possible to form a blanket philosophy that says “war is justified only in such and such specific circumstance,” because the circumstances are not specific or for that matter necessarily predictable. I agree. There is a lot to consider and it isn’t an easy call. In this specific case I think enough evidence is and has been available. It’s only gotten worse as time has passed. Regardless there’s no need to continue the comparison. > [@](#): > > I understand your feelings about this. My only point was that this was really completely off-topic as far as the book is concerned. He was trying to expose a certain philosophy that he says is far more prevalent on the Left than it is on the Right. It simply has nothing to do with the war, or the Republican attitude regarding what ends justify what means when it comes to foreign policy. I understand. I see the two discussions as somewhat linked but certainly seperate discussions. > [@](#): > > I also agree that the title is inflammatory, and I sure wouldn’t have named it that, if for no other reason than it guarantees that at least 1/2 the population won’t even think of reading it. That’s the crux of my feelings about the author rather than the issues. In choosing his title he asked for it so he’d better be ready. > [@](#): > > **cosmosdan** , I would like to thank you for having this reasonable discussion with me. It is so great to to have a conversation with someone who is open to hearing the “other side” of the debate, as well as offer thought-provoking commentary themselves. My husband sometimes asks me why I like to have these message board debates (because he knows how inflammatory some people can be on the internet), and this is the kind of thread I can point to and say “this is why.” Very nice of you to say so. It has been my pleasure. It’s one of the things I enjoy about the SDMB I’ve been greatly educated and had my horizons broadened by several fine folks like yourself. I appreciate the guidelines of GDs that tend to somewhat weed out the rabid fanatics. On a side note I’ve been thinking for months that I personally need to put my money where my mouth is and find some real way to contribute a little time to my community. It may not be the same kind of cause you chose but thanks for providing a little testimonial motivation. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/187 "2006-06-21T06:44:24Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > agreed. In fact I’m surprised about the pregnancy rate. Effective birth control is available isn’t it? Yes and no. When I was in college you had to go to drug stores to get condoms. Now they’re on the shelves in grocery stores. But sex education still leaves a lot to be desired. It took a lot of debate in my quite liberal school district before the sex education play could include putting a condom on a banana. Imagine the situation in an abstinance only school. > [@](#): > > A friend of mine actually went to get his reversed. How viable is that? My guess it it varies from doctor to doctor and clinic to clinic. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, there is a difference. > My other question is at the time you chose to get one did you have children? > If a young man of 21 or 22 with no children asks to get a vasectomy would the doctor be morally responsible to talk to him about the seriousness of the decision and even ask him to think about it for a few days or would he be a meddling bastard? Again, it’s irreversible. At least I was told that I shouldn’t count on being able to reverse it. I did have two kids - we’re poster children for planned parenthood, with the second planned to give us a year off between paying for college - which we were damn glad of two years ago! There’s a consultation, like there is for any surgical procedure. One anecdote. My cousin is an ob-gyn, and specialized in fertility. He worked for years with one couple - this was over 20 years ago - helping them conceive. It finally worked - and they decided they were getting divorced and she wanted an abortion. :eek: I’m sure he wanted to dope slap the both of them, but adults should control their bodies. There is no law saying a doctor shouldn’t counsel his or her patients about anything - but do want the jackbooted representatives of Washington or a state government in the examing room, coming between a woman and her doctor? It seems to me conservatives spend a lot of energy keeping the prying fingers of government away from their guns, but when it comes to my daughters’ vaginas - not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/188 "2006-06-21T12:15:22Z")
**cosmosdan** …I’m sorry I misunderstood your question! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/189 "2006-06-21T13:27:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Again, it’s irreversible. At least I was told that I shouldn’t count on being able to reverse it. I did have two kids - we’re poster children for planned parenthood, with the second planned to give us a year off between paying for college - which we were damn glad of two years ago! Interesting. from [here](http://www.marinurology.com/articles/vasectomy/vas-revers.htm) > [@](#): > > Vasectomy can be reversed. The procedure, called a vaso-vasostomy is microsurgery, done in an operating room. The procedure takes two hours and costs several thousand dollars. It is estimated that 10% of all men undergoing vasectomy consider reversal at some time. It is unwise to undergo vasectomy if you are uncertain and are relying on a possible surgical reversal to hedge your decision. You should only proceed with vasectomy if you are virtually certain you do not want more children. another page states the 40 to 50% of the reversal operations are unsuccessful. I guess that means some are. I think the reaction and the amount of consultation for a man with two planned children would be quite different from a single childless young man. Rightfully so. It would be reasonable for a doctor to choice to refuse the procedure for personal convictions. > [@](#): > > One anecdote. My cousin is an ob-gyn, and specialized in fertility. He worked for years with one couple - this was over 20 years ago - helping them conceive. It finally worked - and they decided they were getting divorced and she wanted an abortion. :eek: I’m sure he wanted to dope slap the both of them, dope slap…that’s a better expression. All three of my kids were accidents and not very convenient. They are now wonderful adults who contribute to society. > [@](#): > > but adults should control their bodies. There is no law saying a doctor shouldn’t counsel his or her patients about anything - but do want the jackbooted representatives of Washington or a state government in the examing room, coming between a woman and her doctor? I understand this objection. Someone mentioned the seatbelt law and in general I am opposed to the kind of laws that suggest “you’re not capable of making a decision so we must make it for you, and of course punish you if you don’t obey the law that’s for your own good” This situation I see as slightly different. We want women to have a choice but when conservatives claim that “the poor have chosen their own lot, why should we give them what we have worked for,” liberals cry for more social programs to look out for the needy and less fortunate. We put programs in place to require a waiting period for firearms. Can’t adults make that decision without government interference? We create laws to insure that other types of businesses give their clients the proper information to make a responsible choices. What I’m proposing is out of concern for the few women who might choose abortion out of desperation we create a short waiting period and we do more to insure that clinics are distributing information about support programs. I completely agree with your point that all information should be distributed freely. I find the Bush’s selective control of information reprehensible although I am not surprised by one more in a long line of reprehensible acts by them. > [@](#): > > It seems to me conservatives spend a lot of energy keeping the prying fingers of government away from their guns, but when it comes to my daughters’ vaginas - not so much. Again I see you point. I tend to see my proposal as a social program born out of concern rather than an attempt to control or limit. The other side of the coin is interesting to me. I support personal responsibility. Liberals seem to want lots of programs in place to help the poor many of whom are where they because of a series of bad choices. When conservatives say “It’s their own dam fault” Liberals cry about how heartless they are. Now I propose what I see as a helpful program and I get “leave them alone, butt out, they can make their own decisions” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2006, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/190 "2006-06-21T14:22:21Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > **cosmosdan** …I’m sorry I misunderstood your question! I hadn’t asked the actual questions and they are a little off subject but here goes. Just to get your take. In thinking about this issue from a spiritual stand point my conclusion is that believing in a soul or spirit we have no way of knowing when that soul enters the body or how that works. Children die and we have a hard time explaining any reason or purpose in that. One thought that intrigues me is that the purpose of that soul was to bring that experience to the others involved. I believe in honoring the potential of life even if we don’t know. We must try to equally honor the free will of the people involved trusting that every choice has just consequences even if we can’t always see them. In other words it is dishonoring the free will given by God to try and force our own vision of morality on others. Some things we need to leave to God. We choose for ourselves but not for others. Concerning abortion this might mean that the decsion should be left between the woman as well as the doctor and God. We try to help those in need and help people make good decisions. You experience some women who need help in order to choose something other than abortion. I’m sure there are other women who feel coerced by family pressure and the opinions of others to have a child they may not have kept if they were free to decide for themselves. Shouldn’t those women be just as free to choose? It also occurs to me that if we believe that God’s will cannot be frustrated then no soul meant to come into human existence will ever be denied. If that is true then is it possible the decision to abort a pregnancy or not is more about the people involved in that choice and how the choice affects their lives , than the fetus? You have said you consider that the being is fully human from the moment of conception right? If you are convinced of that then I suppose I can surmise your feelings about what I’ve said. If you care to I’d like to hear your thoughts from the spiritual point of view. If we are truly spiritual beings more than temporary physical beings how does that affect the abortion decision? Boy! I hope that wasn’t too confusing. ---
**Author:** ![volvelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e0b2c6/32.png) [@volvelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/volvelle)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/191 "2006-06-22T01:00:58Z")
_The Burden of a Waiting Period_ Despite the desire of those on the board to use the waiting period to provide women with alternatives to abortion, in practice it has been used almost purely as an obstacle and a scare tactic to spread false information. Although first term abortions have been seen to decrease in areas where a waiting period is mandatory, a proportional rise in second term abortions has been noted, suggesting that the waiting period only served to postpone abortions to a medically riskier time, not reduce them overall. At present, 87% of counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider. If left to the states, there would likely be even fewer. States like North Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana and others are considering or have passed statewide abortion bans. As I’ve already mentioned, access to an abortion provider is limited for the poor and rural. If they have to travel out of state, it becomes even more so. To my knowledge, a phone call to make an appointment does not count as part of the waiting period. The woman must first show up in person before it begins. If the proponents of this were only concerned with making sure a woman is aware of her options, I imagine they could have implemented the waiting period as you suggested. Since they didn’t, it seems to me that the ultimate purpose was to make actually getting an abortion that much more difficult. Waiting costs money. Travel expenses. Lodging. Food. Childcare, if the woman already has children. Time off work and lost wages. If two visits are required because they cannot be accommodated within a three day period, the “waiting period” can stretch into weeks. The later it is performed, the riskier the procedure and the higher the cost. These are the things the courts have described as being an “undue burden” on those seeking an abortion. These problems aren’t as big for the upper middle class or the wealthy, but for everyone else it can mean not having realistic access to a medical procedure. If nothing else, this violates the equal protection clause. When abortion providers have been required to provide counseling, it came with state approved “scripts” that pushed childbearing, and included misinformation designed to frighten and dissuade women from going through the procedure. Many counseling requirements for doctors, hospitals, and health agencies specifically prohibit them from including information about abortion. This is not about “getting all the information”. It’s about stacking the deck. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > It makes me physically ill to think of a baby about ready to be born being dragged out of the womb and having its brain sucked out. Seriously, I cannot understand why anyone would think that this is something that needs to be kept legal. “Partial-birth abortion” has been singled out by the anti-abortion movement precisely for this reason. People react to how it makes them feel rather than looking at the facts. The name was invented by the anti-abortion movement. Medically, it’s a D&E (dilation and extraction). They account for around 1% to 2% of abortions performed, and statistics show that none are performed past the period when a fetus would be defined as premature. Doctor’s need a sound medical reason to perform one and the only references I can find for “psychological trauma” are extremely rare cases where a woman has become suicidally depressed. There’s a thread in IMHO about depression. It’s a real, medical state, and to toss it aside as an unsound concern is dangerous. In general, though, D&Es are performed because of danger to the mother’s health, or because of an incurable medical problem with the fetus (problems which might be reduced if the U.S., like every other industrialized nation, had government supported, guaranteed health care). Banning D&E primarily penalizes people who wanted their pregnancies, but have tragically been unable to sustain one until birth. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I don’t agree that 3 months is not a long enough time. Three months is not a long time. Many women experience irregular periods. Before she was on the pill, my girlfriend’s could come anywhere from three weeks to six months. I would imagine perimenopausal women would have similar difficulties. This also affects women with infrequent or nonexistent periods due to exercise, women with light periods who mistake spotting that normally occurs early in pregnancy as a period, and women whose pregnancies are initially misdiagnosed. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Seems to me that the state should have much less interest in whether or not I wear my seatbelt than they should have in whether or not babies are killed Well, see that’s where the two sides are never going to agree. Legally and medically, abortion is not “killing a baby”. I understand it will always be so to the pro-life supporters, but I would argue that that’s a religious belief and shouldn’t have any bearing on the law. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I am just saying that someone making money off of something may have a motivating reason not to give women information about her alternatives. I’d really like to see some evidence of the “abortion mills” anti-abortionists claim exist. No, not all doctors live up their standard of ethics. But the worry that something bad _might_ happen, or that someone _might_ take advantage of a system is no reason to restrict its legality. You can’t punish one person because another might profit. In actuality, abortion providers charge less than average fees than other specialties. Adjusted for inflation, an abortion in the 90’s cost half of what it did in the 70’s. > [@Cosmosdan](#): > > I find, “don’t be ridiculous they’ve already heard” completely naive at best. And I think it’s absurd to think that anyone goes in for an abortion without having thought long and hard about it first. People who wouldn’t have an abortion if they thought they had other options, generally look for other options. > [@Cosmosdan](#): > > That kind of trauma suffered by a woman who has an abortion and then regrets it lasts a lot longer than two or three days doesn’t it? And the trauma of a woman who needs an abortion but is denied it? APA studies have found no evidence of post-abortion trauma, and “while some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness.” In fact, higher levels of stress and psychiatric problems are found in women opting for birth or adoption than abortion. Other studies have found that women who undergo counseling by those who promote a post-abortion stress disorder, regardless of their actual psychological problems, were encouraged to direct their anger at the doctor and told that they hadn’t been warned of the psychological danger. > [@Cosmosdan](#): > > Even those who see a fetus as just a clump of cells can’t deny the life potential there and I would hope the idea of giving that potential some consideration before choosing to end it isn’t too outrageous. We must also realize that not every woman who applies for abortion sees that fetus as just a clump of cells either.… For at least some women the choice is “I don’t want to have this child” It is out of concern for the few making that kind of decision and the respect for that life potential that the choice to have or not have an abortion might be a considered more serious. The potential for life is not equal to actual life. The rights of a fully formed, autonomous woman should always outweigh the “consideration” we should give to a lump of cells. As I discussed with D&Es, there are plenty of women who seek abortions who consider a fetus to be “more than a clump of cells”, and yet, they’ve still decided that an abortion is best for them. So how is your “concern” relevant for these women? By your standards, they should know more than anyone else the issues and decisions involved. They would be the _least_ in need of waiting periods and counseling. I’ll have to bow out on that note. My guest status expires tomorrow, and as much as I’ve loved being able to talk with you all, I don’t have the extra cash for entertainment right now. Thanks for letting me participate. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/192 "2006-06-22T02:50:35Z")
> [@volvelle](#): > > Despite the desire of those on the board to use the waiting period to provide women with alternatives to abortion, in practice it has been used almost purely as an obstacle and a scare tactic to spread false information. Although first term abortions have been seen to decrease in areas where a waiting period is mandatory, a proportional rise in second term abortions has been noted, suggesting that the waiting period only served to postpone abortions to a medically riskier time, not reduce them overall. My argument was not that how the waiting period was being used by others was justified. I don’t support scare tactics or the spreading of false information. The fact that waiting periods have been misused by some is not a convincing argument against the waiting period itself. > [@](#): > > To my knowledge, a phone call to make an appointment does not count as part of the waiting period. The woman must first show up in person before it begins. If the proponents of this were only concerned with making sure a woman is aware of her options, I imagine they could have implemented the waiting period as you suggested. Since they didn’t, it seems to me that the ultimate purpose was to make actually getting an abortion that much more difficult. I understand what you’re saying but that was not my argument. AS I said clearly and repeatedly. My proposition was a waiting period out of concern for the women making the choice. I have nothing but disdain for those who would manipulate policies to judge and punish women. > [@](#): > > When abortion providers have been required to provide counseling, it came with state approved “scripts” that pushed childbearing, and included misinformation designed to frighten and dissuade women from going through the procedure. Many counseling requirements for doctors, hospitals, and health agencies specifically prohibit them from including information about abortion. This is not about “getting all the information”. It’s about stacking the deck. For _them_ not for me. Do not judge and respond to my posts based on the actions of others. The argument is that women should have access to all the available information to make this choice. That’s what I support. > [@](#): > > Well, see that’s where the two sides are never going to agree. Legally and medically, abortion is not “killing a baby”. I understand it will always be so to the pro-life supporters, but I would argue that that’s a religious belief and shouldn’t have any bearing on the law. I agree. > [@](#): > > I’d really like to see some evidence of the “abortion mills” anti-abortionists claim exist. No, not all doctors live up their standard of ethics. But the worry that something bad _might_ happen, or that someone _might_ take advantage of a system is no reason to restrict its legality. You can’t punish one person because another might profit. I’d like to see some reliable info on this too. I have no problem with anyone making a profit but when dealing with something like this it needs to be done with special consideration and sensitivity for the patient. > [@](#): > > And I think it’s absurd to think that anyone goes in for an abortion without having thought long and hard about it first. People who wouldn’t have an abortion if they thought they had other options, generally look for other options. I can easily believe that a very high percentage have already done this. My concern has been for those who may not be aware of what support programs are available. I’ve stated it clearly and acknowledged that it is a minority. The argument that “all women already know all the options” is just ludicrous and a waste of time. > [@](#): > > And the trauma of a woman who needs an abortion but is denied it? APA studies have found no evidence of post-abortion trauma, and “while some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness.” In fact, higher levels of stress and psychiatric problems are found in women opting for birth or adoption than abortion. Other studies have found that women who undergo counseling by those who promote a post-abortion stress disorder, regardless of their actual psychological problems, were encouraged to direct their anger at the doctor and told that they hadn’t been warned of the psychological danger. Here you make an interesting argument. I’d like to see those studies. It makes sense to me that woman compelled to have a child they didn’t want to have would suffer emotional trauma. I can also believe in the feelings of relief and happiness. for many. > [@](#): > > The potential for life is not equal to actual life. The rights of a fully formed, autonomous woman should always outweigh the “consideration” we should give to a lump of cells. I agree. That’s why I chose the word consideration. > [@](#): > > As I discussed with D&Es, there are plenty of women who seek abortions who consider a fetus to be “more than a clump of cells”, and yet, they’ve still decided that an abortion is best for them. So how is your “concern” relevant for these women? One more time. My concern is for the few who may not be aware of all the options. Not women who have given it careful consideration and made up their minds. For those women I honor their choice. While it may be true that some have misused the waiting period you have failed to convince me that it is wrong in principle or creates more undo hardship than aide. It may be that there are fewer women that would be helped by a waiting period and information counseling than I originally thought. I’d have to do more study to find out. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/193 "2006-06-22T02:50:44Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I hadn’t asked the actual questions and they are a little off subject but here goes. > Just to get your take. > > In thinking about this issue from a spiritual stand point my conclusion is that believing in a soul or spirit we have no way of knowing when that soul enters the body or how that works. Children die and we have a hard time explaining any reason or purpose in that. One thought that intrigues me is that the purpose of that soul was to bring that experience to the others involved. > > I believe in honoring the potential of life even if we don’t know. We must try to equally honor the free will of the people involved trusting that every choice has just consequences even if we can’t always see them. In other words it is dishonoring the free will given by God to try and force our own vision of morality on others. Some things we need to leave to God. We choose for ourselves but not for others. Concerning abortion this might mean that the decsion should be left between the woman as well as the doctor and God. We try to help those in need and help people make good decisions. You experience some women who need help in order to choose something other than abortion. I’m sure there are other women who feel coerced by family pressure and the opinions of others to have a child they may not have kept if they were free to decide for themselves. Shouldn’t those women be just as free to choose? > > It also occurs to me that if we believe that God’s will cannot be frustrated then no soul meant to come into human existence will ever be denied. If that is true then is it possible the decision to abort a pregnancy or not is more about the people involved in that choice and how the choice affects their lives , than the fetus? > > You have said you consider that the being is fully human from the moment of conception right? If you are convinced of that then I suppose I can surmise your feelings about what I’ve said. If you care to I’d like to hear your thoughts from the spiritual point of view. If we are truly spiritual beings more than temporary physical beings how does that affect the abortion decision? > > Boy! I hope that wasn’t too confusing. No, it’s not confusing, but I am not sure I have a good answer for you, because I am not all that spiritual of a person. Most of my pro-life belief comes more from my own attempt to reason out in my mind when the “clump of cells” becomes a baby. The only answer to this that seems logical to me is at conception. I detailed in another thread how I came to this conclusion, so I won’t do it again here, but suffice to say that all the points that people usually mention (1st trimester, viability, 2nd trimester, birth etc.), just do not make sense to me…there is no point where I see the baby being fundamentally different from one moment to the next other than conception. So, yes…I believe that babies are babies from the moment they are conceived. I also do believe in free will, and I believe that everyone has to answer for themselves in the final analysis. But I believe that with free will God has given us an awesome responsibility. We are called to CHOOSE to live moral lives, even though we have free will not to. To me, the ultimate in misusing this free will is to kill one’s own child in the womb. In addition, because of this controversy over whether or not this is a moral thing to do, that child doesn’t have the protection of society or the state, as any other person does. This brings an even stronger imperative on the only person with power over this child to protect it…the mother. In my mind, the problem with abortion in our society isn’t that it is legal, it is that the attitude towards it has become so cavalier. As far as God’s will is concerned, I believe that it is thwarted all the time. Or, more to the point, in a way his will is irrelevant to the happenings on earth. The world was created with good and evil in it, people have free will, and they exercise it. I don’t know the answer to your last question except to say that I guess that I would have to assume that anyone who believes that the baby is a person and more importantly, has a soul, then I would think that they would be much less likely to believe that abortion is OK. I don’t know this to be a fact, of course, but I would imagine it would be so. I hope this comes a _little_ closer to answering your question. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/194 "2006-06-22T05:57:42Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Interesting. > from [here](http://www.marinurology.com/articles/vasectomy/vas-revers.htm) > > another page states the 40 to 50% of the reversal operations are unsuccessful. I guess that means some are. I think the message was that one shouldn’t go into this operation expecting to be able to change one’s mind. A very reasonable message. A friend’s boss tried for a long time to reverse his, and spent a lot of money and failed. > [@](#): > > I think the reaction and the amount of consultation for a man with two planned children would be quite different from a single childless young man. Rightfully so. > It would be reasonable for a doctor to choice to refuse the procedure for personal convictions. This doctor should have guidelines posted as to what he will or will not do. I don’t know what medical ethics say, but I think it is wrong to decide who gets treated and who doesn’t out of his personal preferences. No one is forcing him (or our anti-birth control druggists) to take this job. > [@](#): > > This situation I see as slightly different. We want women to have a choice but when conservatives claim that “the poor have chosen their own lot, why should we give them what we have worked for,” liberals cry for more social programs to look out for the needy and less fortunate. This is a bit of a hijack, but if conservatives really believed that they would be in favor of increasing the minimum wage so that those who work their butts off can get a break. I’m successful for the most part because I had the good fortune to be born smart. I don’t fool myself that this is from any sort of good choice or virtue. If 50% of our personality is genetic, how can we claim that the poor guy who can’t handle anything but simple work does it out of bad choices? If their hero, the president, hadn’t been born to a rich and powerful family he’d be a pauper or dead. Did you know that the inventor of the Xerox machine spent much of his childhood living in boxes because his father got sick and couldn’t work very much? A bad choice by his father, no doubt. > [@](#): > > We put programs in place to require a waiting period for firearms. Can’t adults make that decision without government interference? The waiting period is not for them to reconsider, but for their records to be checked to make sure criminals are not buying guns. > [@](#): > > The other side of the coin is interesting to me. I support personal responsibility. Liberals seem to want lots of programs in place to help the poor many of whom are where they because of a series of bad choices. When conservatives say “It’s their own dam fault” Liberals cry about how heartless they are. Now I propose what I see as a helpful program and I get “leave them alone, butt out, they can make their own decisions” I really don’t think that making social support available to the poor is the same as a mandatory waiting period or mandatory counseling. Information on all the options, including adoption, should be readily available. But let’s not fool ourselves that those who want this mandatory counseling are going to settle for equality of options. They want to show the bloody pictures. They want the heartbeat - and I bet they’re not going to show the lack of brainwaves. Should someone who turns on the ignition without buckling a seatbelt be forced to watch a five minute video of mangled bodies, like you see in Driver’s Ed? Should a picture of a cancerous lung be on the back of every cigarette carton? It might save some lives, but let’s keep the government out of it, okay? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/195 "2006-06-22T06:10:29Z")
**volvelle** , excellent post. I thank you. **cosmosdan** , I understand your point, but in reality the waiting period is used to try to make life harder for those wishing an abortion. We’re in the 21st century - how about a packet of information, or an email with links to dispassionate sites giving information about options, when an appointment is made? There is a difference between making information available and ramming it down a woman’s throat. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/196 "2006-06-22T12:12:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > This is a bit of a hijack, but if conservatives really believed that they would be in favor of increasing the minimum wage so that those who work their butts off can get a break. I’m successful for the most part because I had the good fortune to be born smart. I don’t fool myself that this is from any sort of good choice or virtue. If 50% of our personality is genetic, how can we claim that the poor guy who can’t handle anything but simple work does it out of bad choices? If their hero, the president, hadn’t been born to a rich and powerful family he’d be a pauper or dead. > > Did you know that the inventor of the Xerox machine spent much of his childhood living in boxes because his father got sick and couldn’t work very much? A bad choice by his father, no doubt. I realize that post makes me sound more conservative than I really am. It isn’t easy to find the balance between helping people but creating a society and system that promotes a motivation to work and personal responsibility. I have some personal experience with folks who abused the system but I realize the fault is only partly theirs. It’s our responsibility as a society to try and create jobs that pay a decent living wage. Things are out of balance. > [@](#): > > The waiting period is not for them to reconsider, but for their records to be checked to make sure criminals are not buying guns. True. I was trying to point out that we do choose to impose laws to protect people. A bad comparison I guess. > [@](#): > > I really don’t think that making social support available to the poor is the same as a mandatory waiting period or mandatory counseling. Information on all the options, including adoption, should be readily available. But let’s not fool ourselves that those who want this mandatory counseling are going to settle for equality of options. They want to show the bloody pictures. They want the heartbeat - and I bet they’re not going to show the lack of brainwaves. I believe you. I’m not in favor of abuse of the guidelines to restrict choices or to manipulate them. I realize it’s not going to be a perfect system. There may be a minority of clinics too eager to make a profit and a minority of women who don’t know all the options. Perhaps all we need are packets of information that have to be distributed and information at the clinic under the heading of “Adoption” or “Assistance programs” I agree that most women who actually apply have already thought it through. My thought was to try and be as sure as possible that the info was getting to those in need. > [@](#): > > Should someone who turns on the ignition without buckling a seatbelt be forced to watch a five minute video of mangled bodies, like you see in Driver’s Ed? Should a picture of a cancerous lung be on the back of every cigarette carton? It might save some lives, but let’s keep the government out of it, okay? I agree. Those posters infuriate me. If I joined them with a poster of a couple going at it with a red circle and line through it I’d likely be arrested. They don’t seem to care about the families driving by and the kids in those cars. We can’t show the coffins of soldiers coming home to show the horrors of war but those are okay. What hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/197 "2006-06-22T12:41:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > **volvelle** , excellent post. I thank you. > > **cosmosdan** , I understand your point, but in reality the waiting period is used to try to make life harder for those wishing an abortion. We’re in the 21st century - how about a packet of information, or an email with links to dispassionate sites giving information about options, when an appointment is made? There is a difference between making information available and ramming it down a woman’s throat. I wish I’d gotten that response from **volvelle** first. It was much more thought provoking than the other. I guess I can understand how someone might see my posts as reinforcing some bad practices but that’s not what I meant at all. I guess I see the woman least likely to know as probably poor and less educated, or under emotional stress and needing some help. I’m not for ramming anything down their throats. I think it’s important enough to do more than simply have flyer’s on a coffee table. I see it more as an information counselor who communicates with the clients only to offer information. Those who already know their options can ignore it. I confess that I haven’t really examined all the facets of this issue. I am very much in favor of complete information and education before pregnancy. I don’t think we do enough to prepare our young people for real life. BTW my stepdaughter decided to give her baby up for adoption and continue her education. When the child was born the adopting parents and her Mom were there supporting her. She gets regular updates on the child’s progress. I thought it was marvelous. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/198 "2006-06-22T12:45:18Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > BTW my stepdaughter decided to give her baby up for adoption and continue her education. When the child was born the adopting parents and her Mom were there supporting her. She gets regular updates on the child’s progress. I thought it was marvelous. Wow…I am so impressed by that. As an adopted person myself, I have so much admiration & thanks for women who are brave enough to do this. It warms my heart more than any legal abortion restriction ever could! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/199 "2006-06-22T12:50:44Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, it’s not confusing, but I am not sure I have a good answer for you, because I am not all that spiritual of a person. Most of my pro-life belief comes more from my own attempt to reason out in my mind when the “clump of cells” becomes a baby. The only answer to this that seems logical to me is at conception. I detailed in another thread how I came to this conclusion, so I won’t do it again here, but suffice to say that all the points that people usually mention (1st trimester, viability, 2nd trimester, birth etc.), just do not make sense to me…there is no point where I see the baby being fundamentally different from one moment to the next other than conception. > > So, yes…I believe that babies are babies from the moment they are conceived. I also do believe in free will, and I believe that everyone has to answer for themselves in the final analysis. But I believe that with free will God has given us an awesome responsibility. We are called to CHOOSE to live moral lives, even though we have free will not to. To me, the ultimate in misusing this free will is to kill one’s own child in the womb. In addition, because of this controversy over whether or not this is a moral thing to do, that child doesn’t have the protection of society or the state, as any other person does. This brings an even stronger imperative on the only person with power over this child to protect it…the mother. In my mind, the problem with abortion in our society isn’t that it is legal, it is that the attitude towards it has become so cavalier. > > As far as God’s will is concerned, I believe that it is thwarted all the time. Or, more to the point, in a way his will is irrelevant to the happenings on earth. The world was created with good and evil in it, people have free will, and they exercise it. > > I don’t know the answer to your last question except to say that I guess that I would have to assume that anyone who believes that the baby is a person and more importantly, has a soul, then I would think that they would be much less likely to believe that abortion is OK. I don’t know this to be a fact, of course, but I would imagine it would be so. > > I hope this comes a _little_ closer to answering your question. 🙂 Yes thank you. Feeling as you do I understand. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/200 "2006-06-22T15:13:51Z")
In Freakanomics the authors worked with crime statistics and whether the state made it difficult to obtain abortions. The states that supressed abortion have higher crime rates. The people that seek abortions often reason that they are unable to raise a child. They are on drugs, alcohol , too young and immature ,too poor, alone or dont feel able to raise a kid. Sometimes economic reasons and taking mothers and young fathers out of the school system occur. But when the national laws allowed abortion a huge drop in the crime rate occured.All the cities and the Clinton governmebt took credit for the drop in serious crime. But, the authors saw an unmistakable corelation to the availability of abortion. They also found that many that had abortions got pregnant later in life when they were better prepared to raise a child. The kids turned out better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810.md?page=11)