I blame them for being deceitful, and I blame them for refusing to accept that women will get abortions whether legal or not, if they feel they need them, and therefore these restrictions result in more death and suffering.
It’s an interesting argument, Kimstu, and it may have some merit. However one could try to dismiss it by pointing out that most of these raving anti-abortionists are not exactly medical geniuses and are probably not aware of how many post-fertilization pregnancy failures there are, in many cases unknown to the mother if they occur very early on. It’s only later-term miscarriages that are obvious.
I think a much better argument that exposes their hypocrisy is how little they care about the child after birth, in terms of things like medical care and basic life necessities. Those very states that have enacted the most draconian anti-abortion measures because of how sacred they claim life is are the same states that turned down Medicaid expansion, and Texas is the poster boy for both. The US has one of the finest medical systems in the world, yet it has the worst infant mortality rate among the wealthiest OECD nations. The anti-abortion zealots are not merely unconcerned, they’re actively exacerbating the problem by advocating policies that worsen the plight of low-income Americans which is directly responsible for most of these deaths, which occur after the infant leaves the high standards of care of most hospitals and is thrown into the privation of everyday poverty:
The U.S. rate of 6.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births masks considerable state-level variation. If Alabama were a country, its rate of 8.7 infant deaths per 1,000 would place it slightly behind Lebanon in the world rankings. Mississippi, with its 9.6 deaths, would be somewhere between Botswana and Bahrain.
… “the US has similar neonatal mortality but a substantial disadvantage in postneonatal
mortality” compared to Austria and Finland. In other words, mortality rates among infants in their first days and weeks of life are similar across all three countries. But as infants get older, a mortality gap opens between the U.S. and the other countries, and widens considerably … Digging deeper into these numbers, Oster and her colleagues found that the higher U.S. mortality rates are due “entirely, or almost entirely, to high mortality among less advantaged groups.” To put it bluntly, babies born to poor moms in the U.S. are significantly more likely to die in their first year than babies born to wealthier moms.
… One way of understanding these numbers is by noting that most American babies, regardless of socio-economic status, are born in hospitals. And while in the hospital, American infants receive exceedingly good care - our neo-natal intensive care units are among the best in the world. This may explain why mortality rates in the first few weeks of life are similar in the U.S., Finland and Austria. But the differences arise after infants are sent home. Poor American families have considerably less access to quality healthcare as their wealthier counterparts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-mortality-rate-is-a-national-embarrassment/
Again, though, isn’t misoprostol less dangerous than a surgical abortion?
Your argument is based on a false equivalency, presupposing that miscarriages and spontaneous abortions are a premature death.
The most frequent cause of spontaneous abortion is chromosomal abnormality inconsistent with proper development. The pregnancy loss was thus the natural lifespan for the given embryo due to the nonviability that was established at the moment of conception.
Based upon studies of non-implanted embryos from IVF clinics at least 50% of human conceptions result in aneuploidy (wrong number of chromosomes in the embryo). 6% of sperm from normal males is aneuploid and a whopping 40% of oocytes from normal women are aneuploid.
Seems amazing that things ever work right and the human race continues with those numbers. And we do carry on due in part to a vigorous evolutionary selection process where large percentages of embryos do not survive.
Genetic and Nongenetic Causes of Pregnancy Loss
Simpson, J, Carson, S, Glob. libr. women’s med.,
(ISSN: 1756-2228) 2013; DOI 10.3843/GLOWM.10319
I certainly don’t know – but I would presume that unsupervised self-abortion is generally significantly more dangerous than abortion under a doctor’s care, whether by drugs or surgery.
I agree that most anti-abortion advocates probably have little awareness of pre-born mortality rates outside of the context of abortion. But that kind of reinforces my point that the alleged full humanity of these pre-borns is simply not on their radar screens except where abortion is concerned.
In other words, they want to have it both ways. Where abortion isn’t involved, they piggyback on the general societal consensus that fertilized ova aren’t really the same thing as human persons, so we don’t have to pay any attention to their health or their survival, or deal with the logistical nightmare of identifying them as individuals and officially recognizing their existence as citizens, etc. etc. The anti-abortionists are perfectly happy to just ignore all these responsibilities of the state to its citizens in the case of the pre-born, relying on the general public’s tacit recognition that the pre-born aren’t really “persons” in the full sense of the term.
But as soon as abortion comes into the picture, all of a sudden the anti-abortionists start waving around that “personhood” label as hard as they can shake it. “It’s just the same as a BABY! How can you murder a BABY, you monster?! Or even do anything that might risk killing a BABY?!” (that one’s for the IUD and Plan B). Conveniently forgetting that they do jack shit to ensure that any of these fertilized ova in any other situations get any of the recognition, attention and care that a BABY’s entitled to receive.
I don’t mind their being anti-abortion, if that’s their sincere moral conviction, but I do mind their being hypocrites about fetal personhood.
According to the self-proclaimed adherents of the principle that “abortion is murder”, these events are causing the deaths of fully human persons before old age (in fact, just about as much before old age as it’s possible to get). How is that not “premature death”?
[QUOTE=Iggy]
The most frequent cause of spontaneous abortion is chromosomal abnormality inconsistent with proper development. The pregnancy loss was thus the natural lifespan for the given embryo due to the nonviability that was established at the moment of conception.
[/quote]
By that reasoning, we should not consider that children who die at a young age from, say, congenital heart anomaly have died prematurely, since that was the natural lifespan associated with their condition. Nor do we have any responsibility to attempt to correct such anomalies with surgery or other treatments, since these children are simply dying of natural causes at the end of their natural lifespan.
[QUOTE=Iggy]
Based upon studies of non-implanted embryos from IVF clinics at least 50% of human conceptions result in aneuploidy (wrong number of chromosomes in the embryo). 6% of sperm from normal males is aneuploid and a whopping 40% of oocytes from normal women are aneuploid.
[/quote]
Very tragic. Clearly, if these handicapped babies are indeed fully human persons, then we have a duty to try to cure their condition with medical advances, rather than just shrug our shoulders and let them die in their millions.
[QUOTE=Iggy]
And we do carry on due in part to a vigorous evolutionary selection process where large percentages of embryos do not survive.
[/quote]
Gee, what happened to the notion that only a monster would be glad about the death of a baby or consider that a good thing? Do you also support letting disabled children die for lack of care and treatment so our species won’t run the risk of having to cope with their “inferior” genes in future generations?
[/sarcasm]
Everything you’re saying just reinforces my point about the basic hypocrisy of the “abortion is murder” position based on the claim that a fertilized ovum is morally and humanly equivalent to a baby. If somebody wants to abort it then all of a sudden it’s a precious human life that we’re duty-bound to protect by all means in our power, but in any other situation it’s just an anonymous and quite possibly defective clump of cells to which we as a society owe no responsibility or care. How very convenient.
It’s also a prescription drug, AFAICT, used in conjunction with RU-486. I can’t tell how “on their own” these abortions are, exactly. The stuff about homeopathy and punching in the abdomen are a different issue.
But if pro-lifers don’t care about fetuses, why are there so many pro-life pregnancy support services? (Cite, cite, etc.)
Regards,
Shodan
Because pro-lifers care very much about discouraging pregnant women from getting abortions. Nobody’s disputing that in the least.
And the pro-life “crisis pregnancy centers” are certainly very successful in promoting that purpose, although some of their methods may be open to question:
Whose beliefs should the people of Texas be forced to live our lives according to? The beliefs of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, or the beliefs of nine unelected in judges in DC, none of whom are from Texas? You may feel that the unborn do not deserve protection but why do you get to force the people of Texas to live like you want?
What I am disputing is your assertion that pro-lifers don’t care about fetal life. As shown, they do, and they put their money where their mouth is by providing pre-natal care. So there’s no hypocrisy involved.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re mistaken; what I’m asserting is that pro-lifers don’t actually live up to their alleged conviction that fetal life is fully the moral and human equivalent of born life, except in the context of abortion. That’s hypocritical.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
As shown, they do, and they put their money where their mouth is by providing pre-natal care. So there’s no hypocrisy involved.
[/QUOTE]
They provide pre-natal care to encourage women not to get abortions, as your cites acknowledge:
Yes, I completely agree that pro-lifers are very committed to encouraging women not to get abortions, and I have never contested that point. They are certainly “putting their money where their mouth is” where that commitment is concerned.
But with regard to the consistency of their adherence to the concept of full fetal personhood outside the context of abortion, the hypocrisy charge still stands.
I don’t believe abortion is murder in general, but I do believe that elective murder is gravely immoral. I do think elective abortion past viability of the fetus is murder. Elective abortion refers to abortions done based solely on the mother’s discretion and not for medical reasons.
While I view pre-viability elective abortion to be immoral, I view it akin to the immorality of adultery or something, and don’t believe it should be criminalized.
That being said, it’s kind of disingenuous for the pro-lifers who believe abortion is murder to be expected to just respect SCOTUS decisions. That’s like saying abolitionists should’ve stopped trying to abolish slavery after Dredd Scott. I’d say if you have a genuine moral belief that abortion is murder, you have an obligation to do everything in your power to put a stop to it, because stopping murder justifies quite a bit, even some things that are criminal in nature. Like I said, I don’t agree with it, but I can even see under their code of ethics logical justification for murdering abortion providers.
I don’t accept their broad logic, so can’t support that behavior, but I think pro-life is generally a pretty internally logically consistent position. If you accept their premise, most of what they say/do is justifiable on some grounds. There’s always nuance, though. Some believe it’s not just to kill someone to stop a murder, some do. So that would be divergent opinions within the pro-life camp.
Eh, your desire to find hypocrisy here has resulted in you making a lot of unsubstantiated claims and irrational arguments. Just to list out some:
-
You make claims about how pro-life people are not living up to their responsibilities in regards to fetal health, with no actual evidence to support that they aren’t actually doing everything reasonably within their power to promote fetal health. Some low income pro-lifer who lives in a double wide in Alabama has limited means to improve the health and successful gestation of fetal life, FWIW, but they can still certainly morally oppose something they view as murder.
-
You are working from a frankly, unjustified assumption that someone cannot oppose murder and be indifferent to disease. It may be callous, but it’s not hypocritical or illogical. People care at different levels about different things, and that isn’t a sign of innate hypocrisy. Just like the people who called the “West” hypocrites for caring more about the Paris attacks than the Kenyan school attack or the bombing in Beirut caring more about some things than others isn’t per se evidence of hypocrisy. People care more about things they are closer to, and things they are more familiar with. That isn’t hypocrisy.
-
You’re vastly generalizing about all pro-lifers. Even if some pro-lifers are hypocrites like you say, you’ve done nothing to show us how many are, and just because you may be able to cherry pick and find some pro-lifers who meet your definition of hypocrite, that doesn’t give you leave to sweepingly say all of them are.
-
You assume that pro-lifers “if their opinions were genuine” would also have to care just as much about natural fetal deaths. But many pro-lifers are highly religious Christians, many highly religious Christians view natural deaths as “God’s will.” This isn’t an appropriate venue to debate the logic of Christianity (a religion I hate and whose adherents I largely mock, though as a polite person, not to their face), but we live in a world with religion and people have religious views, I’ve made peace with that. It’s entirely consistent with some forms of Christianity to not be required to act “beyond reasonable” levels to stop “all natural death”, because many branches of Christianity teach that death is to be celebrated, that when people die early it is God’s will, and all of that.
-
I think your arguments fail to be valid or even decent long before we get to this, but you’ve also not demonstrated that there is much that pro-lifers can do to meaningfully increase fetal life expectancy and successful pregnancy rates. What specific actions do you think the typical pro-life person can do to prevent deaths in early pregnancy?
In a democracy, yes. The restrictions on abortion access is a direct result of so many people being against abortion. One solution is to change their minds. Hopefully not with any of the dreadful arguments advanced in this thread so far.
- I actually think this is probably the main reason: Most people don’t happen to know this little tidbit of knowledge (i.e., that such a large number of fertilized eggs never implant at all).
And that’s why the “argument from silence” is a fallacy. In this case it’s akin to the argument from ignorance, in that just because a given person cannot think of reason doesn’t mean there isn’t one. The same would be true if a conservative claimed a liberal “didn’t really care” about gun violence since that liberal never denounced gun violence in Serbia. Where is the outrage about gun violence in Serbia?
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
You’re mistaken; what I’m asserting is that pro-lifers don’t actually live up to their alleged conviction that fetal life is fully the moral and human equivalent of born life, except in the context of abortion. That’s hypocritical.
[/QUOTE]
Then you need to demonstrate that the prenatal services offered by pro-lifers is limited only to circumstances in which the alternative is abortion. IOW show how, in general, a pro-life pregnancy support clinic would turn away a pregnant woman who was not contemplating abortion. Or that a Roman Catholic hospital who declined to perform abortions also refused to provide pre-natal services to other pregnant women.
It seems to be implied that abortion is more difficult to obtain in Texas. If your assertion is true that pro-lifers don’t care about fetal health, pro-life pregnancy centers ought to be less common or less active in Texas than in other states where abortion is more accessible. Do you have any evidence of that sort?
You started by asserting that pro-lifers were hypocrites because they didn’t offer care to reduce the number of fetal deaths. That was shown to be other than factual. Now you seem to be asserting that pro-lifers are hypocrites because they don’t care about fetal deaths from causes other than abortion. Instead of my disproving it again, how about you produce some kind of evidence for the assertion?
Regards,
Shodan
You falsely presuppose then that any death is premature. Death is a natural part of the human condition. We all have a expiry date of sorts. We can, with modern medicine, delay that for some. But some things are out of our reach.
Recognizing that sometimes nothing can be done for the terminally ill is a hard reality, all the more so when the terminally ill are young. We do not all get to go gently into that goodnight at home in bed at an advanced age surrounded by our loved ones.
Recognizing the limitations of medicine does not require surrender to all disease. Again you are grasping your strawman fiercely.
But you simply fail to grasp the nature of genetic defect that the majority of spontaneously aborted embryos have from the moment of conception. And the nature of such defects means that those embryos are not capable of developing. 100% fatal.
And we have a duty to alleviate other suffering as well. Picking and choosing among what is practical and what is hopeless is a part of directing our collective resources.
No one but you said anything about being glad about the reality of reproductive biology.
The reality is that as a society we do promote medical advances that result in the suppression of natural selection against certain genetic traits. Inherited diabetes and cystic fibrosis are two disease examples where the reproductive capacity of patients so affected has increased greatly in recent decades. And this means such people are living longer and passing on their genes much more so than in prior generations. And yes, that means they are passing on alleles that may be disease causing in future generations thus causing a slight rise in gene frequency of deleterious alleles.
It is clearly a legal distinction when along the development pathway we deem that legal rights should be granted. Biologically it is much more clear that whether we call it a blastocyte, embryo or fetus, it is human. It may biologically be fatally flawed and we might decide not to imbue it with legal rights. Own that one.
But it does not cease being biologically human based upon the desires of the mother. We might decide, collectively as a society, that we will treat it legally different but it does not change biological reality.
The difference in infant mortality rate between countries is 40% the definition of what constitutes a still birth. The rest of the difference and almost all of the difference in state infant mortality rates is racial. This is not an artifact of socioeconomic class because hispanics which have the same per capita income level as blacks have the same infant mortality as whites. Infant mortality for black people is twice the rate of white and hispanic people, so the more black people a state has the higher the infant mortality rate for that state. This is because black mothers are twice as likely to have premature babies and twice as likely to have low birthweight babies.
What do you call a Texas Abortion Kit?
A hungry rat on a string!
:: D&R ::
:: D&R: :
:: D&R ::
Texas knew the Constitution would be binding when they became a state.
“The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.” (That slogan was thrown at me a lot during the Vietnam war. Fun for me to be able to use it for once.)