What would REALLY happen if abortion was banned?

[Walloon]

@Taber

the only option for a pro choicer who didn’t like partial birth abortion would have to choose (2) when that didn’t accurately represent their view

How would Option 2 not accurately represent their view? If a person did not like partial birth abortion, that person would want abortions available on a more strict basis than they currently are.

In any case, your list of options would not change that 51% of American woman who are against all abortions or would allow them only in rare cases. Your proposed change would only sub-categorize the additional 17% who want abortional available under stricter limits. Possible sub-categories of that 17% would be health of the woman, partial birth abortions, parental consent, etc.

[Blalron]

@JThunder

We’ve already cited testimonies to the contrary, from some of the world’s foremost experts in genetics and embryology. In fact, among all the experts who testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, all except one of them attested that the unborn is indeed a fully human being. The only exception was one person who refused to take a stand one way or another.

A dogma, without basis in fact? It seems to me that it’s the people who deny the humanity of the unborn that are making claims without any factual basis.

Whether or not it is human is irrelevant. What separates us from any other animal? Our sapience. It’s a core characteristic of humanity. Our DNA doesn’t make us special (primates share 98% of it with us, mammals greater than 90% if I remember right). Otherwise, there’s no logical or moral reason why a human embryo deserves more protection from harm than a baby mouse.

[Stratocaster]

@Blalron

Whether or not it is human is irrelevant. What separates us from any other animal? Our sapience. It’s a core characteristic of humanity. Our DNA doesn’t make us special (primates share 98% of it with us, mammals greater than 90% if I remember right). Otherwise, there’s no logical or moral reason why a human embryo deserves more protection from harm than a baby mouse.

I haven’t trotted this one out in a few months. Eh, here goes. There are documented cases of temporarily brain-dead people, flat-liners with no brain activity who then recover. Severe hypothermia can cause this circumstance. In such an instance, while that person is “brain dead”–no brain activity, no possibility at that moment for thought or wisdom or preferences or anything–is that person something other than a human being whose rights deserve protection? If you killed that person, at that moment, would you be taking a human life?

(Stand by for responses that back off of an unambiguous, absolute statement with qualifiers that serve no purpose other than allowing abortions. “When I say it is sapience alone that makes us human, what I really mean is…”)

[Taber]

@Walloon

How would Option 2 not accurately represent their view? If a person did not like partial birth abortion, that person would want abortions available on a more strict basis than they currently are.

In any case, your list of options would not change that 51% of American woman who are against all abortions or would allow them only in rare cases. Your proposed change would only sub-categorize the additional 17% who want abortional available under stricter limits. Possible sub-categories of that 17% would be health of the woman, partial birth abortions, parental consent, etc.

You missed the partial birth abortion ban, signed into law November 2003?

I realize that even correcting for the obvious bias, pro life still wins your poll. But the poll is still obviously biased. Between a poll that’s obviously biased, and a bunch of polls that aren’y obviously biased, I’m going to beleive the not obviously biased polls. And yes, some of those polls will show opposite results of the others due to subtler biases, but that’s no reason to not throw out those with clear biases.

[AFAIKnow]

@Blalron

Whether or not it is human is irrelevant. What separates us from any other animal? Our sapience. It’s a core characteristic of humanity. Our DNA doesn’t make us special (primates share 98% of it with us, mammals greater than 90% if I remember right). Otherwise, there’s no logical or moral reason why a human embryo deserves more protection from harm than a baby mouse.

So those with less " sapience" deserves less protection? Older people and smarter people deserve more protection than the mentally retarded or children? Some would say a baby mouse has more sapience than a newborn human. 75% of brain growth happens after birth. Do we make laws that quantify the protection a baby has by it’s growth rate?

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=JThunder]
We’ve already cited testimonies to the contrary, from some of the world’s foremost experts in genetics and embryology…QUOTE]

How very interesting! And what scientific experiments did they perform that led them to this conclusion? None? Well, then, it would be safe to say that their opinion has no more relevence to the discussion than my barber’s, no?

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

But the principle remains: the state has no more right to tell a woman what she can do with her uterus than it can tell her what to do with her appendix. The dogma that a fetus is a human being with all attendent rights is just that: a dogma, without basis in fact, it is a “just-so” story, believe it or not, swallow it or spit it out.

Are you purposely speaking in overly broad terms, or do you really believe that the state has no right to place any regulations on abortion at all? IOW, a woman should be able to choose to abort at any time during pregnancy?

Also, when you say “the state”, do you mean your ideal version of what a state should be, or do you mean The Federal Government of the USA? If the latter, then I don’t think there would be many legal scholars, if any, who would agree with you on that. Certainly *Roe recognizes the authority of the state to regulate abortion, even if it says that the state cannot outlaw it altogether.

*I don’t think it makes sense to speak of “the state” as having rights, only of having authority. I minor nitpick, perhaps, but I just wanted to clarify why I use that term rather than the term you used.

[elucidator]

Boy, you really go for this “concept” stuff, don’t you, John?

Like most folks, I find abortion kinda creepy. The more a fetus becomes a baby, the more so. The problem is that law requires definition, and there isn’t any. I think that’s how the anti-choice crowd got backed into a corner of defining life by conception: nobody knows where that dividing line is. Without a definition, law becomes impossible.

But lets be sensible: very few women who don’t want to be parents are going to wait to the point of viability to realize that fact. The vast majority will make that decision very early on, for lots of reasons.

Why must they be deprived of that choice? No one says you can’t have an apendectomy, or get a tatoo, or stick decorative shards of metal in your face. (Not you, John). The anti-choice crowd insists that they have that right (or “the state” does, which amounts to the same thing…).

If they were to be sensible about it, and give a rough approximation of viability, say, about 6 or 7 months, I think most of us “choicers” would shrug it off, since we know that most women damn sure ain’t gonna wait 6 months to make up their minds!

But they won’t do that, they demand it all, and are forced to present the perfectly ridiculous notion that a lump of undifferentiated cells is a person.

[beagledave]

@elucidator

a lump of undifferentiated cells is a person.

Helpful photo of the “lump of undifferentiated cells” that exists at 8 weeks, when the largest percentage of abortions are obtained (Some are earlier…some are later, obviously…8 weeks being a rough average).

Funny looking “lump of undifferentiated cells” if you ask me.

::shrug::

Actually I’m having a hard time finding that elusive “lump of undifferentiated cells” at any stage where most women would be having elective abortions…perhaps you could use your mad embryological skillz to help a poster out?

[Walloon]

@Taber

But the poll is still obviously biased.

The “obviously biased” poll was commissioned by the Center for the Advancement of Women, headed by former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton.

[Walloon]

@Taber

You missed the partial birth abortion ban, signed into law November 2003?.

You missed that it has never gone into effect because federal judges in San Francisco, Nebraska and New York nullified it?

[Taber]

@Walloon

The “obviously biased” poll was commissioned by the Center for the Advancement of Women, headed by former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton.

I explained what I saw as bias in my earlier post, about how only providing one, somewhat extreme prochoice option will push people toward the more nuanced prolife options. If you care to refute that logic, go ahead.

I make no guesses as to why this CAW would have a poll so weighted. perhaps it was accidental. Perhaps they thought a strongly pro life poll would create a good boogeyman to get the pro choicers scared and more active. In any case, I beleive the effect I pointed out is real, and will continue to do so until it is refuted.

[holmes]

@elucidator

Well, I care what happened, it happened to people I know.

One is tempted. The argument that technology has advanced to the point where clandestine abortions would no longer be dangerous has considerable merit. One is tempted to throw up one’s hands and say “To Hell with it! Let them have thier silly little unenforceable laws, if only they will shut up and go away!”

But the principle remains: the state has no more right to tell a woman what she can do with her uterus than it can tell her what to do with her appendix. The dogma that a fetus is a human being with all attendent rights is just that: a dogma, without basis in fact, it is a “just-so” story, believe it or not, swallow it or spit it out.

There’s a matter of caring as a matter of historical perspective and there’s the matter of caring in way that effects the lives of women today. We have an Aunt who raised us, who lavished us with attention because she was unable to have children, and focused her love onto us. Why? because in her youth 40, maybe 50 years ago, she had an back alley abortion and it went wrong and she ended up sterile. Her story and the story of whatever number of women you deem realistic, that underwent the same thing or worst is important to remember, and learn from. HOWEVER their story is over, they’ve won their fight and now the battleground has changed.

You’re not going to convince anyone anymore that if abortion is banned in certain states, women are going to die in back alleys if the back alleys no longer exist, anymore than you’re going to convince them that they’re killing 8 week old little humans, if they’re able to now terminate in within 10-14 days of conception and really is nothing but a clump of cells.

What’s this fight about NOW? Is it reproduction? Is it privacy? Is it the right to chose what to do with one’s own body? I used to believe that the worst thing that could happen to abortion rights, is to lose the protection of the federal government, I no longer believe that to be true.

I say, let it loose. Let the zealots of both sides be rendered impotent by technology and a release of the past. Let them see what happens to their arguments of killing babies AND septic deaths when pregnancy can be terminated by a pill within 10 or 14 days of conception. What happens then? What type of laws are we going to create to prevent a woman seeing a doctor in order to receive the pills. What type of criminalization will there be if I bring some in from Canada? What happens when NY allows the drug, but Ohio doesn’t and I cross state lines with them in my glovebox? That’s were this battle is headed and I think talking about a RETURN to women bleeding to death in the street, is counter-productive, the same way in the near future showing photos and talking about 8 week old fetus will be too.

[John_Mace]

@holmes

I say, let it loose. Let the zealots of both sides be rendered impotent by technology and a release of the past. Let them see what happens to their arguments of killing babies AND septic deaths when pregnancy can be terminated by a pill within 10 or 14 days of conception. What happens then? What type of laws are we going to create to prevent a woman seeing a doctor in order to receive the pills. What type of criminalization will there be if I bring some in from Canada? What happens when NY allows the drug, but Ohio doesn’t and I cross state lines with them in my glovebox? That’s were this battle is headed and I think talking about a RETURN to women bleeding to death in the street, is counter-productive, the same way in the near future showing photos and talking about 8 week old fetus will be too.

It’s not a political strategy of the left to lose this battle, but don’t many (most?) women not even know they are pregnant 10 to 14 days after conception?

[John_Mace]

@John Mace

It’s not a political strategy of the left to lose this battle, but don’t many (most?) women not even know they are pregnant 10 to 14 days after conception?

Uhm: It’s not a **bad **political strategy **for **the left to lose this battle…

Sorry for the typo.

[holmes]

I don’t know how to answer that. In the few close calls I’ve had and the times when we wanted to get pregnant, they knew something was up and purchased an over the counter tester, which I believe isn’t reliable until 10-14 days after conception. That’s where my number came from, but I don’t think it matters; I think the pill will allow for termination to occur earlier and earlire, rendering moot the claims of “baby” killing. Again I don’t see how the “left”
can win this battle using images that this generation can’t relate to and I think the back alley butchers is one of them.

[Kimstu]

@John Mace

don’t many (most?) women not even know they are pregnant 10 to 14 days after conception?

Today’s early home pregnancy tests allow you to test as soon as 6 to 8 days after ovulation. So yes, it’s quite feasible to know you’re pregnant within 14 days after conception, if you’re alert to the possibility and testing for it. You’re right that physical symptoms such as morning sickness and amenorrhea (cessation of menstruation) aren’t likely to manifest themselves that soon, though.

A couple of other points:

The argument about “experts” agreeing on when life begins is a red herring. Nobody denies that the few minutes or hours of cell interaction after sperm hits egg do produce something that is reasonably described as “a new life”. It’s there, it’s genetically unique (unless it’s twins), and if all goes well it will develop into an independently living baby. That’s good enough for me to call it “a new life” in a biological sense.

The real question is whether that new life is immediately considered to be a fully developed person, with all the individual rights that full persons have in our society. That question is not a matter of biology, but of opinion and law.

It’s obvious that in many ways our society does not consider embryos and fetuses to have equal status with full persons, and not just in abortion law. They are not counted in census surveys, for example, and they don’t qualify for tax deductions. Women who have spontaneous abortions (i.e., miscarriages) do not have to report an accidental death to the authorities or risk investigation for negligent homicide.

A fetus has an intermediate status between being a full person and being part of a woman’s body, and it develops from the latter to the former over the course of gestation. Which is why the law in general doesn’t consider it to have an independent identity and other features of full personhood until it’s born. And it’s also why the court has decided that a woman’s right to control her own body outweighs the fetus’s right to live, at least in the early part of its development. (In the later part, though, those priorities are reversed. All states are allowed to ban abortion entirely, except when the woman’s life or health is at risk, in the last trimester of pregnancy, and all states do so.)

The arguments that illegal abortions (at least in the US) are safe because few of them resulted in actual death is also a red herring. Complications from self-induced or improperly-performed abortions include perforations of the uterus, retained placentas, severe bleeding, cervical wounds, infections, poisoning, shock, and gangrene. Just because most of the women who experienced such effects after illegal abortions didn’t actually die of them, doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be significantly increased health risks for women trying to obtain abortions if they were made illegal again. Assuming that chemical abortifacients would just eliminate the problem in practical terms is, I think, being too simplistic.

[Ms2001]

@elucidator

But the principle remains: the state has no more right to tell a woman what she can do with her uterus than it can tell her what to do with her appendix.

@John Mace

Are you purposely speaking in overly broad terms, or do you really believe that the state has no right to place any regulations on abortion at all? IOW, a woman should be able to choose to abort at any time during pregnancy?

That doesn’t necessarily follow from elucidator’s statement. Control over one’s own uterus only means abortion before the fetus can survive outside. The goal is getting it out of one’s body, and if there’s another way to do so than killing it or waiting for it to leave on its own, I for one am not too worried about banning abortion at that stage.

OTOH, I’m also not too worried about letting women abort at that stage either. Even a viable fetus is a far cry from a person, and while it might have unique DNA, it has no memories, no personality, and no unique interactions with others. Its DNA might make it unique in a sense, but it’s as replaceable as a snowflake in winter.

@Stratocaster

There are documented cases of temporarily brain-dead people, flat-liners with no brain activity who then recover. Severe hypothermia can cause this circumstance. In such an instance, while that person is “brain dead”–no brain activity, no possibility at that moment for thought or wisdom or preferences or anything–is that person something other than a human being whose rights deserve protection?

Probably not, for the moment, but we know the person he used to be. The rights that deserve protection belong to the person who used to inhabit that body, and may inhabit it again. We should protect the body just like we’d save the seat of someone at the theater who got up to use the bathroom - he claimed it earlier and may want it back. But if we know he isn’t coming back, or if the seat has never been claimed by a person, then we don’t have to save it for anyone.

[John_Mace]

@Mr2001

That doesn’t necessarily follow from elucidator’s statement. Control over one’s own uterus only means abortion before the fetus can survive outside.

Nope. Control over one’s own uterus means control over one’s uterus. But your ability to find unjustifiable meaning in someone else’s writings means you might have a bright future as a Supreme Court justice.

OTOH, I’m also not too worried about letting women abort at that stage either. Even a viable fetus is a far cry from a person, and while it might have unique DNA, it has no memories, no personality, and no unique interactions with others. Its DNA might make it unique in a sense, but it’s as replaceable as a snowflake in winter.

I wasn’t necessarily saying that I would disagree with such a law (allowing abortion at any time). There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of that issue. I was just curious about elucidator’s position, which declined to give with his reply. Not a big deal… I was just curious. But I did want to point out that very few people would agree with the unqualified statement he made, and it is not consistent with the SCOTUS ruling in Roe.

[John_Mace]

@Kimstu

Today’s early home pregnancy tests allow you to test as soon as 6 to 8 days after ovulation. So yes, it’s quite feasible to know you’re pregnant within 14 days after conception, if you’re alert to the possibility and testing for it. You’re right that physical symptoms such as morning sickness and amenorrhea (cessation of menstruation) aren’t likely to manifest themselves that soon, though.

But that doesn’t address my original question. Do most women generally know that soon if they are pregnant? Further, I would suspect that most of the women testing themselves are probably trying to get pregnant. I know that it’s possible to find out, but I would expect that most women getting an abortion were not planing to get pregnant, and so wouldn’t have been testing themselves-- as many women who WANT to get pregnant do.