Republican Because of Abortion Issue
[Note: Janet apparently posted this under my account rather than her own. So as not to confuse people who are quite sure I'm a left wing moonbat commie liberal, I just wanted to point out that this post is from Janet. --Liam]
I have so much experience in this area. I've always been Republican mostly because of the Abortion issue. I am strongly against abortion, and wanted to align myself with others who felt the same way.
I have always been Pro life and will continue to be such, but the Republican party has one tactic for getting abortion numbers reduced. Get rid of Roe V Wade. Abortion was legal before RVW, it was state to state regulated, but it was legal. If RVW is overturned, it will go back to being a state issue.
I would love to see us attack abortion as a social problem. I've seen the number of abortions level off in my lifetime, and very very little has been done to reduce the number of women who experience unwanted pregnancies. Very Very little has been done to help women who experience unwanted pregnancies. Republicans don't fund studies on the long term damage of abortion. Adoption is easier overseas. There is so little done to help women who actually choose to have their babies, and Republicans are attempting to reduce the benefits available to single mothers. There is no new party line legislation that makes fathers of unwanted pregnancies more accountable.
So, the message offered to a woman who is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy is this: Getting an abortion is easy and inexpensive. We suspect that there are long term issues with having an abortion (but, we only have anecdotal evidence of this, no proof). We believe that it is wrong to abort pregnancies, that life actually begins at conception. You will be wrong to abort your pregnancy. Good Luck.
Lets separate adoption from Social Services. Social Services spend so much of thiner wonderful effort saving abused children, they have very little resources for adoption of infants, housing of women who are experiencing unwanted pregnancies, and getting good health care for those women who choose adoption. Lets give the option of adoption a high place. Lets glorify women who gave their infants up for adoption. Lets take the stigma off of them all together. They made a bad selfish choice, but the one that they made to get out of the situation was so beautiful and wonderful and selfless.
Lets fund studies on the long term mental damage done by abortion. Lets fund studies on the positive impact of adoption on the moms who give infants up for adoption. Lets publish those studies and shove them down the throats of OB-Gyns and the public. Lets do what we can to eliminate the abortion clinics (we don't need them, we have Ob-Gyns who can perform them). When an abortion is discussed between a Doctor and a Patient, it is in the patient's best interest (and therefore an obligation of the doctor) to continue with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption (and we really need the studies to back this up, we need to prove this beyond any reasonable doubt), so any reputable doctor will counsel against abortion (and most OB-Gyns love babies).
Attacked this way, instead of legislation only, abortions can be reduced to such a low number. I wish that Republicans could prove that they are against abortion, that they want the number of babies aborted to be greatly reduced, but until they do I am not one of them. The actions that they take socially actually have an end result of increasing the number of abortions (I cannot back this up with proof, later, I will do the research).
I am for the rights of the infants, but since those infants reside in the body of another woman, we have to assist these women. These women need to be convinced to allow the baby to use their bodies, not coerced. I'm guessing (again, no research at this time) that most of the women and girls who have abortions are quite torn on the decision. We need more to push them away from the inexpensive and easy, not by making it more difficult and more expensive (if more expensive worked, the rich would smoke and the poor wouldn't), but by making it easier to carry the baby to term. Make it financially possible for her to get health care, to keep housing. Lets get rid altogether of the social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption. Lets do all we can to get rid of the 'accepted knowledge' that giving a baby up for adoption is very very difficult. Lets do all we can to get out the actual knowledge that giving up a baby for adoption is very satisfying, very loving, and will uplift her status.
Lets reduce the number of abortion. We don't need Republicans to do this, we can do it by aligning ourselves with others who feel the same way.
posted by Liam at 12/13/2005 09:39:00 AM
16 Comments:
I just want to point out that what my wife is saying here, as I read it, is that she is something that virtually everyone (Democratic and Republican alike) want to pretend doesn't exist:
Both pro-choice and pro-life.
Which, really, is where I am as well. I don't like abortion. I would like to see its use severely curtailed. But I, like my wife, believe the way to accomplish that is through education, NOT through legislation.
Consider prohibition. Making alcohol illegal didn't stop the drinking, it just drove it underground and made it harder to regulate. Suddenly the market was flooded with all sorts of grain alcohols and home brews containing impurities which could lead to blindness and death.
Education may not be working much better, but at least no one who ruins their life with alcohol can reasonably claim they didn't know.
The same is true of abortion, as my wife so eloquently wrote. Remove the barriers that make abortion easier and cheaper than adoption, do some real studies on the medium and long term effects on women who have had abortions, and then educate women.
A point my wife made yesterday when we were talking was very telling: Doctors go to great lengths to dissuade younger patients from having sterilization procedures, because they (the doctors) know that a very high percentage will reach their early 30s and regret the decision. They do this because they understand that it is in the best interest of the majority of patients NOT to be sterilized. If studies backed up what my wife experientially knows (from talking with friends who have had abortions), then doctors would recognize the same truths about abortion and take the same steps.
Heck, we wouldn't even have to close the Planned Parenthoods of the nation, they'd simply change their focus from abortion mill to prenatal care and adoption assistance.
So I agree with my wife 100%. If you want to stop abortions, stop cutting aid for pregnant mothers, make it nearly as easy to carry to term and then put up for adoption as it is to abort, and educate women on the REAL long term costs (to themselves) of abortions. The smart ones will get it, the sheep will eventually follow when it becomes the societal norm. And we will have accomplished what we want to do WITHOUT having a batch of predominantly male governmental officials dictating to women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies.
Great post, hon!
Liam.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:47:00 AM
Wow, so many misconseptions and so much to answer. Let's take Janet's rant first. You say you have been Republican because you wanted to associate youself with others who felt the same way about abortion, but now you left that party because they only want to overturn RVW. I am assuming you joined another party, perhaps the Democratic party because....I can only assume because you do not state it, that they DON'T want to overturn RVW.
Then you state that if overturned, it will become a State's issue like it was before the Supreme Court'S decesion; but isn't that the way to undo something? Bring it back to the way it was before the mistake was made and then take a more thoughtful route. The Supreme Court, not a body of elected officials, overturned years of elected official's laws concerning abortion, thus making it the law of the land. These decisions were put in place by State elected officials because it was a state's rights matter and thus should be retuned to that place. Then we could have the discussion that would lead to a voted on decision concerning this issue.
Your next paragraph deals with so many issues it is hard to keep my response short enough to be contained herein, but here goes.It has always been a problem for perspective adoptive parents in the USA to adopt children. We have such high almost unrealistic standards of the adoptive parents. This is NOT true of other countries who have such an abundance of unparented children that they are aggresively seeking parents for these children. I have been an investigator for one such agency in this state, and have witnessed such hardships. But this is looking at it only from the adoptive parents viewpoint. I have seen many single women who want to give their newborn or unborn child up for adoption, either a blind adoption or not and I have never seen any hardships there except for the battle the young women have with themselves as to do it or not. And there has almost never been a time when there were not lot's of eager parents in line to adopt the
baby. I say almost never because when a child is born less than perfect as is the expectations of all parents, then it is harder.
As to your statement about almost nothing being done to help single mom's keep their babies, you are right. It had been the welfare policy to reward each new offspring of a single mom, a large payment just for having the new baby, thus encouraging unmarried single moms to have more babies to get a larger check, and for the father's of these children to remain out of the home and NOT to marry the woman. The government also gave them better health insurance than the average American can afford. It seems to me that in your statements you are not giving any weight to this side of the argument.
As for not holding the father's of these babies accountable, I really think the government is trying. Of course this can only be accomplished on a state level so the "party" tag is less relevant in my mind than it is at the National level.
Your next few paragraphs are wonderful and desirous efforts to undertake, but do you really think that the Democrats in the Senate and House, who are seriously dependant on the pro-choice crowd for their re-election, would allow any law that would promote such things as "funding studies to determine the long term effect of abortion on women" or "glorifying women who give their babies up for adoption" when they (the dems) fight tooth and nail to keep partial birth abortion legal as defined by the Supreme Court in it's interpretation of Doe vs Bolton? You do realize that laws funding any of this has to pass both houses that contain Democratic Pro Abortion lawmakers, and some moderate Republicans who vote the same way.
When you state that you wish Republicans could "prove" that they are against abortion and really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, I wonder what type of proof it would take. There have been so many Federal and State laws passed restricting abortion such as requireing parental notification, teaching the potential consequences of abortion, counseling for post-abortion syndrome, exposure to ulta sound pictures, etc, that have all been challenged in court by planned parenthood or others of the same mind set, and eventually held up as un-constitutional. Short of changeing the make up of the Supreme Court to allow these laws to take effect, (which is in the process of being done), I don't know what else could be done to "prove" their effort.
Their are many efforts being made to help these women in the troubled times in which they find themselves, not necessarily by Republicans or Democrats, but by pro-life people who really care through their efforts and their money ie CARE, Concerned Women for America, National Right to Life Association, and many many State and Federal Associations. If you are not familiar with these groups, google them and you will be pleasantly surprised at the good works that they do...you might even want to help.
Now on to your rant, Liam. You state that the way to get it changed (abortion attitude) is through education and not through legislation and I agree! But first, we have to overcome the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution as it exist today, for it MADE LAW when it ruled on RVW, and because it overturns all laws restricting it.
It is very hard to convince an 18 year old girl that abortion is wrong if it has been legal all of her life. She really thinks that it is ok, and then suffers the consequences all the rest of her life.
I read where you think that Planned Parenthood would change their focus, with enough education, from the profits they make from abortion to the non-profits of counceling and pre-natal care. I have read your thoughtful rants before and respectfully ask you to re-consider.
And as for your last statement about white men dictating to women what they can and caint do with their own bodies, you are repeating a talking point for the pro-abortionist in this country. Why cain't you accept the thought that we care enough about the unborn child to do what we do on the pro-life side?
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:12:00 PM
Thanks for a GREAT reply, Anonymous. That's the kind of stimulating give and take I wish we had more of on this blog. I can't promise to change my mind on any given issue, and I'm sure I won't always change yours, but I think it's great when we can come to some understanding of each other's positions. I'm certainly not closed to the idea that someone might put forth a way of looking at things that I hadn't previously considered.
It's 12:30am and I've just gotten home from a barbershop chorus rehearsal. I'm too tired to give your response the time it deserves so I'll hold off and respond sometime tomorrow.
Nevertheless, I really appreciate your having taken the time to type all of that. It'll definitely give me something to think about.
Liam.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:28:00 AM
Anon,
Thanks so much for a well thought out response. I agree with you on so much, that to rebut is easy.
I would like to say that the point I would like you to take from my (as usual) meandering rant is this... The Republican party is as strong as it has ever been in my life time. I have never witnessed a 'machine' that runs so smoothly. When something becomes a goal, it gets done. When the Republicans have a point that they all want everyone talking about (O'Reilley's beef against large chains selling 'Holiday Trees' comes to mind), then within one weekend, everyone is talking about something that hadn't crossed anyone's mind in years. And the point of view is so succintly put, so repetitively made, that even a lie can become common knowledge in the blink of an eye (Jesus would not approve of the commercialization of his life, the pagen portion of our Christmas celebration aside.. it has nothing to do with Christianity). Having that in mind, why aren't the Republicans using that well oiled machine in order to address some of the moral stances that my former party stands for?
If the established fact that a woman who has an abortion is left with a mark that rivals one of molestation or rape, and that a woman who gives a baby up for adoption is left with a peace and happiness, isn't part of our common vocabulary then I hold that it isn't because the most conservative of Republicans don't know this, or that they don't acknowledge this. Instead they spend all their time talking about whatever other unimportant thing that O'Reilley decides is important.
I had to leave the party. I see huge strentgh used to worry about the speck in another's eye all the while the plank in our own is ignored.
The Republicans have the power to substantially lower the number of abortions right now. Not just by passing legislature; legislature that I must admit, I am not against. It isn't the effort to change the flavor of the supreme court that I have a problem with. It isn't the overturning of bad rulings that I take issue with.
It is the lack of effort that is being used to attack the social problem of women who find themselves with only two choices. The horror of abortion is apparent to most, either Republican or Democrat.
It is late, and I am sleepy. I hope that you come back and read this, and that you answer it. The point in this comment is really the point that I was trying to make.
Republican party members are mostly in agreement that abortion is wrong, heck I've met only one or two people in my life that thought that abortion was one of the inalienable rights that our Founding Fathers wanted us to recognize. When it becomes (if it becomes) common knowledge how damaging abortion is to the woman, how healing adoption is to the woman, then the easy way out will be taken.
We need to look at humans as the vulnerable people that we are. I've seen so many good people help women who were having an unplanned
pregnancy. I applaud them, I want to be like them. When my babies are a little older, I would like to find my niche to help them too. Orginizations like the Catholic Church do so much for these women, and all out of a sense of trying to sincerely help both the baby and the mother who is giving the baby up for adoption.
And yet, 16 year olds and 25 year olds alike find themselves pregnant and the only thing that they KNOW is that "It is really hard to give a baby up for adoption." These abortion providers have made it such common knowledge that the lie of adoption being difficult and abortion being an easier reality is actually the accepted truth.
The small minority of people who actually believe that abortion is a right of the mother are so well orginized that they were able to do this in the last 25 years. I really believe that most people (really me and my family too) want abortion to never be necessary, except as a rare (and I mean rare, nothing else) medical choice that is difficult and full of ramifications.
The well run, very vocal, very successful machine that is the current Republican party has the power to make the lie out for what it is, and it doesn't even discuss it.
In the last 8 years... we began discussing Gay marriage and the effect it has on hetero-marriage. In the last year, there has been a nationwide discussion on the Nagin, Blanco, Bush disaster that was New Orleans. And most people know to blame Blanco (and is it the truth? I doubt it, but for the sake of this argument, it is irrelevant). We all know that somehow Osama Bin Laden and The World Trade Center Terrorist Crimes and Iraq and Hussain and National Security are all related and we don't care how. We know about weapons of mass distruction, we know about Terry Schivo, we know about Oil prices. All this from the mouths of the talking heads in the Republican Party. Why aren't we talking about real moral issues too? Why aren't we discussing not only the rights of the unborn (which I strongly with all my being uphold), but the means to support the baby once it becomes born?
I know about the welfare state. I've seen firsthand what happens when generation after generation are left dependant on government for everything. I honestly don't have a solution there. All I can say is that of the three choices that women (or unfortunately girls) have when they find themselves pregnant and single is... keep and raise the infant, abort the pregnancy (I know that it is killing the infant, but I'm trying to show their point of view for now, not make my stance even clearer), or give the baby up for adoption. I know at least 15 women who kept the baby and raised it themselves, or got married and raised the baby... in almost (but not all) cases the outcome for the mother and the child was definately less than desirable. I know about 5 people who were children that were adopted, and at least 5 couples that have adopted children, and 4 women who have given the children up for adoption. In every one of these cases, everyone was happy about the situation. Everyone, including the birth mother was satisified and felt no guilt. Everyone went on to live happish lives. I know two women (friends of mine) who were willing to discuss their abortions. Both of these otherwise sane women have concocted a story around their abortions, one believeing that her daughter that she has now is the reincarnation of the aborted infant, the other has convinced herself that she wasn't in fact pregnant and that the doctor just used her fear to make money. Both of them are haunted by the abortions, and would undo it if given the chance.
That is strong.
The bond that a mother feels when she is pregnant (as I sit here nine months pregnant with a really, really wanted child) is so strong. From the moment that she Knows that she is pregnant, she starts thinking of what gender the baby is, what he or she will look like, what to name him or her. And this is also true of the women who had the abortions. But, lack of options and plain old shame drove them to abortion.
We need to expand options, and make heros of the women who give their babies up for adoption. Republicans have the power to do this and they don't use it.
Also, I am not a Democrat. I've always identified with the stated positions of the Republican party and have only left it because it seems to NOT be fighting for its own stated positions. When I see the Republican party become Regan's party again, then I will proudly sign up for the party once more.
Again, thanks for such a thoughtful response.
I don't have a problem with RVW being overturned. I just think that as a single tactic, it is not going to reduce the number of abortions that are currently happening.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:56:00 AM
I still don't have time for a full response, running around like a madman in the morning trying to get ready for work and helping Janet through her contractions, but I wanted to throw up two quick thoughts, one in response to Janet's response, and one a thought I had overnight.
In response to Janet, I was thinking about her example of the young woman having three options. Parents also bear some responsibility. The more hard-line parents are, the more the daughter is afraid of retribution if she comes home pregnant.
Disappointing your parents is really hard, but if a girl has really strict parents, the sort who will punish her, disown her, or otherwise make the situation WORSE (and I went to college with a number of such women, so I know they exist), then to them, the only tenable solution is to have a secret abortion. Parental notification laws won't change this, laws rarely change behaviors if the person doesn't agree with the moral basis for the law (again, remember Prohibition).
So ultimately, at least in part, the abortion problem is like a lot of current societal problems: Bad parenting. I don't believe that the solution is running back to a 'traditional' family, I've known some very strong, very nurturing nontraditional families. And I'd never advocate this position (I'd fight against any such law) but sometimes in my private heart I wonder if we shouldn't require a license or some sort of training before someone's allowed to parent.
Now, the thing I thought about last night, as I note that this is getting much longer than I wanted to take this morning...
I think I have more in common with traditional conservatives than they understand. I think we both distrust peoples behavior. The difference is that the conservatives of today seem to aim their distrust at people, wanting to pass laws to restrict behaviors they don't approve of (failing to recognize that laws without an accepted moral basis behind them rarely affect common behavior). I, on the other hand, distrust government. I believe strongly in the idea that power corrupts. It's why, as some Republicans have said, they've managed in 10 years to reach the level of corruption and hubris that it took the Democratic party 40 years to reach up until around the time of Reagan and Bush I.
I trust in the structures of government set up by our founding fathers. They're not perfect, which is why we have a process for amending our primary document, but I think we should consider carefully before doing so. Our government is not perfect, but it has served us very well for over 200 years, primarily because of the strong foundation of checks and balances. Those strengths are what kept our government from falling when we were hit on 9/11 (bin Ladin reportedly believed that we would rise up and overthrow our government for failing to protect us). Those strengths are what has kept us a democracy (or rather, a representative republic) and not allowed us to fall into a dictatorship.
It's annoying to have your goals thwarted, but it's a fair trade off.
So, we both have distrust of human motivation and behavior, which is something the extreme left wing seems too optimistically willing to blind themselves to. But I think the far greater potential for damage to us, our society and our nation is the unchecked power of the government. That's more important to me than what's being accomplished WITH that unchecked power (because once the checks are removed even in service of a good cause, they're gone for good, even if the next cause isn't so good or just).
Now, given that this was my QUICK THOUGHTS response, I dread thinking about how much is going to spill out of me later when I get to my LONG response to anonymous.
Liam.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:07:00 AM
Oh, one last thing: Neither of us belong to the Democratic party, we are both proudly independents.
We believe that this keeps us from voting for "our team" when we should be thinking about the ISSUES.
Liam.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:45:00 AM
I can see from your responses(both)that we in fact agree on lots of things; as most serious thinkers do. I also have a serious distrust of people in power too long because power does corrupt. I have seen it in my own business life as I myself have to be tempered from time to time in running my own business. What has kept my actions in line is my knowledge that my biggest asset in my business is my employees. If I can keep them happy and above average in pay, then they will keep me happy through job performance. This lesson is lost on politicians that have been there too long. They forget the reasons they were sent there in the first place.
I also am an independant, but I find that the people I agree with that run for office are mostly in the Republican party, therefore I do seem to defend them from time to time. The two issues I keep an eye on the most is abortion and the size of government as shown by the amount of money it takes to run the monstrous thing. On the first, even though the Republicans have not done the best job of changing the present situation, the alternative would be to increase the number of Democrats in office and too many times I have seen good local Democrats go to Congress or Senate and end up voting "party line" with the issue. On the second issue, although there are many new Republicans joining a few of the older ones in fighting for fiscal responsibilities, there are too many in office who still operate on the old addage of "bringing home the bacon" and thus pile on with pork barrel spending and sending the deficit out of sight. I sincerely believe that we could keep all necessary programs and some I consider unnecessary and still trim the budget by 30% with the exception of time of war. But even with this current war on terrorism we are fighting, cutting the rest of the budget by 30% would be a lot of improvement. Heck, if they would just stop increasing the pork, we could grow ourselves out of most of our economic problems.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:11:00 AM
...sorry for the continued delay on responding. I forgot that last night was one of my daughter's birthday parties, so I've yet to have more than a few minutes to put together.
Maybe tonight.
Liam.
Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:51:00 AM
I'm a different anonymous responder. This should be clear, as I am in no way as articulate as the original anonymous commenter. And my thoughts aren't so well thought out as all of yours.
This is not and never will be a perfect world. We can get better educated and have good programs in place to prevent the social ills we believe are in fact ill. At its best, social services still doesn't reach everyone; at its worst, it excludes certain segments of society -- rather by race, geography, or whatever. To expect that this country does the right thing for everyone is nice but not so realistic. Remember Katrina?
I don't know what the original pupose of Roe vs Wade was. I thought part of it was to prevent deaths of the impregnated women who sought dangerous abortions. Decisions have to be made early in every pregnancy where abortion is considered. You (and I) would prefer there be no consideration, but that is unrealistic.
Abortion is not an easy issue, and it never will be. Having options is preferable, and that includes legislation which protects the lives of women who may make a choice you or I don't agree with. With most abortions, the law helps prevent two deaths, not one (the baby). That one death will likely have occurred with or without our legislation such as RvW. And I agree, it would be more likely that education and social services would be the ones to prevent that one death.
It's odd that I should be for abortion rights or pro-choice, however you call it, for I would not be here if my grandmother had aborted my father. But I also wish she had given him away to a responsible family. My father's miseries would have been lessened. I can't judge because I am not a parent. But I've seen this country prevent both abortions and pregnancies. This is not always a very nice country. I only hope that if I were pregnant and stuck in a terrible situation, that I be given options and I be allowed to make my choice and not risk my life for it.
My two cents seems to have inflated considerably. Sorry.
Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:40:00 AM
OK, I've still got lots to say, and I owe a long response. I'll probably get to about half of it now, and the rest later.
First, I will agree and cop to having used a talking point if you (the first Anonymous) will admit that you use a lot of Republican talking points in your argument, and in and of itself, the fact that something is a talking point doesn't invalidate it's truth.
Although they've come to be "this is the spin we want to put on things", talking points originated as lists of bullet points which highlight the argument one wishes to make. Therefore, by definition, any good argument in favor of one's side of an issue is likely to be a talking point.
What makes talking points odious is not THAT they are talking points, but when they are repeated verbatim without substantiation (as happens a lot with people who listen to the left or right wing radio personalities but never bother to look up or cite any source more authoritative than Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Franken or Moore), or when they are technically true but only by ignoring larger truths (for example, yes it's true that we've rebuilt x number of schools and have power back on to y percent of the population, but when compared to the number of schools and percentage of people with regular power BEFORE we started the war in Iraq, the numbers don't look so good, especially when the implication of the person giving the numbers is "See how much better the Iraqis are under us?").
So I would propose that we try (and I will probably fail as often as you do) to avoid using the label "Talking Point" as though that refutes anything, the same way I reject the assumption that labeling something "liberal" automatically makes it bad.
Now, as to the talking point you accused me of, that the abortion issue reflects an attempt by men to control women... this is a tough one, and I should probably have avoided using it. The fact is, this one depends on who you talk to. The fact is that when men vote on restricting abortion they ARE trying to control the bodies of women. HOWEVER... the talking point aspect of it is when it is implied that this is the reason men are doing it (i.e. that men just want to control women). It is true that when we pass laws against murder, we are trying to control the actions of those who would murder. However, we don't do it because we want to subjugate murderers, we do it because we have decided as a society that murder is a behavior we do not tolerate and one which we believe is wrong.
So... yes, men who vote to restrict abortions ARE engaging in an action which will control the behavior of women. But certainly most of them do it because they believe that abortion is murder, not because it will stick it to them uppity girls who don't know their place. To a woman who doesn't believe a fetus is a baby until brain cell development or brainwave activity, being told she can't abort what is, in the early weeks and in her view, merely a parasite does feel like she's being controlled.
The problem with the abortion issue, of course, is that there are so many different places where one could decide "life" begins. Personally, I would say that a clump of a few (less than 100) cells soon after conception is more the POTENTIAL for a person than an actual person, and so from that standpoint, an abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy (when granted few women yet know they ARE pregnant) is only worse by degrees than preventing someone from using condoms (after all, there's the potential for life in any sex act). Taken to a ridiculous level, it's only worse by degrees than allowing people to opt to be celibate, because by doing so, you are denying the potential to create life.
Going the other direction from the hundred or so cells, to me the best marker for when abortion goes from the removal of a sort of tumor to killing a human is (as I said before) when brainwave activity is detectable. Going further, traditionally many people didn't consider the baby truly "alive" until quickening (the first time the mother feels the baby move within her). And of course there are several passages in the bible that speak of God breathing the breath of life and a soul into the new baby at birth. If in fact that is true, then even late term abortions aren't really killing a human, because at that point the baby has no soul. (Note, having interacted with my own not-yet-born son through my wife's belly, I don't believe this one, I'm just listing it as one view which has been espoused, historically).
And there is really no scientific proof for one view over another, in terms of when a fetus becomes a "person" or gains a "soul". Again, for me, it's when it has the potential to be aware and feel pain, and I don't believe that can happen until brainwave activity. I still prefer to limit abortions, in case I'm wrong, but I prefer not to make that the LAW, because I could just as easily be wrong in the other direction.
I want to get into the discussion about partial-birth abortions, why I don't think the traditional Democratic position is as wrong as you do, and some more of my understanding of why the practice is even used, but my wife is insisting that, with Liam less than 5 days away, we really need to get out and pick up the last few things we need to have in house before his birth, so I'll come back and finish later.
Liam.
Saturday, December 17, 2005 11:07:00 AM
I am the first anonymous on this comment. I agree with your discourse on "talking points".
I don't pretend to be an authority on passages from the Bible, but I have read it, and been in study groups, but I have no recollection of "several passages in the bible that speak of God breathing the breath of life and a soul into the baby 'at birth'". I googled that passage on three different websites and could not locate it. If you could direct me to where it is located I would appreciate it.
I have read passages where God speaks in Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart."
The place I go to for human knowledge that you quote to shore up your position that life begins at brainwave activity is to the biologists. Their definiton of conception is:The onset of pregnancy, marked by the implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote. This is the beginning of life in my mind. From here on, all it has to do is grow. If one did want to attribute the "beginning of life" to any other moment, then one has to become very subjective because no other moment is not subject to human interpretation except the moment the sperm succesfully penetrates the egg. That could also be a place where one could say life begins without being subject to human interpretaion. If you want to note a time when God creates the soul in the body, then I would have to tell you that we have lost a child in utero, and feel no less a loss than if we had lost a child after birth, which we have. As you can tell, this is a very personal subject for me, but in a good straightforward discussion personal feelings only give a guideline, and the truth must be spoken.
The last comment I have on your last comment is that if we as a country did agree on your statement that brainwave activity announced the beginning of life, and the biologist tell us that that activity begins somewhere around the 8th or 9th week after implementation(I think I am right on this but I don't have a reference to give) then that would be a far senario than we have now where abortion is legal as long as the baby is not totally delivered.
You said your baby is due in 5 days, and is named after you, what a thrill!
Monday, December 19, 2005 7:21:00 PM
OK, I've done some looking for the passages in the Bible I was talking about, and it turns out they're less clear cut than my obviously faulty memory had them.
The key to the argument that the body is endowed with a "soul" at birth is that it is repeatedly referred to as "the breath of life" and various takes on breath equaling life. So the argument goes, "life" begins with breath, and breath begins after the baby exits the womb (or, in modern times, the incision). But this does take a much more literal reading of the text than I'm usually prone to, so I don't recall why the argument seemed so persuasive when I first heard it.
Anyway, my argument was, I believe, that there are those who believe (or have historically believed) that life began at birth, and those people took their argument from the Bible. Whether it's clear cut there or not (and my quick searches mirror yours, it does not seem to be), nevertheless it is another view of when "life" begins, and that was the point I was trying to get to in that section. The reason I'm pro-choice as well as pro-life is that since there are so many different points at which one could believe "life" begins, I have a hard time asserting that mine is correct and enforcing that everyone ELSE adhere to the standard I choose to accept.
By the way, I have also lost a child to an early miscarriage (or "spontaneous abortion" as they are called before the end of the third trimester), and I agree that it is very difficult. That does not, to me, prove the existence of a soul in that fetus. I believe that fetus failed because there was some genetic anomaly or abnormality which would have prevented it from successfully growing into a human being. It made us terribly sad and depressed at the time, but that had more to do with the level to which we'd anthropomorphized it than with its humanity. We had already given it nicknames and talked about the future with this new life in our lives. I honestly believe we'd have been just as upset had we learned that she was not in fact ever pregnant as to learn that she HAD been and had lost it.
Which doesn't say that that group of cells DIDN'T have a soul, only that our grief at its passing doesn't prove that it DID.
Now, I wanted to touch on a very sensitive subject: Partial Birth Abortion. First off, I again agree with both sides, or at least understand their motivation. I agree that it is a horrific procedure. And I agree with the other side that says "We can't make it so illegal that exceptions can't be made when the life of the mother is at risk." The other side shoots back "That almost never happens." But the problem isn't that (most) liberals want partial birth abortion legal, the problem is that the entire issue is politicized, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's done with a wink and a nod by both sides, to play to their base without actually doing anything.
Because the pro-lifers always insist on an absolute ban on the procedure. They do this so they can claim to be taking a hard line on the practice, and thus make points with their base. The pro-choicers then say "Well, I can't support that if you won't allow an exception for medical emergencies and the life of the woman!" thus playing to the heart of THEIR base's position and gaining a few points for themselves.
There is misinformation on both sides, also. My dear wife has insisted to me regularly that "partial birth abortion" meant an abortion in the last month of pregnancy, that it was only a "partial birth abortion" if the baby would have been viable outside of the mother. She further tells me that the practice is generally used to terminate a baby which would have extreme health problems, because it's technically legal to "abort" the baby, but wouldn't be legal to birth and then kill it. (Janet, please jump in here if I've misunderstood or misrepresented your position!)
However, some simple research on the Internet indicates to me that most "Dilation and Extraction" abortions (the proper name for the "partial birth abortion") happen between weeks 20 and 24, and in one study, the latest point in the pregnancy the procedure was performed was 33 weeks. Having just been through a pregnancy, I can tell you that 26 weeks is the magic number. Before that point, if anything happens to the fetus, the doctors will shrug their shoulders, give you a good hug, and say that there is nothing they can do. After that point, they will at least attempt to deliver the baby as a preemie and try to nurse it to health. So according to this study, the vast majority of the D&X procedure abortions happen BEFORE the baby is viable.
Why is this important? Because it gives lie to the argument that the health of the mother is never at risk in these cases. There are pregnancies which put the mother's health and life at risk. For example, the extreme high blood pressure (preeclampsia) which can lead some women to strokes and/or death. If a woman is facing a high risk of death in the 20-25 week time frame of her pregnancy, her fetus is not going to survive if she dies. Should not this woman have the (very painful) option of terminating the pregnancy rather than being forced to carry it until the very real possibility that both mother AND child die?
And yet by week 20, the fetus is clearly humanoid in appearance. It has "quickened" (the woman can feel it moving within her) and responds to stimuli. Traditional early-term abortion procedures do not work at this point, more extreme techniques are required.
Personally? I would like to see the number of such abortions kept as low as possible... but I'm just not willing to say that a woman gives up her right to save her OWN life if it comes down to that.
Let me finish with a discussion I had with my wife when we first decided to try to have a child. With a first child (or at least, with my first child, with my first wife), it is comparatively easy to say "If it comes down to me or the baby, tell them to save the baby." A lot of women will.
But once you have other children, it's not as easy. Sure, you'd like to say all things being equal, you'd sacrifice yourself for your child, but that also has a huge impact on your OTHER children, and that can change your perspective. I thank whatever powers that be that we didn't have to face that choice with Liam, but had it come down to a choice between Liam and Janet, Janet would have had to win, because she has two daughters who need her, and that tips the balance between one life and another.
Others might make a different choice. That's the one I advocated for, and if I'd had to help Janet through such a horrible decision, I would have wanted us (along with her doctor) to make that decision, NOT the Congress or some random set of people who were unwilling to make an exception for extreme circumstances.
Is this all a little bit extreme, talking about the one-case-in-ten-thousand where this might come up? Probably. But it's for the extreme situations that exceptions have to be made. If we really want to limit the number of abortions through legal means, we're going to have to compromise a bit with each other.
Or we can go the education route that Janet advocates.
Liam.
Monday, December 19, 2005 11:00:00 PM
You are usually quite astute on reading what people argue about on the abortion issue but I must take exception with you on the statements that follow.
Because the pro-lifers always insist on an absolute ban on the procedure.The pro-choicers then say "Well, I can't support that if you won't allow an exception for medical emergencies and the life of the woman.
Being in the pro-life movement I think it would be more accurate if it were said "The pro-lifers always insist on an absolute ban of the partial birth abortion ban except for a "life of the mother" exception, and the pro-choicers(I really hate to use that term when the only choice the hard core pro-abortionist want is abortion)say they cannot accept that if there is not an exception for the "health" of the mother. In a life or death situation, the mother's life always carries the day. Even the Catholic Church teaches that whatever medical procedure the mother needs to preserve her life is acceptable to do even if the procedures causes the abortion of the child. The abortionist want a health of the mother exception, as defined by the abortion perfoming doctor which could be physical, mental, emotional or even financial. I also must admit that you are talking about the Politicians playing to their base, and I am talking about the Christians in the pro-life movement which is the base they play to.
This next sentance is taken from "About News & Issues...Women's Issues"
1995 Federal Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortion: This bill, if passed, would have illegalized partial birth abortion and set a sentence of a fine and/or 2 years in prison for people who broke this law. The exceptions for performing;a partial birth abortion would have been in cases where the abortion was necessary to save the life of the woman who was having the procedure. This passed both houses and was signed by Pres. Bush but has been in the Courts ever since. The reason I brought it into this discussin was to show the truth of what I said about the "life of the mother exception"
This is taken from the Planned Parenthood's website.
According to a brief submitted to the Supreme Court in WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES(7) by more than 150 distinguished scientists and physicians, "There are no medical developments anticipated in the foreseeable future that would bring about adequate fetal lung function prior to 23 or 24 weeks of gestation."(8)
A fetus is viable when it reaches an "anatomical threshold" when critical organs, such as the lungs and kidneys, can sustain independent life. Until the air sacs are mature enough to permit gases to pass into and out of the bloodstream, which is extremely unlikely until at least 23 weeks gestation (from last menstrual period), a fetus cannot be sustained even with a respirator, which can force air into the lungs but cannot pass gas from the lungs into the bloodstream.(4)
So even though your doctor told you it was a 26 week threshold, this clearly states the 23rd week.But I am really getting off subject here because all of this contradicts what the Biologists state as fact, that life begins at conception and is the ONLY identifiable act during the pregnancy that is not subject to human interpretation.
Your next argument about the life of the mother being threatened by high blood pressure or some other life threatening occurance is a reality of life and in those rare cases I agree with you. The problem is that in the abortion clinics, the abortionist who makes his living doing abortions, is the doctor that decides whether the procedure is good for the health of the mother if that is the word used instead of the life of the mother. This matter on semantics is where the political battle lies. I really think we are both saying the same thing only using different words on this particular point. So you see, if you want a law that would protect the unborn human life, but leave the woman and her doctor to decide under ethical guidelines that to save her life an abortion would be needed, then you have the same desire as the National Right to Life Ass. and me.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:52:00 PM
I can't write much now. Baby is due in the morning, and I need to be sleeping.
(It will probably be two or three days before I get back to the blog).
Just so you know I'm not ignoring your response.
Liam.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:50:00 PM
It's probably too late for me to join this discussion; the blog is old and no one will be reading it. But I wanted to say a few things in response to this:
... all of this contradicts what the Biologists state as fact, that life begins at conception and is the ONLY identifiable act during the pregnancy that is not subject to human interpretation.
1. My personal semantic line is drawn thus: "life" begins at conception, but "person" doesn't. A 3-day blastoma is alive, but it isn't a person. Heck, a wart on an adult person's finger is alive; a cancerous tumor is alive; the blood spilled when I cut myself contains hundreds of thousands of living cells.
2. Conception is not the only unambiguous activity during pregnancy. Equally important in my mind is implantation. I have heard that a sizable fraction of conceptions never result in implantation, even in fertile women. That this in fact was the source of the infertility of many women who have had abortions. I have heard that IUD function as birth control devices by preventing implantation. Are they therefore abortion devices in your view?
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:00:00 PM
Well, I, at least, am still reading it (but I have a cheat, it e-mails me whenever someone adds a comment).
I agree with you, Ross. There is no unambiguous point. In fact, conception may not even be the unambiguous beginning of "life". After all, is not a sperm cell "alive"? Isn't an egg a living thing?
When people are having fertility problems, a common one in men is high sperm mortality (sperm are all or mostly dead on ejaculation). For them to be dead, it must assume that they were previously alive. And some women have eggs which are not "viable", which is a fancy way of saying not alive.
That's my problem with the "Sperm + Egg meet, now it's a person" thing.
The whole argument really boils down to an implicit belief in a soul and the various thoughts on when the body is imbued with that soul. As such, it is inherently faith based.
Is there anything wrong with that? No. And if you have faith in a wrong belief (note, I'm not saying anyone in particular is wrong!), you're still going to defend your belief, because you of course think you are right.
The end of which logical discussion leads me inexorably to my standard position:
I don't like abortions, I wish they weren't performed as often as they are. And I believe that except in extreme cases of the life or health of the mother, they should not be performed once there's any chance of conscious awareness by the baby (which would seem to me to be around the time of measurable brainwave activity).
But before that point, I just can't say that I'm so certain that I'm right and someone else's position is wrong that I'm willing to prevent someone whose belief is different from acting on their own body in the manner they see fit.
It's sad when it happens, but it is only our anthropomorphizing that makes it any more sad when a potential person in the form of a small glob of cells fails to reach actuality than when that same person fails to reach actuality because the sperm and egg are prevented from meeting.
(Although if you go down THAT road, then you have to feel bad for the millions of potential people who WEREN'T born each time a child IS born, because each different sperm that could have met with that egg would have produced a different genetic makeup, and thus, a different person).
Liam.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:50:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home