What would REALLY happen if abortion was banned?

[Walloon]

@Steve MB

Hokay. So, the government is hiding crashed UFOs and making secret deals with space aliens, did fake the 9/11 attacks, covered up the truth about the JFK assassination, et cetera. (It’s all out there in publicly available publications, and I haven’t seen any specific official denials.)

Whoops!

:smack:

[elucidator]

Abortions would continue to be performed. Some of them would be performed openly, as acts of civil disobedience. Others clandestinely. The big difference: the reasonable chance that such would be performed by persons knowledgable and experienced, with adequate equipment and training.

In the past, the threat of septic abortions was my primary sticker (outside of the issue of controlling one’s body, that is…) I have become convinced that such a threat is much less, given the passage of time and the number of people who have performed abortions, the advancements in techniques, etc.

So anyway, the big drama/trauma wouldn’t be passing the state laws (assuming a reverse of RvW…) but the drama/trauma of trying and convicting the people who disobey said laws. Thats when the trajectory of the shit would intersect the locus of the fan. Big time, downtown.

[Buckler_of_Swashing]

originally posted by elmwood

Here’s an interesting map from Wikipedia showing the status of abortion laws around the world

Well, it’s interesting in that it’s wrong. Abortion is legal on demand here in the ACT and has been for some time, which isn’t marked. How many other parts of the map are plain wrong/out of date I wonder
Nitpicking Wikipedia, not elmwood

[/nitpickery]

[Walloon]

@elucidator

The big difference: the reasonable chance that such would be performed by persons knowledgable and experienced, with adequate equipment and training.

I refer you to post #107 above. This was when non-therapeutic abortions were outlawed in all but three states.

[Walloon]

Let me correct myself: This was from when non-therapeutic abortions were outlawed in all states.

[Walloon]

To put it another way: In that same 1960 article by Dr. Calderone, of Planned Parenthood, she writes:

The best statistical experts we could find only go so far as to estimate that, on the basis of present studies, the frequency of illegally induced abortions in the United States might be as low as 200,000 and as high as 1,200,000 per year.

In other words, using the most conservative estimate, the mortality rate for illegal abortions in the late 1950s in the United States was 1.3 deaths per 1,000 illegal abortions. Using the high estimate, the rate was 0.22 deaths per 1,000 illegal abortions.

This was in the late 1950s, mind you, when, as I said, non-therapeutic abortions were illegal in all states, and doctors who performed them could lose their licenses and face criminal prosecution, and when public and political support for abortion on demand was much lower than it is today.

[JThunder]

@Anne Neville

And, of course, there’s another argument for abortion even if one does believe that the unborn is human.

Suppose you need a kidney, you and I are a perfect tissue match, no one else in the world is a match for you (say we have some rare blood type), I have two healthy kidneys and would be fine with one, and dialysis won’t work for you for some reason. I am not legally required to give you my kidney, even if you will die without it. Therefore, I should not be able to be legally compelled to allow a fetus to use my womb to grow to viability, any more than I should be forced to let someone have my kidney.

Your argument is similar to those that have been proposed by Judith Jarvis Thompson and Eileen McDonagh. That argument fails on numerous points – not the least of which is that the fetus in question is not just some random stranger, but the woman’s own child. Both society and the law have long recognized that parents have a unique obligation to their own children. Any mother that condemned a child to death by exclaiming “I don’t wanna give up my kidney! Don’t wanna! Don’t wanna!” would be guilty of extreme parental negligence.

Additionally, abortion is NOT just the willful withholding of an organ or two. Rather, it is the aggressive dismemberment of the fetus, actively ending its life. Even if we agree that the mother is under no obligation to preserve her child’s life (a tenuous claim at best!), she is still not allowed to hack her own child to bits. The child’s right to life overrides her own interests.

There are other failings in the arguments proposed by Thompson and McDonagh. Some of them are discussed succinctly here and here. Still others are covered in Dr. Francis Beckwith’s excellent book, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights.

[JThunder]

@Anne Neville

I think “when does human life begin” is ultimately a matter of faith, and, as such, we all have different opinions on it, and always will.

People think all sorts of things. As I said, anyone can have an opinion. Being able to back it up is another matter – and the wealth of scientific testimony indicates that human life most certainly does begin at conception.

Perhaps you can cite a medical reference or embryology textbook that indicates otherwise? That would help your case a bit. Until then, I see no reason to accept your “opinion” on this matter.

[JThunder]

@Scott Plaid

I was just looking up that article. It isn;t avalible on the net, but is intead avalible here for 15 dollars a shot. Looking through anti-abortion sites (Ugh!) I find this “article” is cited for everything from “A” to “Z”

I ssupect it says nothing of the kind.

How does that crow taste, Scott?

[Ms2001]

@JThunder

Any mother that condemned a child to death by exclaiming “I don’t wanna give up my kidney! Don’t wanna! Don’t wanna!” would be guilty of extreme parental negligence.

Is that so? I’ve never heard of a case where a parent was found negligent for refusing to give up an organ. Surely you have a cite.

Additionally, abortion is NOT just the willful withholding of an organ or two. Rather, it is the aggressive dismemberment of the fetus, actively ending its life. Even if we agree that the mother is under no obligation to preserve her child’s life (a tenuous claim at best!), she is still not allowed to hack her own child to bits. The child’s right to life overrides her own interests.

I’d say she is allowed to hack a fetus to bits if that’s the only way to get it out of her body in a timely manner.

There are other failings in the arguments proposed by Thompson and McDonagh. Some of them are discussed succinctly here and here.

The reasoning in that first link is weak enough that I didn’t bother reading the second…

@Stand to Reason Commentary - Unstringing the Violinist

Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman’s own daughter or son–like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship.

A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother’s womb is the baby’s natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he’s not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.

I’d say it is a host/predator relationship if the host is unwilling. It may be “natural” for a mosquito to suck someone’s blood, or a tapeworm to inhabit someone’s colon, but we have no trouble realizing that one party is a predator and the other is the unwilling prey. “In his rightful place” sounds more like religious dogma than a serious argument.

Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being’s life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.

If this author can think of a better way to withhold treatment from a fetus, I’d like to hear it. But frankly, if the violinist is going to die anyway, and we’re reasonably sure he won’t feel pain (and/or we take precautions to ensure he won’t), then why would it matter if we have to cut him up before pulling the plug?

The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh’s view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.

This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson’s illustration. What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that? And what would we think of her if she did?

I would think she made a hard but reasonable decision. No one has an obligation to give their body to anyone else, whether they’re strangers or family members.

[treis]

@JThunder

How does that crow taste, Scott?

Ah its always refreshing to see intelligent and rational debate on this board.

[JThunder]

@Evil Captor

So when the anti-choice folks get in that very tough situation themselves and THEN make the “wrong” decision (from their POV) it totally destroys, not just their credibility, but the entire movement’s credibility.

Really? So the hypocrisy of a few isolated pro-lifers ruins the credibility of the entire movement? What does that say about the pro-choice movement, then?

Remember how we’ve been discussing Mary Calderone? Back before Roe v. Wade, the pro-choice movement used to claim that many thousands of women were dying each year from illegal abortions. As it turns out though, this was a lie. Planned Parenthood’s own director was saying that illegal abortions were actually quite safe. So much for standing on principle, eh?

We don’t just have Calderone’s word to fall on. Even Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and a foremost pro-choice leader, publicly admitted that this was a lie. In his 1979 book, Aborting America, Dr. Nathanson said,

“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”

In addition ,Dr. Nathanson’s claim is amply supported by figures from the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics.

What hypocrites these pro-choice leaders were! To claim that they were striving to prevent the deaths of millions of women, even though they knew these figures were complete fabrications.

Mind you, these weren’t just a few isolated individuals, buckling during times of emotional crisis. No, these were people at the forefront of the pro-choice movement, and this lie was a matter of formal policy. This falsehood constituted a cornerstone of their rhetoric, and has continued to propagate through the decades.

So if the occasional hypocrisy of some isolated pro-lifers totally ruins the pro-life cause, what does the systematic and formalized hypocrisy of the pro-choice leadership do?

[JThunder]

@Mr2001

Is that so? I’ve never heard of a case where a parent was found negligent for refusing to give up an organ. Surely you have a cite.

We are talking about a situation where the mother would simply let the child die. Abandoning a child to die constitutes parental negligence in the extreme.

[QUOTE]
I’d say she is allowed to hack a fetus to bits if that’s the only way to get it out of her body in a timely manner.
[/QUOTE[
This assumes that she is justified in getting the child out of her body. It’s circular reasoning.

The reasoning in that first link is weak enough that I didn’t bother reading the second…

I’m not surprised that you didn’t bother, since the links in question already addressed every single one of the points that you raised.

[JThunder]

@treis

Ah its always refreshing to see intelligent and rational debate on this board.

It’s interesting that you didn’t say that when Scott Plaid (and other pro-choice debaters) insinuated that Dr. Calderone’s quote must be incorrect … without the tiniest shred of evidence, I might add.

[Ms2001]

I love how the safety of illegal abortions is now an issue. As if to comfort those afflicted by an unwanted pregnancy: “It’s OK, you’ll still be able to get a safe abortion, you’ll just have to do it illegally.”

@JThunder

We are talking about a situation where the mother would simply let the child die. Abandoning a child to die constitutes parental negligence in the extreme.

Again, unless you can cite a case where someone was actually found negligent for refusing to give up an organ, that’s false. We’re specifically talking about a situation where the mother would let the child die because it’s the only alternative to giving up the use of her body.

I’m not surprised that you didn’t bother, since the links in question already addressed every single one of the points that you raised.

A quick glance at the second link suggests it’s just a rephrasing of the first…

@Stand to Reason Commentary - Trespassing in the Womb

Where does she expect the baby to go? One trespasses when he’s not in his rightful place. Ladies and gentlemen, a baby who is developing in the womb belongs there.

Ladies and gentlemen, a tapeworm who is inhabiting your colon belongs there.

Come on, that’s not an argument. The decision as to whether someone “belongs there” is made by the person who owns “there”, and it has nothing to do with the would-be trespasser’s needs or any observations about nature. If someone’s in my living room, and I don’t want him to be there, he’s trespassing. Even if I invited him in, he stops being a guest and starts being a trespasser the moment I decide I want him out.

[AFAIKnow]

@JThunder

Really? So the hypocrisy of a few isolated pro-lifers ruins the credibility of the entire movement? What does that say about the pro-choice movement, then?

Heheh, considering Roe, herself, has done the proverbial 360 in style, I guess the pro-choice movement has the credibility of Baghdad Bob.

[AFAIKnow]

@AFAIKnow

Heheh, considering Roe, herself, has done the proverbial 360 in style, I guess the pro-choice movement has the credibility of Baghdad Bob.

360=180… you know what I meant ya nazi!

[treis]

@JThunder

It’s interesting that you didn’t say that when Scott Plaid (and other pro-choice debaters) insinuated that Dr. Calderone’s quote must be incorrect … without the tiniest shred of evidence, I might add.

Calling the veracity of a biased cite is perfectly acceptable behavior, taunting someone when it turns out you were right makes you look like a child.

[SentientMeat]

@JThunder

the wealth of scientific testimony indicates that human life most certainly does begin at conception.

Really? You see, I thought that meiosis and mitosis were, like life, ongoing processes which were not “scientifically” subject to arbitrary thresholding, and that one might as well say that a sperm and egg were “human life” in that they comprised human cells (*ie.] autopoietic, water based, lipid-protein bound, carbon metabolic, nucleic acid replicated, protein readout systems).

You have shown us some scientists who, for some reason, treat two separate cells (the divided daughter nuclei) arbitrarily differently to to other separate cells (sperm and egg). That such a taxon makes describing their work easier may well be so, but your “certainly” quote is simply absurd on its face.

[Arwin]

@SentientMeat

That such a taxon makes describing their work easier may well be so, but your “certainly” quote is simply absurd on its face.

Even more so when, as I said before, these experts talk about the biological starting point of an individual specimen of the homo erectus. Nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of the nuances and considerations that specialists on this subject will bring into it, as SentientMeat points out, it is certainly possible that a majority of experts can agree on conception being “the biological starting point of an individual specimen of the homo erectus.”

But then ask these same experts the following questions:

1. At which point, according to your expert opinion, does conciousness develop?
2. According to your expert opinion, does a zygote have a Soul? If not, when would it get one, if ever? (taking into account that there might just be a few scientists out there who don’t believe in Souls)?
3. According to your expert opinion, is a zygote capable of suffering? If not, at what stage in the development of an individual specimen of the homo erectus, do you believe that it becomes capable of suffering?
4. What is, according to your expert opinion, the value of family planning for the homo erectus?
5. What is, according to your expert opinion, the value of recreational sex in the social behaviour of the human being?
6. Do you think, in your expert opinion, that healthy individuals of the human species are, at any given time during their adult lives, governed by reason, or by animal instinct?

And so on. It will be interesting to not only hear whether you can get them to reach a concensus on these questions, what that would be, and what kind of scientific evidence they will provide.