Obama’s Support of Live Birth Abortion
Written by Sam on March 4th, 2008I want to preface this with two things. One, I am not a supporter of Alan Keyes. I personally think he does more harm to the conservative cause than good. Second, the part in here about “Who would Jesus vote for?” is not relevant to this post (that’s a completely stupid question). What I want you to pay attention to are the parts where Keyes talks about what a disgusting man Barack Obama is in his support of live birth abortion and his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2002 and how he held up a similar legislation in the Illinois State Senate from passing that same year.
4
PM
I hate it when the pro-life crowd refers to “pro-abortion” people. No one is pro abortion. Some think that it is a necessary evil and that women should have the right to choose to do it, but no one is pro abortion.
4
PM
No one is pro-abortion? Then why is it that so many pro-abortion people oppose informed consent laws?
4
PM
“necessary evil”? That is a scarey statement!
We say “pro-abortion” because “pro-choice” is just a way to sterilize what the debate is about: innocent life. If there is nothing wrong with abortion, what is wrong with being called “pro-abortion”? Why shrink from such a label if it is something about which you could be proud?
4
PM
And please explain why the pro-abortion people say “It’s the hardest choice a woman has to make”. Why? If it’s just a safe medical procedure to remove a blob of tissue, then why is it such a difficult decision?
Could it possibly be that it is the murder of an unborn human being? Hmmm?
4
PM
David,
I think a more accurate description is “pro-abortion-on-demand” and pro-abortion is shorthand. Yes, I can acknowledge that you do not desire abortion, per se. But anyone who wishes to continue the current abortion regime of abortion for essentially any reason throughout all 9 months of pregnancy is ‘pro-abortion-on-demand’. Thoughts?
Also, Obama’s vote on live-birth abortion, aka infanticide, shows that he does not merely support the right to an abortion but the right to a dead baby. In these instances, the child had already been born. The woman’s right to ’self-autonomy’–which I do not believe justifies the killing of a child in the womb–is no longer a factor.
And yet how does Obama justify the killing then?
4
PM
I wish the author had explained his reasons for not supporting Alan Keyes, and what he means by “more harm than good.” I would love to see that backed up with some facts.
For those of us who want an end to abortion once and for all, Alan Keyes is the man we need for president. Dr. Keyes is the only candidate who is totally pro-life. He was there, helping to atttempt to save Terri Schiavo, he has been active in pro-life causes for DECADES. Name one other presidential candidate who has.
He was also there with James Dobson when the Ten Commandments were taken away from Judge Moore’s courthouse.
Alan recognizes that our national Constitution provides for the right to LIFE, and therefore should not be decided by the states, for them to continue to allow it.
Alan Keyes is also AGAINST:
- open borders, illegal immigration and amnesty
- unbridled politicians’ spending and high taxes
- gay marriage
- so-called “man made global warming”
- judges making their own laws
Alan Keyes is FOR:
- closing the borders immediately
- abolishing the IRS with a Fair Tax instead (Huckabee lifted this from Alan Keyes)
- religious freedom
- returning government to the PEOPLE
- the U.S. Constitution
- school choice, homeschool, voucher system
The media isn’t going to tell you about Alan Keyes. For example, look to the right of this column and notice that Alan Keyes has been deliberately left off, so you won’t learn about him. There’s a reason for that. The godless don’t want a Godly man for President.
Read more at http://www.alankeyes.com Go to the upper righthand corner and read what pledge signers are saying. Then take the time to read and watch what Alan has to say. There’s plenty of material there for you to make an informed vote. Power to the people.
4
PM
Gceres: Why do we oppose informed consent laws? Because when are you going to support informed consent laws explaining the health risks and impacts involved in *continuing* a pregnancy?
It’s safer to have an abortion than to continue a pregnancy.
And as to informed consent around discussions of the “beginning of life,” I think that would encroach on a patient’s right to her own moral systems. The idea that life begins at conception is almost inextricably tied up with religion.
4
PM
“And please explain why the pro-abortion people say “It’s the hardest choice a woman has to make”. Why? If it’s just a safe medical procedure to remove a blob of tissue, then why is it such a difficult decision?”
I don’t say that, personally. For some people it’s an easy decision, for others, more difficult. But it’s not hard to see why it could be a soul searching moment, regardless of how you feel about when life begins. The decision of whether to carry a pregnancy or not brings up ideas not just about potential life, but about one’s life plans, health, bodily autonomy, etc.
4
PM
“The idea that life begins at conception is almost inextricably tied up with religion.”
It has absolutely nothing to do with religion…it has everything to do with scientific fact.
4
PM
Oh on Alan Keyes…he’s a complete and total jackass….I unfortunately voted for him in the NJ Primary in 1996. He is a bigot and a homophobe.
4
PM
“In these instances, the child had already been born. The woman’s right to ’self-autonomy’–which I do not believe justifies the killing of a child in the womb–is no longer a factor.”
Jack, I’m also confused by this. I believe in the right to choose because I believe in bodily autonomy — but once a fetus is viable, and in these cases, completely independent of the particular woman’s body, I don’t see the logic. My only guess is that somehow this is to discourage doctors from not performing the procedure properly? Which doesn’t seem convincing to me. I’m also confused, because late term abortions are rare, and usually associated with major maternal/fetal health problems, so I’m curious as to what sort of situations this is happening in…
4
PM
“It has absolutely nothing to do with religion…it has everything to do with scientific fact.”
Actually, it has a *lot* to do with religion. Not every religion believes that a fertilized egg = person. Science says a pregnancy hasn’t even started at the fertilized egg, but only at implantation (the chance of implantation not being very high). See: the debate (stretching into antiquity) as to when life begins. Even Aquinas wasn’t as extreme as modern right wingers — he theorized that life began at quickening.
Anyway, I don’t think the answer to those questions should be the central point in the abortion debate. It really comes down to bodily autonomy — do we believe that we have a right to self determination regarding our own bodies, or not? If you don’t believe that abortion should be legal, then you should also really look into changing the laws around organ/tissue donation. If a child needs a kidney transplant and his father’s the only match, do you believe that said father should be compelled by the law to donate his kidney?
4
PM
Becky…you can theorize all you want…but there is a scientific fact that at fertilization, the chromosomes are in fact different and genetically human. A frog is not created…an ant is not created…a distinctly genetic human being is created. You can paint over the science all you want just as you can claim the sky is maroon if you wish…but fact is fact.
4
PM
Yeah… see, I don’t fetishize DNA as some mystical touchstone for determining personhood.
And, see above, for why I don’t think this is even the most pressing concern for the (legal) status of abortion rights.
4
PM
I said nothing of personhood….I said life…it is a scientific certainty that life begins at fertilization. The debate on abortion is whether the taking of that life is justified and if so under what circumstances.
That you reduce human life to “DNA” is your right…it is also my right to try and defend human life.
And it is also my right to point out that life begins at fertilization and is not “potential life” but just life. You may think that circumstances or “a woman’s right to choose” justify the destruction of that life…but be intellectually honest and realize that this is where the debate really is…not “when does life begin?” That is an indisputable fact.
4
PM
“It’s safer to have an abortion than to continue a pregnancy.”
Safer for whom, Becky?
You are right, that conservatives have become more pro-life over the years, but science has proven us right. By the time a woman usually finds that she is pregnant, the “fetus” has a heartbeat. Much more than just “potential” life, in my opinion. I guess you’ve never seen an ultrasound?
As for the others’ comments about Alan Keyes, he is obnoxious and turns too many people off, even though I agree with him on most issues. He makes me nervous listening to him because he always sounds angry. I wouldn’t say he is a “homophobe”, though. Why adopt the lefties’ rhetoric?
4
PM
I never throw around terms like bigot or homophobe lightly and usually loathe it when people use them….but in the case of Alan Keyes, they are apt descriptions as he fits the textbook definition of both.
4
PM
“That you reduce human life to “DNA” is your right…it is also my right to try and defend human life.”
Whoa there, stop projecting. I said the exact *opposite,* in response to your equating life with the combination of DNA at fertilization. Even if I use your framework and figure that a fetus is a human life — I still don’t see how it has a right to use a woman’s body unless she allows it to.
4
PM
Safer for whom? The woman, of course — the one I’m trusting to make a decision for her own body, health, and family.
And a heartbeat has what to do with…? I’m sorry, I *also* don’t fetishize embryos. I don’t see how an embryo at 3 months deserves to be granted rights equal to those of a child or adult any more than, say, a dog (which undeniably has more self-consciousness, ability to feel pain, and cognitive activity than a three month fetus).
Again, even if you grant a fetus a quasi or potential personhood, I don’t see how the law can compel a woman to provide life support. Unless, of course, you’re also up for the government forcing organ/tissue/blood donations.
4
PM
Becky….this is such a specious argument….there are laws on the books that compel women (and men) in every state to provide “life support” for their born children. Try saying that you starved a child to death because you cannot be compelled to use your body to get food for a two year old. Doesn’t fly.
You are also completely glossing over the fact that pregnancy is not compulsive. A person HAS to engage in sexual activity to become pregnant (or of course an artificial means) so the government is not forcing life support on anyone…the person is electing to take the risk of providing that support to someone else (the unborn child) by engaging in sexual activity.
And don’t bother with the rape or incest argument as I’ll concede it to you if you’d like but know that these reasons account for less than 1 percent of all abortions.
4
PM
“I still don’t see how it has a right to use a woman’s body unless she allows it to.”
Becky…she has allowed it through activity. The government is not mandating activity that results in pregnancy!
4
PM
“Becky….this is such a specious argument….there are laws on the books that compel women (and men) in every state to provide “life support” for their born children. Try saying that you starved a child to death because you cannot be compelled to use your body to get food for a two year old. Doesn’t fly.”
I frankly don’t see how this responds to my previous post. I’m talking about *life support,* not raising a child. Of course one can’t starve a child — if one isn’t ready to raise a child, one puts the child up for adoption: the state doesn’t *force* parenthood. In a not quite parallel, an abortion is the moment of realizing one isn’t ready/able to use one’s body to create a child. The difference is that a fetus is reliant on a *particular* woman’s body, while a child can be raised by anyone willing and able to do so. My analogy of organ donation is the closest I can come up with.
And in response to the blatantly anti-sex position: All I can say, is we have different ideologies. I don’t see sex as being exclusively about procreation, and I don’t think that a contraceptive mistake should condemn one to an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months. In fact, I think that people who are pregnant against their wills are *exactly* the folks who *shouldn’t* be having children. And in anticipation of the omnipresent adoption question: still doesn’t get past the fact that one might very well *not* want/be able to carry a pregnancy for nine months, and then go through the pain/trauma of labor, and then go through the (very possible) emotional distress of giving up a child.
Since we have the ability to terminate a pregnancy as soon as we can detect it, denying that ability kind of *is* compulsion. The same as denying any other surgery or procedure.
5
AM
“In a not quite parallel, an abortion is the moment of realizing one isn’t ready/able to use one’s body to create a child.”
No Becky…this is where the contention is…a child was ALREADY created…the question is what do you allow a mother to DO with the child.
And I do not at all see where you construed an “anti-sex” position?!!! I merely stated fact…when you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy unless you are talking about gay sex…do you not? Where is that a wrong statement? There’s no judgment involved in that assessment…just a statement of fact.
5
AM
“It has absolutely nothing to do with religion…it has everything to do with scientific fact.”
As a scientist, this is not true. At fertilization, the zygote has a complete set of chromosomes. At a particular point, the fetus has a heartbeat. Science does not define when “life” begins. Religions do, and they do it differently. My religion of Judaism, for example, does not consider the fetus alive until it graduates from medical school.
5
AM
In response to “a child is already created”: Again, I don’t equate a zygote with a child (I find it rather insulting to children, and to the women who bear them: it takes some work to get from the fertilized egg to the infant).
And anti-sex: Because of the attitude that sex should be “punishable” by an unwanted pregnancy. If you think abortions should be allowed only in cases of rape/incest, you’re also buying into this mentality. Contraceptive accidents happen. I frankly don’t see the huge difference between denying “potential life” by using contraception, and denying “potential life” by having an early abortion. In both cases, a child *might* have resulted. The only difference is that in one case, we can only make a best guess about what the DNA make up would have been, and in the second case, we have the blueprint.
5
AM
And Becky if you drink too much alcohol you run the risk of getting a hangover….I don’t advocate banning alcohol drinking anymore than I do sex but that doesn’t mean that there are not potential consequences that a person knows full well before engaging in either sex or alcohol consumption.
Dave:
“My religion of Judaism, for example, does not consider the fetus alive until it graduates from medical school.”
That did give me a chuckle…very clever!
5
AM
“I frankly don’t see the huge difference between denying “potential life” by using contraception, and denying “potential life” by having an early abortion.”
That’s the problem…there is a HUGE difference…scientifically, the zygote/fertilized egg, has a completely different set of chromosomes and genetic code from the mother. Contraception does nothing except block your own DNA from interacting with someone else’s DNA…abortion destroys an entirely unique genetic being.
5
AM
Yeah… so that’s exactly what I mean by fetishizing DNA. Are you also one of those folks who believe that, if fertility clinics dispose of unused fertilized eggs, they’re committing murder? What happens at conception — or in the fertility clinic, in the test tube? Do angels start singing when a new set of DNA gets matched up? I don’t see why a set of DNA in a test tube should have rights equal to, or superseding, my own. It’s the nature of reproduction to be excessive — there are countless combinations of DNA that could happen, countless sperm and eggs that go unused. Instead of bemoaning the many potential lives we don’t even have room/resources for, it seems more productive to worry about the people that *are* here.
Also, I’m not seeing the alcohol analogy. So if I have only one drink after a full meal, drink tons of water, ie, take every precaution to avoid a hangover, and fate still hands me a hangover, I deserve it, and shouldn’t take an aspirin?
5
AM
So I know how extreme you are…where do you draw the line? Where should the state step in and protect the baby?
5
AM
Let me ask you one question that know one ever asks….
What if you are wrong? What if what is done in an abortion is the exact same thing as murder? What if we are talking about people?
What is the consequence of your being wrong? Would it not be millions of dead people?
Now, what is the consequence of my being wrong?
Would that not be millions of living, breathing human beings given at least the possibility of long fulfilling lives?
5
AM
I already specified my idea of a cut-off above, when I disagreed with the bill in question. Once a fetus is viable (ie, can survive without the mother’s body) and can be extricated without causing undue harm to the mother, then it seems to me that’s reason enough to accord legal/moral personhood.
Those are thought provoking questions –
In the first case: If I’m wrong, then it’s as if women experienced more miscarriages than usual. Or as if more eggs didn’t implant. Since we don’t see these as equally traumatic to losing a grown child, I’m wondering if what you mean is more theological in nature (as in, the “souls” of embryos? Then they go straight to heaven, right?). I don’t think we’ll ever be able to put abortion on par with murder. Even anti-choicers don’t want to send women to jail for having had an abortion — they recognize there’s something different about it. There’s no malicious will involved: a woman doesn’t want to “kill” the fetus so much as deny it access to her womb.
And as a side note: the idea that you can just keep adding people, ad infinitum, to this planet, and they’ll all lead “happy fulfilling lives,” is absurd. We’ve already overpopulated this planet, to the extent that the environment is degraded, and we probably couldn’t feed everyone without the aid of fossil fuels. Not that I think abortion is the answer — rather, helping people to plan their families so that every child is wanted (education/access to contraception). Which, by the by, is how one prevents abortions: education and contraception. End side note.
On the other hand, if you’re wrong:
First off: MANY suffering women. Mostly lower class women, as those with money would obtain safe abortions somewhere else. Many dead or maimed women, trying to induce abortions. More unwanted children, possibly further overpopulation, women losing jobs/financial security/happiness by carrying unwanted pregnancies.
I’m erring on the side of perceivable suffering: draconian abortion laws don’t stop abortions.
5
AM
When a child is “viable”? That is a cut-off that is moving every day, Becky. The child’s ability to survive does not make it a child. You want to consider it a blob of tissue, but the child’s ability to survive does not make it a separate life. It already is one.
I’m sure you would agree that child abuse is wrong. The fact that the person could give the child up for adoption is irrelevant. If they have custody of a child and abuse it, it is against the law. If a woman is pregnant, she should not be allowed to commit the ultimate abuse: murder. It is not forcing a choice on the woman. The choice to create a child means the choice has already been made. The vast majority of abortions are used for birth control reasons.
Finally, how do you explain the disconnect with laws that consider it double murder if a pregnant woman is killed?
I also want to reiterate: you obviously have never seen an ultrasound.
5
AM
As for your personal autonomy argument. Why are you so gung-ho for absolving people of their responsibilities?
47% of all abortions in the US are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion. Thats nearly half! Also more than 16,000 abortions are performed each year after 20 weeks. 20 weeks is considered the new starting point of viability. the court in Roe V. Wade determined viability at between 24 and 28 weeks.
Becky you need to see the Silent Scream. Bernard Nathanson (Abortion pioneer, who later saw the error of his ways) filmed an abortion at 12 weeks old. Go to http://www.silentscream.org to view it. I still have never watched it. I can not bring myself to do it.
5
PM
OH MY! Let me just address the overpopulation problem. I really really hate it when pro-aborts bring up overpopulation as a gigantic problem. Let me be clear here, we DO NOT have an overpopulation problem, especially in the West. If anything we have a depopulation problem in the West, where we don’t have enough workers to maintain the social welfare programs that liberals SO LOVE to support (these are the same liberals who support abortion rights). Again, NO OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM. Our economy depends on American women actually having babies.
5
PM
We need to be honest here….not all, but a sizable proportion of the the pro-abortion people simply hate children, marriage, etc. They are radicals.
Now most pro-abortion people do not fall into this. But when you have someone arguing bodily autonomy as a justification for extermination, I have to conclude that the person is a radical extremist.
5
PM
“I’m erring on the side of perceivable suffering: draconian abortion laws don’t stop abortions.”
Funny how facts get in the way….the abortion rate has more than quadrupled since legalized abortion….and states that have enacted stringent restrictions have seen their abortion rates plummet.
What a curious, funny little things facts can be.
5
PM
Sounds like the Eugenics movement reborn.
5
PM
“We need to be honest here….not all, but a sizable proportion of the the pro-abortion people simply hate children, marriage, etc. They are radicals.”
We need to be honest here- not all, but a sizable proportion of the pro-life people simply hate people who aren’t Christian and don’t follow their exact system of values. They are also radicals.
5
PM
“Funny how facts get in the way….the abortion rate has more than quadrupled since legalized abortion….and states that have enacted stringent restrictions have seen their abortion rates plummet.”
Yeah… funny thing about facts. Do you have any to back that up? The idea that a law stops abortions is radically unsound, and unrealistic. Every time I try to post a link, my post doesn’t show up, so I’m just going to direct you to the Guttmacher Institute, which *does* collect facts. High abortion rates? In countries where abortion is illegal. Lowest? Places like the Netherlands, where education and contraception are the first round of defense against unwanted pregnancies. So yeah: pass a law, and I guarantee you we’ll see a return to the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when hospitals had wards dedicated to botched abortions. Only now we’d see more “chemically induced” botches.
And yes, I have seen ultrasounds. Seriously, who hasn’t at this point? If not in person, at least in films like Juno, Knocked Up… But emotional appeals aside: I don’t think that abortion in the first trimester is causing any more pain than the millions of animals that we kill every day because people like how they taste. If a woman doesn’t want to use her body to grow another human being, then I see no reason to cause her pain for the potential life of a fetus. And while viability isn’t absolutely fixed, we are a *very* long way off from “artificial wombs,” so I don’t see this as being a huge problem.
And bodily autonomy? Not new or radical as a concept. It’s kind of the same concept that prevents the government from seizing your blood and organs when a young, innocent child needs a life saving operation. As soon as you start supporting that we do such things, then maybe I’ll listen to this state control of womb business. Until then, I will continue to see the “pro life” movement as a thinly veiled attempt to control women’s reproductive abilities.
(Also: our population in this country *does* continue to grow, we’re not at merely replacement rate. And every child born in a first world country leaves a much larger footprint on the environment in terms of consuming resources. Every child *should* be wanted. )
5
PM
“Sounds like the Eugenics movement reborn.”
How so? This isn’t a state attempt to control what sort of children are born, it’s individual women making choices about how to plan their lives and families. If anything, the “pro-life” movement sounds like Fascism reborn. Especially in its current form of linking women’s fertility with the nation (you know, the rhetoric that says women are “selfish” for not wanting to see her life’s mission as having babies). See: Russia. See: Italy, for how this also links up to racism and xenophobia. Government control of women’s reproduction, whether via forced sterilization or abortions, or through limiting women’s ability to access contraception and abortion, is wrong.
5
PM
In response to Gceres’s claim about abortion going up with legalization:
From the Guttmacher Institute’s fact sheet:
“Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions. [1]“
5
PM
Becky,
I’m sorry but you are seriously misinformed.
Let’s take these one by one:
For starters, the US in general has the most liberal, most broad abortion policy in the world. Even in the Netherlands, there are serious restrictions and viability requirements. In US states such as New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, a woman can have an abortion up to a minute before labor starts if she wants…and these states curiously have the highest abortion rates in the nation. States that strictly regulate abortion like Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Lousiana have the lowest rates:
World Almanac 2006:
Abortion rates per 1,000 women in 2002:
NJ - 36.3
NY - 39.1
CT - 21.1
MS - 6.0
PA - 14.3
LA - 13.0
2. Your claim “I guarantee you we’ll see a return to the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when hospitals had wards dedicated to botched abortions”
You do realize that the claim that thousands of women died in botched abortions before Roe v Wade is a complete and total proven and admitted lie right? To find a single year when more than a hundred women died from botched abortions, you have to go back to pre-pennicillin (sp.) days. As a matter of fact according to the CDC in 1972, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 39 women died from criminal abortions with a fatality rate of 4.1 per 100,000. After Roe v Wade in 1973, the rate was flat at 4.1 per 100,000.
3. Bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy as a justification for ending a life is indeed a radical notion and an extreme position.
4. I will continue to see the “pro life” movement as a thinly veiled attempt to control women’s reproductive abilities.
You apparently are not aware that the pro-life movement is comprised primarily not of men but of women. You also must not be aware that NAARL and NOW, the two largest abortion advocate organizations and “pro-women” groups have a combined membership of less than one million yet the pro-life Concerned Women of America has more than 6 million FEMALE members.
6. If a woman doesn’t want to use her body to grow another human being, then I see no reason to cause her pain for the potential life of a fetus.
Apparently you never read the Lancet 1993 study that proved that a fetus feels pain as early as 2 months. You must also be unaware that subsequent Lancet articles documented studies that had recorded screaming of fetuses being ripped apart by “doctors”.
5
PM
You also must not know that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is completely funded by Planned Parenthood and is actually just it’s research arm. You also must choose to completely ignore all the empirical data that I provided you with.
I’ve already explained to you that NO Western Europe and Northern Europe do not have the least restrictive abortion policies…the United States does. As a matter of fact the most restrictive abortion policies in Central Europe are in Germany and Austria…two countries that have apparently learned the lessons of their collective histories.
5
PM
“This isn’t a state attempt to control what sort of children are born, it’s individual women making choices about how to plan their lives and families..”
Seriously Becky, please do some research…I mean really. Do you know that Susan B Anthony and the early feminists were all extremely pro-life…all opposed liberalizing abortion laws and all correctly saw abortion as a punishment to women that would feel compelled to abort by men who did not want responsibilities. Susan B Anthony even wrote famously that abortion is murder.
Margaret Sanger who founded the Birth Control Society which became Planned Parenthood advocated abortion to cleanse the population and was a pioneer of eugenics. She wanted to solve the poverty issue in the country by encouraging poor women to abort. She also advocated abortions for blacks because she viewed them as inferior and wanted to limit their population.
Do some research before you make claims that turn facts on their face.
5
PM
“We need to be honest here- not all, but a sizable proportion of the pro-life people simply hate people who aren’t Christian and don’t follow their exact system of values. They are also radicals.”
I wouldn’t say that it is sizable at all…I would say it exists. And I would say that the wack jobs that bomb clinics and shoot doctors not only harm the cause of pro-lifers but are empirically NOT pro-life…just anti-abortion. There is a difference.
5
PM
And so you think the Guttmacher just makes numbers up? Come on.
There aren’t good statistics (that I’ve seen) for pre-Roe v. Wade deaths from botched abortions. But considering the rate of maternal deaths due to illegal abortions in *other* countries, I have no doubt that we’d see more of the same here.
Also: I don’t see where you’re getting this “up to the minute” late term abortion strawman. Are you trying to imply that women in “regulated” states never have them? Are you ignoring the fact that many women travel, particularly if state laws are more restrictive, or if they don’t have a provider in their area? And anyways, fewer than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks in the U.S. This isn’t something that happens frequently, or without good reason (ie, maternal or fetal health problems). And different states do have bans on procedures/timing, making the U.S. less liberal in policies than the UK (from what I can tell).
Since when does having some female spokespersons mean that an organization is good for women? Pro-life orgs. used to get a lot of flak for being headed by men: they responded by pushing women up the ranks. I don’t expect every woman to agree with me — that’s why I’m pro-choice.
And again: why, exactly, should I care more about a two month embryo’s pain than my own? (I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — there are decent arguments to be made for abortion in terms of “self defense.”) I frankly am more concerned by the pain we cause living, self-conscious animals every day in feed lots and slaughterhouses. If ability to feel pain is all it takes to make something wrong…
5
PM
“She wanted to solve the poverty issue in the country by encouraging poor women to abort. She also advocated abortions for blacks because she viewed them as inferior and wanted to limit their population.
Do some research before you make claims that turn facts on their face.”
Firstly: I don’t see how you’re making better researched claims than I am.
Secondly: I’m not sure what Sanger has to do with the modern pro-choice movement? I mean, do you see anyone advocating to terminate all lower class and black fetuses? On the other hand, do you not see the xenophobic rhetoric on the right calling for more Christian western babies?
Thirdly: This is starting to sound repetitive and nonconstructive (especially the “seriously, do your research,” when you don’t trust studies done by reputable organizations). And I have my own *real* research to do, that unfortunately(?) doesn’t involve the ins and outs of state abortion laws. So, having outlined the theoretical framework for why I (still) believe a person has a right to her body that trumps the right a potential, dependent life might have to her body, I’m going to let the previous stances speak for themselves, as I don’t really have anything to add.
5
PM
And different states do have bans on procedures/timing, making the U.S. less liberal in policies than the UK (from what I can tell).
Well you are just flat out wrong. The UK is actually now debating moving back the time frame that abortions can be performed in. Abortions are legal in many states at any time no matter what the reason or viability of the baby.
5
PM
“I don’t see how you’re making better researched claims than I am.”
Perhaps because my senior thesis was on the passage of Pro-Life Legislation and the factors that contribute to it’s passage.
“Secondly: I’m not sure what Sanger has to do with the modern pro-choice movement? I mean, do you see anyone advocating to terminate all lower class and black fetuses? On the other hand, do you not see the xenophobic rhetoric on the right calling for more Christian western babies?”
Yes…flat out yes. It’s veiled in the claims that abortion is necessary because “women cannot afford to keep the baby”. It’s also true that eventhough only 12% of the population is black, more than 25% of abortions are performed on black women. It is also true that every major abortion rights group wants government funded abortions for poor women.
Also, had you cited any statistics that would be fine…you haven’t. You merely stated that the Alan Guttmacher Institute claims that the abortion laws in Western Europe and Northern Europe are less restrictive…and yet provided no actual laws to prove it. Interestingly, NARAL takes the opposite view! And the facts of the laws of the several countries directly contradict that assessment!
5
PM
“Since when does having some female spokespersons mean that an organization is good for women? Pro-life orgs. used to get a lot of flak for being headed by men: they responded by pushing women up the ranks. I don’t expect every woman to agree with me — that’s why I’m pro-choice.”
That’s fine…but then you cannot make ridiculous claims that pro-lifers want to control the reproductive rights of women when most pro-lifers are women!
5
PM
“why, exactly, should I care more about a two month embryo’s pain than my own?”
Frankly (don’t take this personally) I couldn’t give a damn whether you or anyone for that matter cares about the pain of the two month old baby. I do care that my government does it’s duty to protect the individual right to life of that baby and protects it from people that do not care about it’s pain.
5
PM
“I frankly am more concerned by the pain we cause living, self-conscious animals every day in feed lots and slaughterhouses.”
No you aren’t an extremist *sarcasm noted* LOL
No, you only care more about the life of a chicken than a human being…not extremist at all…
5
PM
The tone of this has gotten beyond the sort of conversation that I’d want to take part in. I’m unsure at this point of what evidence/laws you’d want me to point out (I don’t recall seeing you cite many specific examples, either). I trust the Guttmacher, personally, to have done its homework.
And I’ll also just point out, that for all the vehemence against my saying that some states do have more restrictive laws around abortion/procedures, you still admit:
“Abortions are legal in *many states* at any time no matter what the reason or viability of the baby” (emphasis mine).
What’s extreme about considering the pain of other sentient creatures? Do you also think the Humane Society are a bunch of extremists for being against things like battery cages and dog fighting? My comments were meant to point out that the anti-choicers tend to focus in on the idea of pain for an unconscious two month fetus, but don’t seem particularly concerned with the pain felt by more self-conscious creatures (ie, a grown cow or pig). Or the pain of a woman going through an unwanted pregnancy, which, from what I can tell, is an often painful process leading up to a grand finale of pain.
I feel like I should close my participation in this thread with some sort of disclaimer, as these accusations of being an extremist/someone possibly in favor of infanticide, are getting to me. I first commented on this thread because I *did* disagree with the bill in question (amazing, right!). And I’m totally in support of parenthood and families, I just come at this from a different point of view — of emphasizing family *planning* (ie, wanted pregnancies). Growing a child in one’s body seems to me such a profound process, that I can’t imagine anyone should be compelled to do it unwillingly. Clearly, as men and women have been trying to control their fertility since the dawn of history, this isn’t a new concept. And to respond to your observations above: I don’t think that the problem that poor and black women are more likely to get abortions is going to be solved by outlawing abortions. I think what’s more likely to help, are liberal policies giving women support (preventing unwanted pregnancies, help with child care and health care in the case of pregnancies/infants they can’t support financially).
In a final gesture of trying to “reach across the aisle,” so to speak, I’m fine with everyone having his/her own opinion on the moral standing of abortion. I’d just like to see more efforts from the right to prevent abortions by helping men and women avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I feel like that’s really the common ground in this debate.
6
AM
If anything I would hope that both sides can agree that adoption must be made much easier including increased tax breaks for couples that adopt. I’d like to see a lot of the barriers and time constraints on adoption lifted.
On that I think there is a least a modicum of agreement.
Becky, we will never see eye to eye on this. I do think your position is extremist but it is your position and you are entitled to it…and the right to hold an opinion, no matter how extreme, is something I believe in.
It is an incredibly personal issue…this I realize. There have been 6 girls that I have known in my life that have had abortions…5 of them are complete and total wrecks and are all on anti-depressants as a result. The sixth is admittedly fine and is actually happily married and just had her first child. But something I hope to close this thread with and hope you will consider is that abortion is in my opinion not only the taking of a human life but the permission of it by a government is actually the ultimate abuse of women and not a “right” or liberating in any way. Having it be legal encourages men who want no responsibility to force women into abortions that will leave life-long scars.
6
AM
Gceres: Thanks for the thoughtful post. I still don’t see why preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place isn’t a priority in your view on the subject (whether through contraception, abstinence, anything). I think the first tragedy is that a woman would face an unwanted pregnancy at all– adoption might work for some, but others find it heartbreaking in the same way that some women find abortion heartbreaking. I recently saw some interesting responses from birth mothers who gave up their babies for adoption, to the film Juno — and although some were able to ‘walk away,’ many had psychological/depression problems afterwards.
3
PM
Please send this to me asap.