Hazel:
The reasons you cite for being opposed to requiring a “good reason” for an early -term abortion are pretty much my reasons for thinking such restrictions aren’t a good idea in the third trimester either.
Abortion should only be available to people who are pregnant.
There are philosophies enough in this world to justify any act you can suppose. Differing points of view should not lead us to conclude that restriction is wrong, unless you would argue that no laws on the books are supportable, since there are undeniably those who would disagree with them. There is no law you can point to that is not an instance of society determining which perspective is the proper one.
Yes, current abortion laws are examples of just that. And in the future, a ban on abortion would be just another example.
So would a law protecting reproductive rights from any local limitation, but your point is well taken.
When you look at who’s responsible for there BEING an abortion debate for so long and for its continued existence as an issue, the sides boil down very simply:
If it weren’t for group one, we would probably long ago have settled on some reasonable road that involved permitting abortions generally, but very likely with some restrictions such as no third trimester abortions without a damn good reason (which is already informally in effect) – that sort of thing. But the constant pressure for totally banning abortion applied by group 1 has created the fear that any restrictions on abortion gets us on the slippery slope leading to totally banning abortions – because that’s exactly where a lot of the proponents would like it to be.
I think most folks would be fine with women working things out WRT abortion with their doctors, preists, family, etc. with some generally recognized guideliens, but the religious right has rendered a reasonable solutin almost impossible. Hence, reality.
Bob Cos AFAIAware, the OP was talking about different ways of looking at things. I was continuing in this refrain, not mentioning the legalities at all. I’m not sure how you got from my words, discussing how everyone comes at this problem from a different POV, to the idea that I thought this was justification for opposing restrictions.
Here’s another problem that would result from any effort to restrict abortion based on requiring that the woman or girl must have a good reason: what are the women and girls who are denied abortions going to do? Many of them will get illegal abortions. Just as women and girls did before Roe vs. Wade; just as women and girls will do again if the religious right ever suceeds in getting abortion re-outlawed. Adult women with means will usually be able to get expensive but reasonably safe illegal abortions; the young and the poor will get less expensive, anything but safe illegal abortions.
Re 3rd trimester abortions, it’s my impression that they are quite rare, and that when they do occur, it usually is for reasons most people would accept as good. Often, it’s because there’s something seriously wrong with the fetus that was not discovered earlier; possibly that could not be discovered earlier.
You can be both pro-life and pro-choice, if you look at it reasonably (fat chance of that, unfortunately). The parts of the brain that make us human only form in the last trimester. Our capacity for language, reason, love, logic, etc, all reside in the outer layer of the brain, which is added at the very end. People who are pro-life, certainly are not pro-all-life (they kill bugs, animals, plants, etc), just pro human life. If you kill a fetus before it has developed those attributes which make it human, you have not taken a human life, only a potentially human life. If all potential human life is to be protected, each ovulation and each sperm cell should also be protected, should they not?
Here is the long version, and is highly recommended:
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
Here is the long version of a rebuttal to your definition of “human life”.
Good and evil, right and wrong, black and white. Only Joking.
The truth is, there is no definte right or wrong, while I’d never ban abortions I would certainly not encourage them as anything other than a last resort.
I can’t say I have any significant opinion about whether or not abortion should be legal; I don’t really care.
Birth control and pregnancey prevention, now, that’s another story.
You’re right. Sorry. There was a handy soapbox in the vicinity, and I instinctively jumped on.
I’m quite surprised to hear that some of you have only heard from pro-choice people who think abortion is a valid choice right up to the moment of birth. My experience in discussing the issue has been quite the opposite.
May I be another data point? I know we’re not here to debate; the OPs aim was to define, but there seems to be a lot of doubt about what the “middle ground” looks like. I guess I think of abortion as more a privilege than a right–it should be an option for any pregnant woman up to a point, but after that you’ve expended your waffling time. You’ve had an opportunity to consider that legal option, and it expired.
In cases where fetal defects or health issues with the mother are discovered later, or the mother did not know she was pregnant (which can happen for valid reasons) then we’re talking about new knowledge and I think the privilege of abortion should be extended to these women.
So there I am, staked out firmly in the middle. I am for abortion rights, and I’ve already revealed myself as someone who has made that choice myself. However, I’d be as freaked out as my pro-life friends if a pregnant woman elected to have an abortion in the 8th month because she’d changed her mind.
It seems to me that the real question here isn’t about life. It’s about choice.
The positions boil down to
Now, clearly there are caveats here, because we certainly don’t allow each person to make their own decision about theft or murder.
What is special about abortion is that the reproductive act produces a new life so gradually that there simply is no agreement as to what point in time it would be immoral to abort.
And further, the creation of a life is a huge investment of time, and energy (and possibly health) from someone who is very clearly a person with rights of her own.
The pro-life position puts on a lot of airs, but fundamentally it is about enforcing an <i>opinion</i> about the time a which a new life begins and trumps the rights of the mother.
Except those of us annoying enough not to fit into your theory.
Like someone who is a un-religious, feminist, Democrat who is also pro-life.
Like me.
Or atheist liberal, Nat Hentoff …
Or these folks…
Or these folks…
or…yadda yadda, you get the picture 
I love making my contribution, repetitive though it may be.
(1) This question deals with “vague domains”–think Venn circles that are not hard-edged, but as blurry as if they been made by marking pen on sopping-wet paper. Logic doesn’t deal well with issues of that sort.
(2) There is indeed a distributional curve of possible opinions on this issue. Most people do, in fact, fall under that classical middle bulge BUT they have been trained not to admit it, but rather to choose sides.
(3) The question is not when “human life” begins in a strictly chromosomal sense, but when a living and growing human organism is to be counted a human person. There seems to be no bright line.
(4) A relevant issue that gets shoved aside by take-no-prisoners rhetoric is humane treatment of the living organism that is the fetus. If it is to be put to death, society has the right to insist that it be done with an absolute minimum of pain. It is a continuing scandal that anaesthesia for the fetus cannot be talked about.
(5) The proto-mother is surely in the best position to determine the point at which the fetus has acquired personhood.
(6) The original spirit of Roe v. Wade is far more “reasonable” and realistic than many later developments therefrom.
(7) However, any serious attempt to “police” the procurement of an abortion inevitably overspreads its limits and impacts other basic rights, as well as the position of women in our society. Even those who cannot condone abortion (not, though, those who are convinced that it is literally premeditated murder) may have to accept what amounts to abortion-on-demand. As to that fractional remainder, I suppose they have a moral duty to protest, protest, protest.
Why in the world would that be so? Or do you mean that the mother is in the best position to determine if personhood (or potential personhood) can be disregarded?
I would not agree with that as phrased, but I’d go with:
(5alt) The proto-mother is surely in the best position to determine whether or not there is sufficient reason to abort a fetus.
Many people have said there should be (as Hazel put it) a “good reason” if a woman is to have a 3rd trimester abortion. Fine, but she is the one to determine whether or not she has one.
Do you agree? Why does the mother need a good reason? Why can’t she do it for any reason at all?
I have to disagree with this 3 point continuum:
*Abortion is wrong.
*Abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or incest.
*A woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants it.
You see, I believe both that abortion is wrong and that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants it. This is an over-simplification that’s starting to calcify, but my position on abortion does resemble my position on divorce. Both are, I’m afraid, always wrong, in my opinion, and one should do everything possible to avoid putting oneself in a position where they become necessary, whether it’s having sex without birth control or marrying someone whose got traits your not willing to put up with for a lifetime. On the other hand, sometimes, things go wrong. Birth control fails, the pleasures and temptations of a moment take over (this applies to both, of course), or the wonderful guy turns out to be a first rank jerk.
I have no right to use my morality to put you in jail. I’m also a little too aware that making abortion illegal will not stop women having abortions. Legal abortion may be awful, but to me the consequences of making it illegal are worse. To argue a pro-life position I’ve heard, if abortion is legal, babies will die. My counter argument is if abortion is illegal, women will die. Hell of a choice, isn’t it? Why, then, should it be any of the government’s concern?
CJ
Personally pro-life
Politically pro-choice