And that doesn’t back up your implication that PBA is done for trivial reasons.
Partial birth abortions are not done frequently at all, regardless of the viability of the fetus.
Abortion Statistics Expose Deception Behind Anti-Abortion Campaign Against “Partial-Birth Abortion”
I wouldn’t exactly call The National Right to Life Council an unbiased source.
Nor would I call the Center for Reproductive Rights unbiased.
But let’s take these for what they’re worth:
A pro-life group says 3-5,000 partial birth abortions per year (dated 2002, no support references)
A pro-choice group says 650 (dated 1996, referring to only one variant of late-term abortions, and supported by “researchers”)
So it’s somewhere betwen 650 which we know is low, and 5,000 which is almost certainly high considering the source.
So what!? Depending on your inclination, you’re likely to say “it’s a tiny percentage in either case” or “even 1 is too many”…
It’s immaterial to the point of the debate. The point is, really, whether the same arguments used to allow late-term abortion (or any abortion) could be applied to born children. It’s an exercise in trying to advocate an anti-abortion position with a point that’s made through it’s own absurdity.
It’s amusing, but as someone who leans toward the anti-abortion side of the fence (and most definitely opposes late-term abortion), I think it demeans the issue. There are better ways to promote a “pro-life” stance than this.
The counter argument to this is that though it is outside the mother’s body, the newborn is still dependant on her body in the form of breast milk, or at the very least dependent on her actions to bottle feed it. There is no newborn that is truly “viable”, (Go out and get a job, kid!) as all babies are dependant on adults. Thus the difference between the literal umbilical cord and and the metaphorical one is irrelevant.
One possible counter to this would be that the newborn baby can be put up for adoption, whereas the fetus cannot. However, technology is reaching the point where fetuses can be transplanted from one mother into a surrogate or infertile mother. For the purposes of this discusion (my actual views are much less black and white) I will put forth that fetal adoption is no different form post-partum adoption, and that the literal umbilical cord is no different from the metaphorical one. If the prenatal obligations are not fundamentally different from the post-natal physical (stress, lack of sleep, breast feeding) and behavioral (motherhood itself) obligations, and the options of the pre-natal and post-natal mother are not fundamentally different, then pro-choice argument that the mother’s right to choose to terminate her body’s obligations supercedes the developing embryo’s right to life is invalid and indistinguishable from infanticide.
Any distinction between viable/nonviable, human being/nonhuman being, or whatever pair of terms you choose is going to have some degree of arbitrariness. But the law imposes arbitrary distinctions all the time. The abilities to legally drive a car, consent to sex, join the military, enter into a contract, buy lottery tickets or consume alcohol are based largely on arbitrarily set ages, not individually assessed levels of development. There’s no fundamental difference between a 90-day old fetus and a 91-day fetus, but we need either to have arbitrary limits or face options most Americans would find unacceptable, such as granting full protection to every fertilized egg or legalizing “abortion” of adult children.
The way you rephraised my quote changed my meaning. What I was trying to say is that when PBA do occur, it is frequently done on fetuses that can survive outside the mother. This was to counter the argument that abortions are the right of the mother not to have another human live off her.
Anyway 600 to 3000/yr may not sound like a lot but it’s 2 to 6 per day.
When you take into account the number of people living in the U.S., 3000 is a very small number.
Also , I would like to know if you are implying that mothers have no rights to their own bodies? If I am misunderstanding you , then I will enjoy my share of crow. If you mean what I think you do, I think some of the women on the board might disagree with you.
A little of both, and I want the wings!
Sit back and I’ll try to explain.
I have been hearing on these boards that abortion is legal bacause a human doesn’t have the right to live off another if that 2nd one objects.
example:
AHunter3
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=161628
I can understand the argument and personally have some objections to it but that argument fails in the face of why some abortions are being performed which negates the argument.
OK where it fails in the face of of what’s actually being done:
When abortions such as late term dilation and extraction D&E (where the baby is delivered except for the head, then an incission is make in the base of the skull and the contents of the skull are sucked out and skull collapsed) are done on feteuses that could have survived outside, independently of the mother from that point on, and if the mother is in no greater danger delivering then the D&E then the above argument fails.
To a lesser extent, babies are still totally dependent on their parents for everything once their born but you can’t kill them becasue the baby is living off of you.
Where I have personal objections that you don’t kill an innocent and don’t kill a 3rd party because of the mistakes of another. By mistakes I mean rape to the condom broke/failed to ‘who the fuck is this guy in my bed and I got a killer hangover’. I didn’t really mean this in the above post and don’t think it came through.
Can they do crack? Can they prostitute themselves? To some degree all people in the US don’t have certain rights to their own bodies.
For human life to come about, he/she needs to be inside a women’s body. I didn’t design and I’m not saying it’s right or fair this but it’s the way our species works. Once another live is created in a way thats ‘normal’ pulling the it’s my body argument is very crule, mean and heartless.
As I’m sure there are men who disagree with me perhaps there is one Doper out there who agrees with me, I don’t know. Just because others agree/disagree doesn’t change how I feel.
Another thought I had:
What happens if lets say due to some unusall circumstances the only way a person will live is if they are continously linked via bloodstream to another person and this will have to last for 9 months (after which they can be sepperated and live normally). The 2nd person agrees and they are linked. Then the 2nd person after 4 months says it’s my body, get out… What happens?
Thanks for answering. It helps me to better understand your POV.
In this instance I would say that person #1 is fucked.
This is a common analogy used by pro-choice apologists, for example Judith Jarvis Thomson as cited here. The point, of course, being that this enormously unlikely scenario makes plain why a mother’s right to self determination subjugates another’s right to live. (I know that’s not your point, k2dave.)
My principal problem with it is that it stalls before letting the analogy run its course. What if the famous violinist, who is blameless in the scenario, can be removed from the equally blameless “host” only if the host actively causes the violinist to be killed via dismemberment? Not just disconnected, but mutilated to cause death? What, then, is the host’s moral obligation?
Ponder the legal implications for a moment. Assuming this unlikely scenario were to occur, and the violinist’s family rushes to court for an injunction. Do you think it possible that the court would say, no, the woman’s right to self determination cannot be exercised if the only way it can be so is via the dismemberment of another blameless person? Not when the process will resolve itself, so to speak, in nine months.
This is a weak analogy fror the usual reasons. Refusing to “host” another human life is not analogous to refusing to donate a kidney. Abortion is active, not passive; it is the decision to end another’s life, to ensure that it occurs. This is not a trivial distinction.
Moreover, the fetus differs from the hypothetical violinist in that it is the mother’s offspring, and the law rightfully recognizes that parents are required to care for their own children (or, in the case of adoption, ensure that this responsibility is transferred to someone else).
Furthmore, tort law shows that you can be required to provide care for another individual who might otherwise be in danger.
I admit that analogy is far from perfect, just another way to look at aspects of abortion. My own problem with it is that the ‘linking’ of the 2 is artificial while the mother/fetus ‘linking’ is normal.
Replace normal with natural
Just to add to the analogy, another difference is that fetuses have questionable human status while in this case we’re talking about a person that has human status.
Well first, I think the claim that fetuses are questionably human is questionable itself. In times past, Bob Cos, beagledave and I have produced numerous medical cites which testify to the humanity of the unborn, and no contrary medical cites have yet to materialize.
And second, even if that were the case, mere uncertainty does not revoke the argument against killing the fetus. Since the killing of a living being is involved, the burden of proof rests on those who advocate this killing to demonstrate that the unborn is definitely not a human being. No responsible hunter fires at something in the words and says, “Well, I didn’t know for sure that it was a human, so I went ahead and shot it.”
JThunder summarizes things nicely, as usual. I’ll only add that where I’ve seen this analogy trotted out, it’s typically in a context that concedes that the fetus is human–i.e., the analogy is specifically to show an undeniable human entity (our poor violinist) having no right to make any sort of demand on the reluctant host.
A further discussion of the violinist argument can be found right here.
Yet another treatment of the violinist fallacy here.