Supreme Court upholds Ban on Abortion Procedure

[Titan76]

http://www.hoinews.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=32944

President Bush says he's pleased by the Supreme Court ruling upholding a ban on a controversial abortion procedure. The five-to-four decision says the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act(cilck on the link to learn more about this act) that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. The procedure is intended for abortions after 21 weeks of gestation.

It's the first time the court has banned a specific procedure in a case over how, not whether, to perform an abortion. The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
I don't think this outcome will bring more restrictions on abortions right now since Congress is controlled by the Democrats, and Bush only has two more years left.

[Dreadstar]

I've never fully committed to this one one way or the other, yet. 21 weeks is right on the edge of my fulcrum point, viability. 24 and beyond (third trimester) would be more to my liking, but I get this feeling that 3 weeks difference sounds like quibbling.

[Winslow]

I'm staunchly pro-life.

But Tages has convinced me in the last abortion thread that this is a States issue. So my feelings on this are mixed.

Yay pro-life. Boo more expansion federal goverment power.

[Hoss]

I barely tolerate legal abortion out of a sense that this just isn't an issue where the government can interfere...

The one huge flaw here is that this law bans a particular form of abortion instead of banning 3d trimester abortions all together. Basically, this just bans the safest way of doing a third trimester abortion.

[Hoss]

I'm staunchly pro-life.

But Tages has convinced me in the last abortion thread that this is a States issue. So my feelings on this are mixed.

Yay pro-life. Boo more expansion federal goverment power.

I do agree that Roe was a poor decision and was more about the court imposing its will than good case law.

Abortion as a state's rights issue will be very tricky. Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Penn and Jersey will see a rash of abortion clinics cropping up at their borders with Red states. California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada as well. Then you'll also see bunches of abortion clinics popping up on the Mexican border along Texas, New Mexico and Arizona and some along the Candian border by North Dakota and Montana. You'll also see a thriving black market economy for abortion drugs.

The mess will then start as red states seek to try and pass laws to prevent folks from crossing their state lines to get abortions. Since this will be completely unconstitutional we'll be seeing a whole new set of court battles.

The one thing I'd be glad to see would be getting rid of Roe and putting this decision in the hands of the US Congress.

[anthony!]

Hey, a moment of sanity from our courts... what a pleasant surprise.

[Darth Joker]

Wow... significant pro-life sentiment on the Community board. I never thought I'd see the day! :)

Of course, it could go pro-choice pretty fast, but I'll enjoy this moment while it lasts...

[Hoss]

Wow... significant pro-life sentiment on the Community board. I never thought I'd see the day! :)

Of course, it could go pro-choice pretty fast, but I'll enjoy this moment while it lasts...

It is still early - the liberal hippies are still sleeping off their pot filled late nights ;)

[rick]

Congratulations to all the “Pro-Lifers” on the symbolic win.

I’m sure that it must be very comforting and very satisfying to know that now when a fetus is found to have its brain growing on the outside of the skull it will now get to be born.

Of course since the brain is on the outside though the baby will die with-in minutes of birth while still in the delivery room.

The good news though is that since the brain is outside of the skull, it won't feel too much anyway and now the parents will get the joy and happy moment of getting to bond with their babies corpse.

Now there’s a victory for you. ;)

[Dreadstar]

Truth is, CBR has never really wanted for lack of pro-lifers. It's just that the other side tends to be a bit more ... ovewhelming.

[Darth Joker]

Truth is, CBR has never really wanted for lack of pro-lifers. It's just that the other side tends to be a bit more ... ovewhelming.

As Rick just demonstrated, eh? ;)

[rick]

As Rick just demonstrated, eh? ;)

Hey, actually I'm normally pretty indifferent about the whole subject.

But the truth is the truth and since what I described is exactly what the procedure was used for in the first place, my description of the great moral victory you folks are celebrating is in fact 100% accurate.

So yay, now the baby gets to be born before it dies.

Enjoy your win.

Or did you somehow think that by banning this procedure they were saving anyone?

[Hoss]

Well, as the debate begins let's get a few of preliminaries out of the way...

Pro-Lifers only care about life before it is born. Then they send your children to die in Iraq and love the death penalty.

Pro-Choicers only care about life if the baby is already born and poor. Then they expect the government to take responsibility for someone else's irresponsibility.

Pro-Lifers use the bible to make a non-scientific determination about fetuses being human. This means they are trying to force their religion down our throats.

Pro-Choicers have no clue when life begins and make subjective statements about viability, brain waves, heart development etc. None of these refute that a fetus is a life.

The fourth amendment gives us the right to privacy.

Ther fourth amednment doesn't even use the word privacy.

The Supreme Court legislated from the bench.

The Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional laws.

[anthony!]

Aaaah. I feel like thats already eliminated several pages of "discussion".

[Hoss]

Hey, actually I'm normally pretty indifferent about the whole subject.

But the truth is the truth and since what I described is exactly what the procedure was used for in the first place, my description of the great moral victory you folks are celebrating is in fact 100% accurate.

So yay, now the baby gets to be born before it dies.

Enjoy your win.

Or did you somehow think that by banning this procedure they were saving anyone?

This law strikes me as some sort of testing ground for the courts. The right to life lobby floats a fairly weak law about abortion that can pass congress. Then a few years later when it reaches the supreme court we get a good gauge of the court's mood on the issue.

Heck, Dems should run on "You already have the court you want so now you have absolutely no need for the Republicans anymore. Now, do you like Medicare, Social Security and Public schools or not?"

[Hoss]

Aaaah. I feel like thats already eliminated several pages of "discussion".


:p We really should come up with a list of debated to death topics and do this for all of them... Maybe put them with the rules.

Possible topics

Iraq
Gun Control
Pot use

[rick]

Well, as the debate begins let's get a few of preliminaries out of the way...

Pro-Lifers only care about life before it is born. Then they send your children to die in Iraq and love the death penalty.

Pro-Choicers only care about life if the baby is already born and poor. Then they expect the government to take responsibility for someone else's irresponsibility.

Pro-Lifers use the bible to make a non-scientific determination about fetuses being human. This means they are trying to force their religion down our throats.

Pro-Choicers have no clue when life begins and make subjective statements about viability, brain waves, heart development etc. None of these refute that a fetus is a life.

The fourth amendment gives us the right to privacy.

Ther fourth amednment doesn't even use the word privacy.

The Supreme Court legislated from the bench.

The Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional laws.


Well Hoss, thanks for laying out all of the clichés right off the bat.

But I'm not here to debate you or try to make any claims about the morality of the change in the law.

I'm not even going to tell you what my own position on 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion is.

I'm just pointing out what this decision is going to mean for the people who are going to be affected by the change in the law.

Sorry if the reality of what this decision means isn't the "Happy Time Fun Hour".

[HomerJay]

I've often thought of becoming a golf club.

[Wesley Dodds]

Well, if they're taking it out of the womb to abort it, I guess they may as well put it on life support.

This law only makes sense in context: we all know the Republicans aren't going to ban abortion but have to appeal to pro-lifers to win elections. Basically, they have to strike a balance.

In those terms, partial dilation and extraction was a good choice for the Republican leadership:

- It's a rare procedure and there are alternatives, so the impact of the law is minimal. Well, some women may die, yes, but certainly not many. And you have to balance that against the babies who will be aborted anyway because abortion is still legal.

- By calling it partial birth abortion they make a strong emotional appeal to pro-life voters.

So, basically, the winners are Republican politicians. All they have to do is talk in gushing, emotional terms about the tragedy of partial-birth abortion -- and the perfidy of the abortionist-Democrat axis -- and they can keep getting elected without having to actually change anything.

The other winners are, of course, people who are pro-choice: the more Republicans talk about partial birth abortion, the more secure Roe vs. Wade is.

[The Mirrorball Man]

As far as I know, IDX represents significantly less than 0.5% of all abortions. Whether it's legal or not only matters to a handful of people who find themselves in very particular and very specific (and usually very tragic) situations - now their choices have become even worse than they used to be.

Obviously, the Supreme Court ruling is not about these people and what they should be allowed to do. It's about abortion and whether it is possible to find ways to make it illegal. Banning a specific procedure because it's "gruesome" and "inhumane" is a good start to achieve that goal. There will always be someone who thinks that other procedures are just as "gruesome" and "inhumane" and should be banned too, until the right to get an abortion simply disappears.

It would be refreshing if anti-abortion zealots focused their efforts on reforming adoption procedures and on finding new homes for unwanted children.

[Motormouse]

It is still early - the liberal hippies are still sleeping off their pot filled late nights ;)

Slept that off hours ago dude. Fact of the matter is,the issue of abortion doesn't invoke the same passions in the U.K. as it does in the U.S. I don't think that i know anyone who is pro-life personally, but if this ruling makes you happy, good for you. Personally i think it's misguided.


67'000'000,000 and counting

[Dreadstar]

As far as I know, IDX represents significantly less than 0.5% of all abortions.

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

[Hoss]

Sorry if the reality of what this decision means isn't the "Happy Time Fun Hour".

And here I was the one who said at the beginning of this thread that this is a weak law that doesn't even outlaw third trimester abortions but just the safest way of doing them. Then I went on to call this nothing but a ploy to gauge the mood of the court.

I didn't realize I was having "Happy time fun hour"

Does anyone even read what people post anymore?

[The Mirrorball Man]

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

I didn't! I couldn't find the actual figure! ;)

[rick]

And here I was the one who said at the beginning of this thread that this is a weak law that doesn't even outlaw third trimester abortions but just the safest way of doing them. Then I went on to call this nothing but a ploy to gauge the mood of the court.

I didn't realize I was having "Happy time fun hour"

Does anyone even read what people post anymore?

Sorry Hoss, the Happy Time Fun Hour was more aimed at a genral "you" then you specificly.

Sorry I worded it badly.

[Hoss]

Slept that off hours ago dude. Fact of the matter is,the issue of abortion doesn't invoke the same passions in the U.K. as it does in the U.S. I don't think that i know anyone who is pro-life personally, but if this ruling makes you happy, good for you. Personally i think it's misguided.


67'000'000,000 and counting


Um, I've just been having fun... Considering that I'm a liberal on most issues I was just poking a bit of fun about stereotypes. Heck, I even said in my first post that even though I despise abortion I still support it being legal.

Seriously, does anyone read what folks actually post?

[Hoss]

Sorry Hoss, the Happy Time Fun Hour was more aimed at a genral "you" then you specificly.

Sorry I worded it badly.

No worries. And for what it is worth, I agree that this is a crappy law. Especially since it makes abortion harder in one of the few cases were I can see it as not being murder - when the child is already dead or has absolutely no chance for survival*.

*Yep, I see abortion as murder. I also think the government can't regulate it. Yep, it sickens me and confuses me too.

[Loren]

I'm staunchly pro-life.

But Tages has convinced me in the last abortion thread that this is a States issue. So my feelings on this are mixed.

Yay pro-life. Boo more expansion federal goverment power.

Something important to note about this decision is that the law wasn't challenged on the grounds that it was outside the reach of federal power. Here's Justice Thomas' entire concurrence:

I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S.914, 980–983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring).

This has led to a number of commentators concluding that if the law HAD been challenged on federalism grounds, Thomas would have voted to strike it down. It would certainly be consistent with his previous opinions (like last year's decision on medical marijuana). The Catch-22 in making such an argument is that if this law was found unconstitutional for that reason, it would probably mean the federal law against abortion clinic picketing would also be unconstitutional.

[Winslow]

As far as I know, IDX represents significantly less than 0.5% of all abortions. Whether it's legal or not only matters to a handful of people who find themselves in very particular and very specific (and usually very tragic) situations - now their choices have become even worse than they used to be.

I've read letters form Doctors in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said there is no medical purpose for the procedure other than late term abortion. Roe v. Wade does allow States to ban third trimester abortions (or when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb

rick's earlier post confuses me.

It would be refreshing if anti-abortion zealots focused their efforts on reforming adoption procedures and on finding new homes for unwanted children.

Adoption reform advocacy and crisis preganancy centers have been around for quite some time.

Legally - I'm concerned about the Supreme Court dictating medical procedures. Doctor's are licensed and insured state by state. This is clearly a state issue.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Seriously, does anyone read what folks actually post?

Hey, George Bush is picking his nose. That's funny.

[Winslow]

This has led to a number of commentators concluding that if the law HAD been challenged on federalism grounds, Thomas would have voted to strike it down. It would certainly be consistent with his previous opinions (like last year's decision on medical marijuana). The Catch-22 in making such an argument is that if this law was found unconstitutional for that reason, it would probably mean the federal law against abortion clinic picketing would also be unconstitutional.

That's interesting.

So on what grounds was the law challeneged?

[rick]

I've read letters form Doctors in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said there is no medical purpose for the procedure other than late term abortion. Roe v. Wade does allow States to ban third trimester abortions (or when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb

rick's earlier post confuses me.



Those doctors are quite correct that the process is only good for use as a late term abortion, but what they are leaving out is why there is the need for that late term abortion in the first place.

[The Mirrorball Man]

I've read letters form Doctors in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said there is no medical purpose for the procedure other than late term abortion.
I'm completely out of my depth here, but I heard that the procedure was necessary with foetuses suffering from hydrocephalus.

[Wesley Dodds]

It would also be pretty pointless except as a late-term abortion. Why would they bother with this procedure when there are safer ones?

[Loren]

That's interesting.

So on what grounds was the law challeneged?

It was challenged as being too vague, too overbroad, and putting an undue burden on the right of a second-trimester abortion.

The decision is here (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf), in PDF format, for anyone interested.

[rick]

It would also be pretty pointless except as a late-term abortion. Why would they bother with this procedure when there are safer ones?


Apparently it's safer for the mother then a C-Section.

[Winslow]

Apparently it's safer for the mother then a C-Section.

This is where my confusion sets in.

The letters I read disagreed, and said a C-Section was safer.

We're probably caught in the "political spin" of the abortion wars, where facts are hard to discover.

[Loren]

Congratulations to all the “Pro-Lifers” on the symbolic win.

I’m sure that it must be very comforting and very satisfying to know that now when a fetus is found to have its brain growing on the outside of the skull it will now get to be born.

Of course since the brain is on the outside though the baby will die with-in minutes of birth while still in the delivery room.

I'm not absolutely certain, but a skimming of the Court's opinion suggests to me that the law would not require such a child to be carried full-term. Standard D&E is still an option, as is simply inducing labor.

[rick]

I'm not absolutely certain, but a skimming of the Court's opinion suggests to me that the law would not require such a child to be carried full-term. Standard D&E is still an option, as is simply inducing labor.


Damm you man, leave my hyperbole alone!!!!!! :eek:

[rick]

We're probably caught in the "political spin" of the abortion wars, where facts are hard to discover.

Probably so.

And honestly with this particular procedure, I have no idea in the end who is right and who isn’t.

[Merey]

Congratulations to all the “Pro-Lifers” on the symbolic win.

I’m sure that it must be very comforting and very satisfying to know that now when a fetus is found to have its brain growing on the outside of the skull it will now get to be born.

Of course since the brain is on the outside though the baby will die with-in minutes of birth while still in the delivery room.

The good news though is that since the brain is outside of the skull, it won't feel too much anyway and now the parents will get the joy and happy moment of getting to bond with their babies corpse.

Now there’s a victory for you. ;)

On top of that, don't forget the fun the mother can have from possible irrevocable damage to her uterus or the boatloads of other damaging and life-threatening things that most late term abortions are trying to prevent.

[Loren]

As far as I know, IDX represents significantly less than 0.5% of all abortions.

That still means it's performed over 2000 times a year.

[MartinRedmond]

Why don't pro lifers just shut up and lobby for state orphanages that aren't dangerous for kids. Lobby for mesures to help low income family make ends meet.

[Dreadstar]

Yep... gonna be a real civil discussion now.

[Samurai]

I'm completely out of my depth here, but I heard that the procedure was necessary with foetuses suffering from hydrocephalus.

Where is all this misinformation coming from? I already showed this wasn't true on the YABS thread...

Congratulations to all the “Pro-Lifers” on the symbolic win.

I’m sure that it must be very comforting and very satisfying to know that now when a fetus is found to have its brain growing on the outside of the skull it will now get to be born.

Of course since the brain is on the outside though the baby will die with-in minutes of birth while still in the delivery room.

The good news though is that since the brain is outside of the skull, it won't feel too much anyway and now the parents will get the joy and happy moment of getting to bond with their babies corpse.

Now there’s a victory for you. ;)
Ah, ok...

So, for those that missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf

Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[16] Some prominent pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons' statements.[17]Pro-life organizations opposed to the method have asserted that in the vast majority of cases, neither the mother nor the fetus suffers from any substantial medical disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

Reasons commonly given for having a late-term abortion include:

* A deteriorating financial situation
* A change in relationship with the father
* A lack of awareness of the pregnancy until its later stages
* Discovery of the pregnancy by others who persuade an abortion, for example, the parents of a minor
* Inability to have an abortion earlier in the pregnancy (possibly due to a lack of funds, lack of transportation, or a legal restriction)
* Discovery of a fetal abnormality, undetectable earlier in the pregnancy
* The pregnancy becomes a risk to the mother's life or health

There is very little data on how common each of these reasons are. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy."71% responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 abortions after 16 weeks were performed because of maternal health problems.
And, if the procedure truly is necessary to save the mother, this law allows it...
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

CHAPTER 74 -- PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
"Sec.
"1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

[Slam_Bradley]

Something important to note about this decision is that the law wasn't challenged on the grounds that it was outside the reach of federal power. Here's Justice Thomas' entire concurrence:



This has led to a number of commentators concluding that if the law HAD been challenged on federalism grounds, Thomas would have voted to strike it down. It would certainly be consistent with his previous opinions (like last year's decision on medical marijuana). The Catch-22 in making such an argument is that if this law was found unconstitutional for that reason, it would probably mean the federal law against abortion clinic picketing would also be unconstitutional.


Those are very interesting comments. I have to think that given Thomas' position in United States v. Lopez that he'd almost have to vote to strike it down. Kennedy and Scalia also for that matter.

Interesstingly, this is probably not a huge case for abortion jurisprudence. It potentially could have been an enormous case for Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

[Drew Van T.]

On top of that, don't forget the fun the mother can have from possible irrevocable damage to her uterus or the boatloads of other damaging and life-threatening things that most late term abortions are trying to prevent.

I always thought that "Pro-lifers took my uterus" was a fine slogan.

[Wesley Dodds]

Hold on, there's even a health of the mother exception?

I'm starting to wonder what point this legislation has. If the mother's in danger, they can abort the baby. And if the mother's not in danger an alternate form of abortion is available.

I mean, beyond making a narrow range of abortions more dangerous, what's the point?

Also, Mirrorball Man is right that dilation and extraction is used when the baby has a neural tube defect. Like with anencephalic babies.

And one alternative to dilation and extraction is, of course, to dismember the foetus inside the womb. Perhaps we should call this the Babies in Refrigerators act? Another option is to induce labour -- Stillborn Again? I mean, whether they suck the brains out or chop it up in the womb, it's still an abortion.

[Dreadstar]

I mean, beyond making a narrow range of abortions more dangerous, what's the point?
Not that I agree with it, but I believe the point is that the framers thought this particular procedure shouldn't be an elective one.

[Wesley Dodds]

Not that I agree with it, but I believe the point is that the framers thought this particular procedure shouldn't be an elective one.

In other words, this is an abortion law that isn't even about abortion on the conceptual level.

They call it the Clear Skies Act -- but it's really about building a time machine.

So, rather than calling this is a symbolic win for pro-lifers, isn't it really a symbolic defeat for advocates of state-rights?

[Loren]

Those are very interesting comments. I have to think that given Thomas' position in United States v. Lopez that he'd almost have to vote to strike it down. Kennedy and Scalia also for that matter.

There's a lot of talk over at the Volokh Conspiracy as to how Scalia would end up voting. He took a limited view of the Commerce Clause in Lopez, but a really expansive one in Raich.

Interesstingly, this is probably not a huge case for abortion jurisprudence. It potentially could have been an enormous case for Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Stephens and Ginsberg apparently offer up some Commerce Clause commentary themselves in their dissents, which has led some to wonder if the law could end up being overturned on federalist grounds with a coalition of liberal and conservative justices.

I'd like to see that, but I'm skeptical that any of the liberal justices could actually see that through. If, as they've said previously, growing marijuana for oneself substantially affects interstate commerce, and if carrying a handgun substantially affects interstate commerce, then it's hard to see why performing an abortion (a commercial activity, something the other examples aren't) would not affect interstate commerce under their reasoning.

[Dreadstar]

In other words, this is an abortion law that isn't even about abortion on the conceptual level.

Hmmmm... I'm actually thinking exactly the opposite. If they're objecting to the procedure while using words like "gruesome" and "inhumane" along with ethical and moral objections wouldn't that put it INTO the conceptual category?

So, rather than calling this is a symbolic win for pro-lifers, isn't it really a symbolic defeat for advocates of state-rights?

Not really. Because that wasn't the tack that was pursued, as Loren pointed out earlier.

[Wesley Dodds]

Not really. Because that wasn't the tack that was pursued, as Loren pointed out earlier.

That's why it was a defeat -- they were outplayed by the statists!

[Dreadstar]

That's why it was a defeat -- they were outplayed by the statists!

If your team decides to play rugby, do you consider them to have lost at cricket?

[Chris Nowlin]

I think to lose it to not win.

And if you don't play, you don't win

[Slam_Bradley]

There's a lot of talk over at the Volokh Conspiracy as to how Scalia would end up voting. He took a limited view of the Commerce Clause in Lopez, but a really expansive one in Raich.



Stephens and Ginsberg apparently offer up some Commerce Clause commentary themselves in their dissents, which has led some to wonder if the law could end up being overturned on federalist grounds with a coalition of liberal and conservative justices.

I'd like to see that, but I'm skeptical that any of the liberal justices could actually see that through. If, as they've said previously, growing marijuana for oneself substantially affects interstate commerce, and if carrying a handgun substantially affects interstate commerce, then it's hard to see why performing an abortion (a commercial activity, something the other examples aren't) would not affect interstate commerce under their reasoning.


I can't imagine Stephens or Ginsberg doing anything that would weaken the Commerce Clause, even to strike down an anti-abortion law.

[Wesley Dodds]

If your team decides to play rugby, do you consider them to have lost at cricket?

A better analogy is challenging a cricket team at rugby -- and kicking their asses!!!

Wooo!!! Aussie Aussie Aussie! OI OI OI!!

[Paul McEnery]

If your team decides to play rugby, do you consider them to have lost at cricket?

If it's England, yes.

[Paul McEnery]

Question for the briefs:

Is it in fact the case that PBA's are still allowed when the mother's life is at risk?

It's my understanding that the reason this was struck down at the lower court level because it didn't make that allowance.

[Loren]

Question for the briefs:

Is it in fact the case that PBA's are still allowed when the mother's life is at risk?


Yes. From the statute (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html):

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

[Merey]

Question for the briefs:

Is it in fact the case that PBA's are still allowed when the mother's life is at risk?

It's my understanding that the reason this was struck down at the lower court level because it didn't make that allowance.

Life? Yes. Health? No.

From NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/washington/19scotus.html?pagewanted=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1177019226-iQWshudsjW7v8miWlkrbrQ)
Congress passed the law in response to the court’s ruling in the Nebraska case, responding specifically to the majority’s insistence in that case that the law must include an exception for circumstances when the banned procedure was necessary for the sake of a pregnant woman’s health. Congress provided an exception only to save a pregnant woman’s life, as Nebraska had, declaring that the procedure was never necessary for a woman’s health.

Justice Kennedy, in addressing the need for the health exception, said on Wednesday that it was acceptable for Congress not to include one because there was “medical uncertainty” over whether the banned procedure was ever necessary for the sake of a woman’s health. He said that pregnant women or their doctors could assert an individual need for a health exception by going to court to challenge the law as it applied to them.

Justice Ginsburg said that this approach was unrealistic and “gravely mistaken.” She said that requiring “piecemeal” litigation “jeopardizes women’s health and places doctors in an untenable position.”

[Darth Joker]

Well, as the debate begins let's get a few of preliminaries out of the way...

Actually, I kind of disagree with almost all of these preliminaries.

Pro-Lifers only care about life before it is born. Then they send your children to die in Iraq and love the death penalty.

Not all pro-lifers are conservative. The current Green Party Leader in Canada is pro-life (which blows even my mind, I must admit). Also, I've talked to a few people on line that are generally liberal, but are pro-life. These people tend to be against the Iraq war, and possibly the death penalty as well.

Speaking personally... I would consider myself pro-life, anti-Iraq war (admittably at this juncture - I was hopeful that it could bring positive social change over there back when it first started), and anti-death penalty.

But then, I'm Canadian. This trio of views may be very uncommon in America to be all held at the same time.

Still... many paleoconservatives like Pat Buchannan are anti-Iraq War, and pro-isolationist... and pro-life on the abortion issue.

Pro-Choicers only care about life if the baby is already born and poor. Then they expect the government to take responsibility for someone else's irresponsibility.

In a sense, this is true, but I think it's party an unintentional result of most pro-choicers' views on issues not related to abortion at all (such as wanting the government to help out those on the lowest rungs on the socioeconomic ladder)

Pro-Lifers use the bible to make a non-scientific determination about fetuses being human. This means they are trying to force their religion down our throats.

Pro-Choicers have no clue when life begins and make subjective statements about viability, brain waves, heart development etc. None of these refute that a fetus is a life.

I'd almost/kind of switch these two, actually.

In my view, pro-life doesn't mean 'ban all abortions' - it means 'outlaw certain types of abortions that are currently legal, and arguably tantamount to killing a human being given current levels of scientific knowledge'.

I certainly wouldn't cry any tears if even 1st-Trimester elective abortions were outlawed, but I'm not going to argue for that.

In my mind, the onset of brain wave activity in the fetus is a good measure of where we have solid scientific evidence for the presence of meaningful human life.

I've made such arguments (extended, but with references to current scientific data on unborn child development) with out once alluding to religion, or God, in any way, shape, or form.

I increasingly find that pro-choicers are very philosophical (not religious, mind you, but still appealing to abstract ideas) in their opposition to pro-lifers, and less based on 'subjective statements' surrounding scientific data.

The fourth amendment gives us the right to privacy.

Ther fourth amednment doesn't even use the word privacy.

The Supreme Court legislated from the bench.

The Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional laws.

This defines well the back and forth of the abortion issue in the US, though.

[Paul McEnery]

Life? Yes. Health? No.

From NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/washington/19scotus.html?pagewanted=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1177019226-iQWshudsjW7v8miWlkrbrQ)

Ah. Lovely.

This is sheer insanity. Kennedy needs to have his head examined.

Here's one example I heard last night, from a friend whose Dad was an OB/GYN. He'd got a patient who was carrying a dead fetus, around the 8th month. It took him a month, in Pennsylvania, to get permission to induce "birth".

Was the woman's life at stake? Perhaps not directly, but that's just plain not good for you, and it's more than likely to reduce life expectancy. You know, aside from just the issue of human decency.

Then there's the example Dianne Feinstein gave in her testimony, of another woman who was just plain never going to get to term, everything had gone wrong. Query: life in peril, or just health?

Who the hell wants to put doctors through this kind of decision? What kind of wanker thinks this ought to be decided in the courts rather than by a doctor, who ought to know? You know, aside from the woman herself, who might have some kind of an idea.

It'll be interesting when a doctor inevitably gets arrested for making what someone thinks is a wrong call on this. Life or health?

And I'm soooooo convinced that politically-appointed judges will make the right judgement when that happens.

[Paul McEnery]

I increasingly find that pro-choicers are very philosophical (not religious, mind you, but still appealing to abstract ideas) in their opposition to pro-lifers, and less based on 'subjective statements' surrounding scientific data.


Hmm. Darth, I'm not sure I'm following you here. You seem to be going in two different directions (abstract, and yet objective) on this one. Clarification, please?

[Darth Joker]

Hmm. Darth, I'm not sure I'm following you here. You seem to be going in two different directions (abstract, and yet objective) on this one. Clarification, please?

I put subjective inside of two commas because I don't think that it is subjective. I think that the science on the matter is pretty objective.

Sorry about the mix-up.

[Paul McEnery]

I put subjective inside of two commas because I don't think that it is subjective. I think that the science on the matter is pretty objective.

Sorry about the mix-up.

Much obliged, Darth.

[LtMarvel]

This this question was ignored/answered with misinformation on the YABS thread, I'll pose it here:

This ruling really bothers me. There is no exception for the health of the mother, a reason for previous rulings against such legislation. This time, the health of a small fraction of women was considered irrelevant in the ruling.

Tell me, ruling supporters, why that isn't scary. The procedure I previously described that removed a nonviable, but living, fetus is now illegal with no regards to the health of the woman.

[Boldido]

This this question was ignored/answered with misinformation on the YABS thread, I'll pose it here:
The answer is that it is scary, but nowhere near as scary as the thought of a little baby being torn limb from limb with no regard for its life or its pain or having its skull crushed and its brains sucked out.

I'll pose the same question right back to you. Does the thought of a viable unborn baby capable of life and feeling pain being killed in this way not concern you?

[Paul McEnery]

The answer is that it is scary, but nowhere near as scary as the thought of a little baby being torn limb from limb with no regard for its life or its pain or having its skull crushed and its brains sucked out.

I'll pose the same question right back to you. Does the thought of a viable unborn baby capable of life and feeling pain being killed in this way not concern you?

*ahem*

Hyperbole alert!

[Boldido]

Damm you man, leave my hyperbole alone!!!!!! :eek:

Take that McEnery!!!

[Paul McEnery]

Take that McEnery!!!

Looks like it's you and Rick in the ring this time.

Seconds out!

[rick]

The answer is that it is scary, but nowhere near as scary as the thought of a little baby being torn limb from limb with no regard for its life or its pain or having its skull crushed and its brains sucked out.

I'll pose the same question right back to you. Does the thought of a viable unborn baby capable of life and feeling pain being killed in this way not concern you?


Actually I have to say that the thought of this procedure being performed on a healthy and viable fetus is absolutely repugnant.

But the thing is that 3rd trimester abortions are not legal in a single one of the states except in the case where the health or the life of the mother is in danger. So it is not like third trimester abortions are being performed for casual reason in the first place.

On top of that as I have pointed before this procedure was used exclusively in the United States to remove non-viable fetuses suffering from a severe form of hydrocephalus where the brain of the fetus has grown on the outside of the skull. So now while the fetus will technically be born alive, they will still die almost immediately after birth anyway.

Now please don’t misunderstand me here, because in all honesty I’m not actually in favor of abortions under most circumstances. When my girlfriend showed up pregnant in those final days of High School the subject never even came up and instead we got married. And when one of my three daughters showed up pregnant I encouraged her to keep the child.

But, and this is the weird part, I am also solidly Pro-Choice.

I do not believe that the way to stop abortion is to make it a crime. Doing so is counter productive and in the end just chases the procedure underground.

The obvious answer to preventing abortion is to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

One of my strongest objections to most of the major anti-abortion organizations is that they are also strongly anti-contraceptives.

Which if you are trying to stop abortion simply makes no sense at all.

Sure abstinence is great and like all parents I’m in favor of it. But the odd thing is that despite everything us parents might want, young people still end up having sex. And if those people having sex don’t use some form of birth control, then some of them are going to get pregnant with children they don’t want or can’t support or whatever, and some of them will end up having abortions.

The simple fact is that while of course contraception is not perfect, it certainly has a very high success rate and that if we encouraged people to use effective contraceptive practices then we would see a corresponding drop in abortion.

And legislation that supported the spread and promotion of contraceptives instead of this petty little piece of show business that the Supreme Court upheld would do a whole hell of a lot more good and would stop a hell of a lot more abortions.

[Chris Nowlin]

But, and this is the weird part, I am also solidly Pro-Choice.



If more people realised it wasn't weird to make a distinction between what is wrong and what should be illegal, we'd all be better off.

[Darth Joker]

If more people realised it wasn't weird to make a distinction between what is wrong and what should be illegal, we'd all be better off.

If something is wrong to to the point of being tantamount to killing an innocent human being, however...

Either an elective abortion is tantamount to this, or it's not.

If it is, then it's not just 'wrong' in the sense that it's wrong to be mean to people... it's morally equivalent to other acts that are already considered illegal.

If it isn't... then what makes it wrong?

The distinction between wrong/illegal makes sense to me on a lot of issues... but not this particular issue really.

[rick]

If something is wrong to to the point of being tantamount to killing an innocent human being, however...

Either an elective abortion is tantamount to this, or it's not.

If it is, then it's not just 'wrong' in the sense that it's wrong to be mean to people... it's morally equivalent to other acts that are already considered illegal.

If it isn't... then what makes it wrong?

The distinction between wrong/illegal makes sense to me on a lot of issues... but not this particular issue really.


Let's go with your assumption that we are talking about killing babies.

But let’s also go with my assumption that the law isn’t going to change and abortion is going to remain legal.

How do you go about preventing abortions in that situation?

[Chris Nowlin]

If something is wrong to to the point of being tantamount to killing an innocent human being, however...

Either an elective abortion is tantamount to this, or it's not.

If it is, then it's not just 'wrong' in the sense that it's wrong to be mean to people... it's morally equivalent to other acts that are already considered illegal.

If it isn't... then what makes it wrong?

The distinction between wrong/illegal makes sense to me on a lot of issues... but not this particular issue really.

Fair enough. I was speaking in generalities because I liked rick's comment as an idea.

Abortion isn't an issue I care to debate. Too hard. Both arguments tend to make sense to me. Personally, I'm thoroughly against it. Objectively, it comes down to the legal status of the fetus, which isn't a debate I ever feel up to.

[Samurai]

Actually I have to say that the thought of this procedure being performed on a healthy and viable fetus is absolutely repugnant.

But the thing is that 3rd trimester abortions are not legal in a single one of the states except in the case where the health or the life of the mother is in danger. So it is not like third trimester abortions are being performed for casual reason in the first place.

On top of that as I have pointed before this procedure was used exclusively in the United States to remove non-viable fetuses suffering from a severe form of hydrocephalus where the brain of the fetus has grown on the outside of the skull. So now while the fetus will technically be born alive, they will still die almost immediately after birth anyway.

Can you please back up these statements? I've already provided links and quotes that completely dispute what you keep stating, but not once have you provided evidence for you claims, especially the lines I bolded above.

I already disputed the claim that it is used exclusively (or, as I believe you said last time, mostly) in hydrocephalus cases.

Women choose to have late-term abortions for a variety of reasons. Once the decision to have a late-term abortion has been made, a woman or doctor may choose IDX over other available late-term abortion procedures because:

* The woman does not have to experience labor.
* The woman does not have to undergo abdominal surgery.
* The procedure results in a largely intact body over which the parents may grieve.[8]
* Sharp instruments are inserted into the uterus fewer times than in a D&E abortion.
* The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe, or a caesarian section with a larger than usual incision can be used. If abortion is desired, D&X may be the simplest procedure.

Reasons a woman or physician may not choose IDX, opting instead for another abortion procedure, include:

* IDX requires a larger dilation of the cervix than D&E.
* Podalic version (turning the fetus into a breech position) can be dangerous to the woman.
* The incision in the fetal skull is made blind; the physician may miss and injure the woman's cervix.

Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[16] Some prominent pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons' statements.[17] Self-described pro-life organizations opposed to the method have asserted that in the vast majority of cases, neither the mother nor the fetus suffers from any substantial medical disorder.[18]

Reasons for later abortion

See also: Reasons for abortions.

Reasons commonly given for having a late-term abortion include:

* A deteriorating financial situation
* A change in relationship with the father
* A lack of awareness of the pregnancy until its later stages
* Discovery of the pregnancy by others who persuade an abortion, for example, the parents of a minor
* Inability to have an abortion earlier in the pregnancy (possibly due to a lack of funds, lack of transportation, or a legal restriction)
* Discovery of a fetal abnormality, undetectable earlier in the pregnancy
* The pregnancy becomes a risk to the mother's life or health

There is very little data on how common each of these reasons are. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy". 71% responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation", 48% said "found it hard to make arrangements", and 33% said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents". The report did not indicate that any of the 420 abortions after 16 weeks were performed because of maternal health problems.[3]
So hydrocephalus is just 1 of several given reasons for a late term abortion, and in one study, problems with the baby accounted for only 2% of cases while other reasons were far more common.

As for your other claim, this study points out some exceptions: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf For instance, many states allow a single doctor to decide if either the physical or mental health of the mother might be affected by a continued pregnancy, and since all pregnancies are mentally stressful and hard on a woman's body, any abortion is legal. Only 4 states restrict it to physical stress, and another 5 states limit it to when the life of the mother is at risk. Also, Arkansas allows late term abortions in the cases of rape or incest.

[Lex]

I'm SO glad South Dakota isn't involved in an abortion debate this time. Last year the SD abortion ban turned my state into a divisive, unfun cesspool of hate. Thankfully we got it on the ballot and voted it down. So things went back to normal.

But since this ruling, the SD anti-abortion people are just licking their lips in anticipation of all the bans they want to try next year. So we're probably going to be in the news again. *bangs head against wall*

[rick]

I'm SO glad South Dakota isn't involved in an abortion debate this time. Last year the SD abortion ban turned my state into a divisive, unfun cesspool of hate. Thankfully we got it on the ballot and voted it down. So things went back to normal.

But since this ruling, the SD anti-abortion people are just licking their lips in anticipation of all the bans they want to try next year. So we're probably going to be in the news again. *bangs head against wall*


I have to say that I was actually both surprised and rather pleased to see the people of South Dakota so directly take democracy into their own hands.

I can always appreciate voters who will put the legislators in their place every once in awhile.

[Lex]

I have to say that I was actually both surprised and rather pleased to see the people of South Dakota so directly take democracy into their own hands.

I can always appreciate voters who will put the legislators in their place every once in awhile.
Thanks! That was a long, hard-fought battle. And the anti-abortion people did everything in their power to try to prevent democracy from happening too.

And then brings up something else. Why is it that the anti-abortion people, who usually claim Christianity as their motivation for banning abortion, do so many non-Christian things like lying and cheating? I experienced this a lot last year. At first they were happy they didn't put exceptions for health, rape and incest in the bill, but when polls came out saying people wanted those exceptions they started lying their butts of to convince voters it actually did contain those exceptions.

And the legislator who created the bill is going to be on trial on Monday. He created a company to funnel almost a million dollars from an anonymous donor into the anti-abortion campaign. The company was pretty much created for that purpose, so it technically counts as a political action committee, and that means they gave WAY more money than they are allowed to by law. So groups are taking him to court about this.

There was story after story of all these horrible things the anti-abortiong people do. I never understood how people who claimed to be Christian could lie and cheat and do other bad things without seeming to care.

[Wesley Dodds]

I guess one consequence of the law is a displacement of the focus -- from the abortion to how it's done.

Personally, I'm not sure how sucking a baby's brains out with a tube is morally any different from dismembering it in the womb.

[The Mirrorball Man]

There was story after story of all these horrible things the anti-abortiong people do. I never understood how people who claimed to be Christian could lie and cheat and do other bad things without seeming to care.
Here's something everybody should know: Christians are not better or worse than everybody else. Some of them are bastards, and some of them hold contradictory beliefs, just like everybody else.

I guess one consequence of the law is a displacement of the focus -- from the abortion to how it's done.

Personally, I'm not sure how sucking a baby's brains out with a tube is morally any different from dismembering it in the womb.
These are foetuses, not babies.

[Tages]

I'm staunchly pro-life.

But Tages has convinced me in the last abortion thread that this is a States issue. So my feelings on this are mixed.

Yay pro-life. Boo more expansion federal goverment power.

Funny thing is, philosophically I'm extremely pro-life, but politically I align on the other side, both because a ban would mean far more federal power than exists now and because I'm not convinced that outlawing abortions would make any real difference in how many abortions would still be performed.

The pro-life movement should move away from politics and towards alternative means for reducing the number of abortions performed, such as adoption, disseminating better information about birth control (though admitedly the Catholic wing of the movement would drop off there) and developing better technologies that may one day be able to remove an unborn child from a woman's body without resulting in said child's death.

The pro-choice movement, similarly, should shift from defending pieces of shitty case law like Roe (which can be reversed just as easily, and completely disenfranchise folk on the other side from being a part of the public discussion) and work for more bottom-up, democratic guarantors to maintain abortion's legality.

As it is, the current debate is not accomplishing anything, except letting politicans con a bunch of their voters.

[Typo Lad]

Holy Frak.

I agree with Tages.

[Alex]

I know this thread is more about the actual ins and outs of this particular ban, and states rights and what have you.
But as to the actualy topic of partial birth abortion, i have never met anyone in my day to day life who has said they like the idea of sucking somethings brain out with a tube.

[The Mirrorball Man]

I know this thread is more about the actual ins and outs of this particular ban, and states rights and what have you.
But as to the actualy topic of partial birth abortion, i have never met anyone in my day to day life who has said they like the idea of sucking somethings brain out with a tube.

Me neither, but I would be lying if I said that the topic is one that often comes up in conversations.

[Alex]

Me neither, but I would be lying if I said that the topic is one that often comes up in conversations.

Yeah, theres that too.
I'm just wondering if anyone supports it, not for life of the mother, but does anyone support it as a normal abortion technique?

It's why i've never understood the debate, because at least politicaly, everyone dances around it.

[Loren]

Actually I have to say that the thought of this procedure being performed on a healthy and viable fetus is absolutely repugnant.

But the thing is that 3rd trimester abortions are not legal in a single one of the states except in the case where the health or the life of the mother is in danger. So it is not like third trimester abortions are being performed for casual reason in the first place.

Third-trimester abortions aren't at issue in the Court's decision. I don't think they ever even use the phrase "third-trimester" (I couldn't find it). Rather, the Court's entire focus is on the use of intact D&E during the second trimester.

[Wesley Dodds]

I don't think people would like the idea of dismembering a baby in the womb, either, but the Republican party hasn't made a big push on limb-lopping abortion yet. Maybe that's the strategy? Ban every form of abortion except stairs.

Of course, banning brain-sucking means more limb-lopping. Maybe that's how we should argue against this ban? "If you ban brain sucking, women will chop their babies into little pieces!"

I'm more concerned that this ban will force women to keep pregancies that will damage their uterus. What about future babies who won't exist because of uterus damage?

I mean, getting aborted would suck, but not existing in the first place would be even worse. At least, if you briefly existed, you get to go to an afterlife. People who never existed in the first place don't even get that!

Which is -- I think -- why Catholics are against condoms.

[Alex]

I don't think people would like the idea of dismembering a baby in the womb, either, but the Republican party hasn't made a big push on limb-lopping abortion yet. Maybe that's the strategy? Ban every form of abortion except stairs.

Of course, banning brain-sucking means more limb-lopping. Maybe that's how we should argue against this ban? "If you ban brain sucking, women will chop their babies into little pieces!"

I'm more concerned that this ban will force women to keep pregancies that will damage their uterus. What about future babies who won't exist because of uterus damage?

I mean, getting aborted would suck, but not existing in the first place would be even worse. At least, if you briefly existed, you get to go to an afterlife. People who never existed in the first place don't even get that!

Which is -- I think -- why Catholics are against condoms.
I think what i'm asking is, why not something banning third trimester abortions except in cases where the mother might die.
Is there a huge number of people who would argue that?

[Boldido]

I think what i'm asking is, why not something banning third trimester abortions except in cases where the mother might die.
Is there a huge number of people who would argue that?I think everyone on both sides consider this case to be some sort of trial balloon to see which way the new court is leaning. Since we now have a Democrat controlled congress, however, I doubt we will see too much more federal legislation when it comes to abortion for a little while.

[Lex]

Here's something everybody should know: Christians are not better or worse than everybody else. Some of them are bastards, and some of them hold contradictory beliefs, just like everybody else.
Oh I know. My point was that people on the pro-life side are always trying to claim the moral high ground, while at the same time doing a bunch if immoral things to get it. I know Christians aren't perfect, because I'm one of them and I'm far far far far far from perfect. You don't have to go far to see that even some of the leaders of the Christian community (like Jerry Falwell) are horrible human beings.

I guess what I'm talking about is that if the pro-life movement wants to be the "moral, Christian side" of this debate, I think they should live up to that. I'd still think they were wrong, but at least it would bring honesty to the debate.

[Paul McEnery]

Sure abstinence is great and like all parents I’m in favor of it.

The multiple levels of this sentence please me greatly.

[berk]

The multiple levels of this sentence please me greatly.You could go into an infinite loop: if only parents had pracatised abstinence, then they wouldn't be parents; but then not being parents, they wouldn't be in favour of abstinence, so they wouldn't abstain, but then they'd become parents, ...

[rick]

You could go into an infinite loop: if only parents had pracatised abstinence, then they wouldn't be parents; but then not being parents, they wouldn't be in favour of abstinence, so they wouldn't abstain, but then they'd become parents, ...


Heh Heh Heh.

That was kind of my point. :evilsmile

[Paul McEnery]

Heh Heh Heh.

That was kind of my point. :evilsmile

Yeah, but I was thinking: Now I've got kids, the last thing I'm ever going to do is have sex again. :evilsmile :evilsmile

[Chris Nowlin]

Yeah, but I was thinking: Now I've got kids, the last thing I'm ever going to do is have sex again. :evilsmile :evilsmile

Layers upon layers upon layers

[Tages]

Holy Frak.

I agree with Tages.

And so it begins. My mind probe is doing its dirty work.

[Darth Joker]

Let's go with your assumption that we are talking about killing babies.

It's not an assumption, in my view. It's basic science, in my view. The cessation of a beating heart and/or the cessation of brain activity is considered good benchmarks for when natural life ends. Hence, I see no good reason why we shouldn't consider the beginning of natural life to be no later than the beginning of brain activity and/or a beating heart. That occurs in unborn children in the late 1st/early 2nd trimester, IIRC.

But let’s also go with my assumption that the law isn’t going to change and abortion is going to remain legal.

This is true in most industrialized first world nations, but I think in America there's the political ability and will (in some states, at least, if not at the federal levle) to outlaw some abortions.

How do you go about preventing abortions in that situation?

Tages basically already covered this to a great degree. A couple other points however...

In Sex Ed classes, teachers/instructors should approach unwanted pregnancy the way they approach STD transmission... i.e. your principle goal is to try to prevent this from ever happenning, not 'treating' it after it already has. To a great degree, abortion is looked upon as quick, easy, and such a 'non-issue' that 'who cares if you get an unwanted pregnancy?'. This flippant and obviously morally dubious approach should be more discouraged than it currently is.

I also think that the morning after pill is a good pregnancy prevention medication to prescribe, and encourage sexually active teenage girls to take.

[Paul McEnery]

It's not an assumption, in my view. It's basic science, in my view. The cessation of a beating heart and/or the cessation of brain activity is considered good benchmarks for when natural life ends. Hence, I see no good reason why we shouldn't consider the beginning of natural life to be no later than the beginning of brain activity and/or a beating heart. That occurs in unborn children in the late 1st/early 2nd trimester, IIRC.

In Sex Ed classes, teachers/instructors should approach unwanted pregnancy the way they approach STD transmission... i.e. your principle goal is to try to prevent this from ever happenning, not 'treating' it after it already has. To a great degree, abortion is looked upon as quick, easy, and such a 'non-issue' that 'who cares if you get an unwanted pregnancy?'. This flippant and obviously morally dubious approach should be more discouraged than it currently is.

I also think that the morning after pill is a good pregnancy prevention medication to prescribe, and encourage sexually active teenage girls to take.

The problem is, where life begins is an arbitrary line.

Life begins at conception is a non-starter, because there are so many natural terminations. I think the majority of conceptions don't even implant; at any rate the majority of conceptions don't come to term.

And yes, on that basis, the morning after pill is a good idea, though I'm sure there are downsides for the health of the girl in question, just as there are downsides to the contraceptive pill.

However, after that our choices are complex. You like the heart starting, I prefer the formation of the cerebral cortex, since we have common agreement that the lack of a functioning cerebral cortex at the end of life constitutes brain death. That way, at least we have consistency.

It's that difficulty in determining where we start with humanity that leaves us with little choice but to leave the choice to the pregnant woman (and, I suppose, the medical staff).

BTW, the stereotype of flippant abortions does exist, but it's not that prevalent. Some women are made of sufficiently strong stuff that they can just shake it off, but most aren't. A sarcastic friend of mind where's a t-shirt saying Abortions Tickle to make the point.

Hardly anyone wants to be in the position to have to have an abortion. For a start, they're a helluva lot more expensive than condoms, or morning after pills, and simply funding them can be a severe hardship, let alone the physical and emotional trauma.

[anthony!]

The problem is, where life begins is an arbitrary line.

Which in my view would be an argument in favor of human life from conception to natural death.

If any beginning is "arbitrary" as you say, then it would stand to a certain amount of reason that no human criteria would ever be sufficient. Ergo, only the criteria of "nature" has the power to determine the fate of human life.

[Paul McEnery]

Which in my view would be an argument in favor of human life from conception to natural death.

If any beginning is "arbitrary" as you say, then it would stand to a certain amount of reason that no human criteria would ever be sufficient. Ergo, only the criteria of "nature" has the power to determine the fate of human life.

And the next time you get pregnant :D, feel free to use that arbitrary judgement.

The point is, there's no good and final definition. The only one we can all agree on as a backstop is that if there's a functioning cerebral cortex, then we've got a human life. Everything else is unclear, so it has to be up to the individual pregnant woman to decide.

But to address something else, the Catholic position is a hostage to fortune. If every act of sexual intercourse is to be considered as a potential human life -- and that is the position as I understand it -- then we're not even talking about the individual fetus. We're talking instead about an entire approach to life as it's lived.

And that's purely religious, and shouldn't influence policy.

[Darth Joker]

However, after that our choices are complex.

I disagree.

You like the heart starting, I prefer the formation of the cerebral cortex, since we have common agreement that the lack of a functioning cerebral cortex at the end of life constitutes brain death. That way, at least we have consistency.

It's that difficulty in determining where we start with humanity that leaves us with little choice but to leave the choice to the pregnant woman (and, I suppose, the medical staff).

I disagree. Brain activity in the unborn child clearly indicates the presence of an unique human life.

I don't see any good reason to not consider any abortion done after the onset of brain activity in the unborn child to be morally equivalent to killing a newborn baby.

BTW, the stereotype of flippant abortions does exist, but it's not that prevalent. Some women are made of sufficiently strong stuff that they can just shake it off, but most aren't. A sarcastic friend of mind where's a t-shirt saying Abortions Tickle to make the point.

'Abortions Tickle' is suppossed to show a lack of being flippant over abortion? :confused: :eek:

'Abortions Tickle' (what a disgusting thing to put on a T-shirt) clearly indiciates how non-seriously many people take abortions.

When people say 'Hey, that tickles!', it usually means that what's being done to them isn't that serious. For example, whenever a comic book superhero or supervillian uses that line, it usually means that the attack against them is barely registering, and that they're mocking it.

[Paul McEnery]

I disagree.
I disagree. Brain activity in the unborn child clearly indicates the presence of an unique human life.

This is not scientifically accurate. There can still be "brain activity" in the brain of someone clinically dead. The marker isn't "brain activity", it's the development of a cerebral cortex.

Also, the phrase "unique human life" is misleading. Again, a brain dead person is still a "unique human life", isn't it. The key to thinking dispassionately about the issue is to truly and clearly consider the stages of brain development. Until a brain has a cerebral cortex, there's nothing to distinguish it as human. Were a child to be born with no cerebral cortex, we wouldn't consider it as human. The cerebral cortex is the marker of humanity.

I don't see any good reason to not consider any abortion done after the onset of brain activity in the unborn child to be morally equivalent to killing a newborn baby.


'Abortions Tickle' is suppossed to show a lack of being flippant over abortion? :confused: :eek:

'Abortions Tickle' (what a disgusting thing to put on a T-shirt) clearly indiciates how non-seriously many people take abortions.

Step back for a second, and you'll see it as a sarcastic comment aimed towards those people who think that all abortions are flippant.

[berk]

Layers upon layers upon layersNo, he said no more sex.

[anthony!]

And the next time you get pregnant :D, feel free to use that arbitrary judgement.

How is pointing out what simply IS, arbitrary? I'm missing your implied accusation of prohibitive subjectivity on my part.

The only one we can all agree on as a backstop is that if there's a functioning cerebral cortex, then we've got a human life.

My understanding is what we have is human life taking on the biological attributes that will develop what I suppose could be described as "personhood".

Thats not to diminish the crucial, medical importance of the brain. However, its just as true to observe that prior to this juncture, it is: a.) alive and b.) human. There's no chance, from day one, of it ever NOT being human.

Even further, and please correct me if I'm wrong- I'm no doctor- but isn't the entirety of the individual's unique genetic code complete from conception [genetic recombination]? Would it not also be true to observe that from that event the entire "map" of this human life exists, and it is already in the process of "living" and merely developing along it's now determined and natural course?

But to address something else, the Catholic position is a hostage to fortune. If every act of sexual intercourse is to be considered as a potential human life -- and that is the position as I understand it -- then we're not even talking about the individual fetus. We're talking instead about an entire approach to life as it's lived.

And that's purely religious, and shouldn't influence policy.

"Hostage" is interesting word choice. I'd say we are bound to nature, and bound to events we can't morally claim to have any inherent (or deserved) control over. Our unique and human ability to perceive and sense degrees of intent, direction and determination in nature I'd describe as the oft used term, "natural law". An ambiguous term to be sure, but one that serves to speak to the variety of capabilities and talents combined within the human "species".

None of that position, in my view, is "religious". Instead, it is a legitimate questioning of our authority as human beings over the moral properties we sense in natural events. Indeed it is true that the religious convictions of many prompt them to advocate against the practice of abortion and for the scope of human life, but I see nothing inherent to the factual observations we all grapple with that is remotely based in faith. Religion, for good or ill, simply has the effect of colorizing our view of the stakes involved.

From my view and understanding, it is disctinctly not an attempt to rule people's lives, but to confront the very real consequences of the very sober and open-eyed termination of human life. In my view, their can be no real championship of human rights unless all human beings, including the most vulnerable and weak, find protection.

In regards to the aspects dealing with sexual intercourse, I find that to be a rather different - though not too distantly related - topic.

[Darth Joker]

Step back for a second, and you'll see it as a sarcastic comment aimed towards those people who think that all abortions are flippant.

I generally perfer not to debate semantics when it comes to the abortion issue (though I know it's necessary sometimes), and hence I'm going to focus on this part of your reply alone.

If I saw a shirt with "Abortions Hurt" or even "Abortions Aren't Easy" on it... I would consider that a clear theme of taking abortions seriously, and arguing that they aren't pleasant or easy.

"Abortions Tickle"... again, this clearly downplays abortion. Even if someone is being perfectly serious in saying 'stop tickling me!', s/he's not really alarmed over the situation. S/he wants the tickling to stop, but it's not something that s/he's worried will give himself/herself any long-lasting emotional pain.

To be perfectly frank, if I see someone wearing an "Abortions Tickle" shirt, I would probably think... well, I hate to say this, but I'd probably think that the shirt-wearer is a bit weird to start off with. Afer that though, I'd probably think the following about the shirt-wearer...

1) Very pro-choice.

2) Very dismissive of/mocking towards pro-life arguments, and serious discussions on abortion.

3) Is possibly trying to joke about abortion in an irreverant style in order to downplay her previous choice to have an abortion.

4) Somebody who really doesn't care about unborn human life.'

I really, really don't see how "Abortions Tickle" could be construed as making the arguement that most/all women take abortions very seriously.

[Paul McEnery]

How is pointing out what simply IS, arbitrary? I'm missing your implied accusation of prohibitive subjectivity on my part.

That's precisely the point. Where one draws the line depends precisely on the system of values you bring to the table, which will determine where one considers human life begins (or indeed whether that matters -- a total nihilist might not give a damn at all, for example).

On the table are these options:

1) Even before conception.
2) Conception.
3) Heartbeat
4) "brain activity"
5) Cerebral cortex development
6) Viability
7) Birth.

As I say, the Vatican's extraordinary stance is number one. And it's not an irrelevant stance, since legislation against even birth control has been on the books all over the place, and part of public policy in, for example, Africa. This is indefensible (as public policy), and is commonly accepted as very much a matter of personal choice.

At the other extreme, we have to maintain the idea that there is a significant difference between the life of the viable fetus and the life of the mother. In the tragic circumstance where we have to choose between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, the law has to stand on the side of the mother (though, of course, that too remains a matter of her personal choice -- should she choose to sacrifice her life, good luck to her, that's her business).

Conception is a logical point of view, and yet still arbitrary. As I say, the majority of conceptions don't make it to term. As such, we have to -- legally -- make a distinction. Unless you think running a Cylon baby farm is a good idea.

Heartbeat is just plain silly as an arbitrary marker. That's pure sentimentality. And if we were to observe this as a principle, we wouldn't do CPR on people. Heartbeat gone? Dead. Too bad. Heartbeat doesn't show anything more than, say, the development of a thumb.

"Brain activity" is still a vague marker. In a real sense, as soon as there's two neurons rubbing together, you've got "brain activity". This doesn't fly as a legal marker, because there are lots of bits of the brain that work in different ways. Your autonomous nervous system can plug along without the use of a cerebral cortex, but you're never going to play the piano again.

Viability was never more than a rule of thumb, and now that we've got a fair idea of brain development, we discover that that rule of thumb was directly connected to the development of the cerebral cortex.

The cerebral cortex is, of course, the marker of evolutionary humanity. There's significant cerebral cortex activity in primates, as we now know, and also in whales, dolphins, elephants, etc. That's why there's a movement to consider them as sentient beings, in their own fashion. It is also the marker of individual humanity, since we can lesion other bits of the brain, and yet still have a functioning personality. But if you kill the cerebral cortex, that's all she wrote.

So while there are arbitrary ethical points -- and even the sentimental heartbeat would count as such -- the only solid maker for legal purposes would be the cerebral cortex, and even that is superceded by the awful decision between the life of the mother and the life of the child in the third trimester.

Those are the actual facts, no matter how much anyone wants to muddy the waters.


Thats not to diminish the crucial, medical importance of the brain. However, its just as true to observe that prior to this juncture, it is: a.) alive and b.) human. There's no chance, from day one, of it ever NOT being human.

That's not technically true. Natural terminations were never human "persons". Rick's example of fetuses with brains on the outside of their skulls can never be human "persons". And so on.

And to belabour the point, personhood begins and ends with the cerebral cortex.


Even further, and please correct me if I'm wrong- I'm no doctor- but isn't the entirety of the individual's unique genetic code complete from conception [genetic recombination]? Would it not also be true to observe that from that event the entire "map" of this human life exists, and it is already in the process of "living" and merely developing along it's now determined and natural course?

The genetic code, yes. However, that's far from the whole story. Genes aren't blueprints. They operate in an evolutionary way. Individual genes within a phenome actually compete against each other, as do individual cells. The body is a battleground within itself, even from conception (not to mention before conception). Then you've got the battleground within the womb, the battle of the pregnant woman against the embryo and fetus.

It isn't in any way a stretch of the language to say that pregnant women react to the embryo and fetus as if it were an internal parasite. There is a battle in the woman's body for hormonal homeostasis that actually attacks the fetus -- and the fetus fights back. The placenta, after all, is not part of the pregnant woman's body -- it's part of the fetus.

So the relationship between genome and phenome isn't one of isomorphism -- the genome isn't an homunculus. You can't look at a genome and know how it's going to turn out any more than you can look at the rules of football and predict the score (or bookies would be out of a living). There are all sorts of factors in play in early development, most of which turn out wrong. There's nothing special about this until the cerebral cortex sets in -- that's the point at which individual characteristics -- aside from the minor issues of height, weight, pigment, etc. -- come into play. Most of the battle is now over, except for apoptosis, which continues through life, really, though mostly through infancy.

Which is why, for legal purposes, the cerebral cortex is the useful cutoff point.


"Hostage" is interesting word choice. I'd say we are bound to nature, and bound to events we can't morally claim to have any inherent (or deserved) control over. Our unique and human ability to perceive and sense degrees of intent, direction and determination in nature I'd describe as the oft used term, "natural law". An ambiguous term to be sure, but one that serves to speak to the variety of capabilities and talents combined within the human "species".

*snip*

That's exactly what I'd call religious (I suppose philosophical would also do). And living by that world view is a personal choice. We can't legislate according to that world view, because many people have different world views.

[Paul McEnery]

1) Very pro-choice.

2) Very dismissive of/mocking towards pro-life arguments, and serious discussions on abortion.

3) Is possibly trying to joke about abortion in an irreverant style in order to downplay her previous choice to have an abortion.

4) Somebody who really doesn't care about unborn human life.'

Close, but no cigar.

Obviously very pro-choice; equally, very mocking of pro-life arguments.

However, personally, I'd be rather ticked off if someone said that meant that's an opposition to serious discussion. Just as you'd be ticked off if I said that all pro-life arguments are ridiculous.

I came from a pro-life position. Having studied the issue, having hosted abortion counselling at the chaplaincy, having done clinic defence, having had to see friends through really tough abortions, and having considered the historical roots of the issues of reproductive rights, I now know that that position not only doesn't make sense, but I also know that it isn't what its proponents think it is.

Oh, and frankly, I take the phrase "pro-life" to be incredibly offensive. I hope you can see why.

(What? I'm not pro-life? I'm part of the anti-life equation because I think your assumptions don't hold water? That's really fucking rude. If that's not too blunt. I just want you to understand that your emotional revulsion against "Abortions Tickle!" is more than held by the pro-choice people against the phrase "pro-life".)

And as much as I'm interested in the philosophical aspects of a discussion on the subject, those aren't the aspects that count. The aspects that count are the cruel realities of the world.

There are many people who simply take offence that anyone can even think of this as an abstract intellectual issue, or that the anti-choice movement has any business legislating their morality. I don't know a single woman who thinks of it that way. They think of it as a brutal and life-altering choice that they'd realllly rather not have had to face.

It's incredibly disrespectful of women to think otherwise. And that's the point of the "Abortions Tickle!" shirt. It's to get in the face of anti-choice people who act like it's just nothing. It isn't just nothing. It's horrible. And the only compassionate thing to do is to abide by a woman's choice and sit with her through the ordeal, whichever way she chooses to handle it.

That's the burden of pastoral care. Not to moralistically dictate people's decisions, but to sit with them with unconditional positive regard, help them find their own true will, and help them live through the consequences of their decision.

[spoon_jenkins]

Were a child to be born with no cerebral cortex, we wouldn't consider it as human. The cerebral cortex is the marker of humanity.
I don't think we have to speculate about this because children have been born without cerebral cortices. There's a condition called anencephalia in which a person is born with missing or reduced brain tissue. An anencephalic may not have any cerebrum at all, let alone a cerebral cortex.

I remember a case of this covered heavily by the media in which a girl was born with just a brain stem. IIRC, it was in Florida in the 90s. I think the coverage consistently referred to her as a girl, a baby, etc. (i.e. a human being). So I disagree; I think people consider a child without a cerebral cortex to be human.

Now, I agree with what I think is your general underlying viewpoint - about the development of a mind being a key to when abortion should be considered ethical. I'm just pointing out that people generally a being to be a human being once if it is born alive regardless of the lack of higher brain function.

[Paul McEnery]

I remember a case of this covered heavily by the media in which a girl was born with just a brain stem. IIRC, it was in Florida in the 90s. I think the coverage consistently referred to her as a girl, a baby, etc. (i.e. a human being). So I disagree; I think people consider a child without a cerebral cortex to be human.


Pardon me if I don't take the Florida media as the last word on anything. :D

The point is, what the law says, and why the law says it.

Out of a desire to give comfort to the grieving mother, people will say what they have to. If someone wants a Christian (or whatever) funeral for their anencephalic child, for God's sake give it to them. And anyone who got up in their face to tell them they've got no right to grieve for this miscarriage should be punched in the head.

But nobody would truly consider such a fetus as human, or as having human rights; and if it were possible to keep such a fetus alive and physically developing into "adulthood", I think most of us would recoil from the idea, and think that the "parents" needed psychological counselling.

It's natural to use words like "baby" and "girl" in these circumstances. And there are a lot of other natural words which muddy the waters in this debate, which is why I try to use the most dispassionate. And then there are times to use the language of compassion. It's important to know which use of language is appropriate at the time.

[Darth Joker]

Close, but no cigar.

Obviously very pro-choice; equally, very mocking of pro-life arguments.

However, personally, I'd be rather ticked off if someone said that meant that's an opposition to serious discussion.

Of course it's opposition to serious discussion. You can't have a serious discussion when you refuse to take those who disagree with your position seriously.

I came from a pro-life position. Having studied the issue, having hosted abortion counselling at the chaplaincy, having done clinic defence, having had to see friends through really tough abortions, and having considered the historical roots of the issues of reproductive rights, I now know that that position not only doesn't make sense, but I also know that it isn't what its proponents think it is.

Explain why please. Just because something is 'really tough' to do doesn't make it morally acceptable, or right.

Oh, and frankly, I take the phrase "pro-life" to be incredibly offensive. I hope you can see why.

I don't see where pro-life is any more offensive than pro-choice is. Both can be read as making certain unflattering assumptions about the other side.

However, within the context of an abortion debate, I find that it's fair if you use both of them. "Pro-life" means that your principle concern is for the life of the unborn child. "Pro-choice" means that your principle concern is for 'a woman's right to choose'.

It's a question of prioritization moreso than an 'either or' dichotomy... or, in some cases, some pro-choicers do not believe that the unborn child constitutes meaningful human life, so 'life' is not involved at all in the discussion... only 'choice'.

I don't think that their views (at least past the 1st Trimester) hold any water given current scientific knowledge, however.

And as much as I'm interested in the philosophical aspects of a discussion on the subject, those aren't the aspects that count.

That's fine by me. I'm pro-life because of the science on the matter, and the logical extensions that come from that.

The aspects that count are the cruel realities of the world.

Reality, be it cruel or otherwise, is what counts, yes.

There are many people who simply take offence that anyone can even think of this as an abstract intellectual issue, or that the anti-choice movement has any business legislating their morality.

You've just blasted any credibility you had over taking issue with the term 'pro-life' by using the term 'anti-choice' against your opponents on this issue.

Do you honestly think it's fair to define one side as 'pro-choice', and the other side as 'anti-choice'? That's trying to dictate the terms of the discussion. That's disrespectfully refusing to acknowledge that defending life, not increasing lack of choice, is the principle concern of the pro-life advocate.

Merely making an act illegal does not eliminate the choice to engage in said act. If it did, speeding would be non-existent.... and we all know that most car drivers drive over the speed limit at one time or another (if not frequently).

I don't know a single woman who thinks of it that way. They think of it as a brutal and life-altering choice that they'd realllly rather not have had to face.

I've personally spoken to at least one woman who has had multiple abortions. She told me that her first abortion was made with out much consideration, or thought.

This person, and her chief ally that I debated the abortion issue with, repeatedly used terms like 'parasite', 'glob of undifferentiated cells', and a whole host of other dehumanizing (or worse) terms to refer to the unborn child.

Paul... there are women out there who take this issue pretty flippantly. I've spoken to them. I've debated them.

It's incredibly disrespectful of women to think otherwise.

Even when women indicate otherwise? I didn't put these words in the mouths of the women I debated the issue with... in fact, I was disgusted by them.

And that's the point of the "Abortions Tickle!" shirt. It's to get in the face of anti-choice people who act like it's just nothing.

Paul... if a pro-life person thought that abortion was 'just nothing' they wouldn't be pro-life.

It isn't just nothing. It's horrible. And the only compassionate thing to do is to abide by a woman's choice and sit with her through the ordeal, whichever way she chooses to handle it.

As a simple matter of principle, I will never support an action that is tantamount to intentionally killing an innocent human being.

That being said, the woman who said that her first abortion was done with out much consideration? I was actually close friends with her, until she moved.

That's the burden of pastoral care. Not to moralistically dictate people's decisions, but to sit with them with unconditional positive regard, help them find their own true will, and help them live through the consequences of their decision.

How do you dicate decisions? Are you honestly saying it's wrong for a person in a position of pastoral care to encourage someone to not have an abortion?

If someone's 'own true will' involves killing an innocent human being, I'm not going to help them 'find it'.

I won't end a friendship on this basis, but I would not be true to myself if I supported a decision that I very strongly hold is tantamount to killing an innocent human being.

[spoon_jenkins]

I don't see where pro-life is any more offensive than pro-choice is. Both can be read as making certain unflattering assumptions about the other side.

However, within the context of an abortion debate, I find that it's fair if you use both of them. "Pro-life" means that your principle concern is for the life of the unborn child. "Pro-choice" means that your principle concern is for 'a woman's right to choose'.

It's a question of prioritization moreso than an 'either or' dichotomy... or, in some cases, some pro-choicers do not believe that the unborn child constitutes meaningful human life, so 'life' is not involved at all in the discussion... only 'choice'.
[snip]
Do you honestly think it's fair to define one side as 'pro-choice', and the other side as 'anti-choice'? That's trying to dictate the terms of the discussion. That's disrespectfully refusing to acknowledge that defending life, not increasing lack of choice, is the principle concern of the pro-life advocate.
I totally with this. I don't think pro-life is any more offensive than pro-choice. Both of them are simplistic in their own way. Paul pointed out problems with the term "pro-life", but "pro-choice" is incredibly euphemistic. After all, pro-choice isn't about choice in the abstract; it's about a specific action.

I think one ought either to refer to each side by their self-proclaimed labels or to refer to folks by specific, objective labels (something like opposes legalized abortions, favor legalized arbotion, would permit abortion in X circumstance, etc.) or not bother labels at all.

The name calling is what bugs me. I think there are activists who suck on both sides. I wouldn't want to be in the pro-choice movement (even though I think abortions should be legal early in pregnancy and sometimes later on), because I don't like a lot of their tactics. They just want to paint all their opponents as misogynistic scum.

How do you dicate decisions? Are you honestly saying it's wrong for a person in a position of pastoral care to encourage someone to not have an abortion?

If someone's 'own true will' involves killing an innocent human being, I'm not going to help them 'find it'.

I won't end a friendship on this basis, but I would not be true to myself if I supported a decision that I very strongly hold is tantamount to killing an innocent human being.
Again, while I disagree with Darth Joker about whether abortion should be legal, I agree (given his perspective) with this point.

I find it incomprehensible whenever I see to the effect of "Duh, it's simple! It's a personal choice. Don't impose you're morality on someone else. Just support them." Well, if someone believes it's tantamount to murder, then it's ridiculous to ask them to be supportive or to keep it legal. You wouldn't say that a person in a position of "pastoral care" should support someone decision to rape people. So his approach is not inconsistent with his beliefs.

Rather, one should argue that the facts, the biology, etc. make abortion an ethical acceptable act that isn't murder.

[berk]

At the other extreme, we have to maintain the idea that there is a significant difference between the life of the viable fetus and the life of the mother. In the tragic circumstance where we have to choose between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, the law has to stand on the side of the mother (though, of course, that too remains a matter of her personal choice -- should she choose to sacrifice her life, good luck to her, that's her business).I think this raises an interesting problem for self-described pro-lifers: if both abortion and self-destruction are considered sins in some particular moral systems, where does that leave a mother in such a situation? I think I know the official position - a mother who chooses to sacrifice her life for the sake of her unborn child would not be categorized as a suicide - but it strikes me as an arbitrary one. She's made a decision to allow herself to die. If it's OK to do so for this one reason, then why not for some other reason?

[berk]

... I've personally spoken to at least one woman who has had multiple abortions. She told me that her first abortion was made with out much consideration, or thought.

This person, and her chief ally that I debated the abortion issue with, repeatedly used terms like 'parasite', 'glob of undifferentiated cells', and a whole host of other dehumanizing (or worse) terms to refer to the unborn child.

Paul... there are women out there who take this issue pretty flippantly. I've spoken to them. I've debated them.

... I didn't put these words in the mouths of the women I debated the issue with... in fact, I was disgusted by them.

Paul... if a pro-life person thought that abortion was 'just nothing' they wouldn't be pro-life. I think the point here is that you do believe that abortion is 'just nothing' in the minds of these women you refer to. And perhaps it was. But I think you have to be very careful in making the assumption that their words express their real feelings on the matter - feelings they may not even be consciously aware of themselves. Anyone who's been through a traumatic experience is going to find ways of dealing with it psychologically. One of the most common coping methods is to distance oneself emotionally from the experience by stridently proclaiming one's indifference to it. Not saying that this is necessarily what was going on with the women you spoke with, just that you can't be sure, and that we should beware of taking anyone too literally in such circumstances, even if they themselves might believe their own words. Because once you begin to feel secure that you've identified them as callous egoists completely unaffected by their abortion experience ... well, I think you can see the direction this takes you in.

[anthony!]

Those are the actual facts, no matter how much anyone wants to muddy the waters.

Yet this is still how you see it. One can look at the same facts and see something completely different. I've read your comments, and yet none of your observations move me towards ceasing to conscieniously believe in the right of a human being to exist from conception.



And to belabour the point, personhood begins and ends with the cerebral cortex.

Nowhere have I stated a belief that personhood is what makes a human being a human being, or even a "human life". If the development/deterioration of personhood is the limp criteria for "human life"...well...thats not a particularly pretty world you're painting.

Then you've got the battleground within the womb, the battle of the pregnant woman against the embryo and fetus.

It isn't in any way a stretch of the language to say that pregnant women react to the embryo and fetus as if it were an internal parasite.

The exact moment you lose me entirely. Your examination of biological processes seems imbued with subjective commentary, no more so than myself or anyone else. At heart all you're describing are the chemical changes and adaptations that are occuring between mother and child. To characterize the fetus [ie, unborn child] as parasitic, is the kind of language that strips away the reality of a human's existence.

This does nothing to change the larger reality- a human being has come into existence and thus inherently is entitled to live. Humans aren't tumors, Paul.

That's exactly what I'd call religious (I suppose philosophical would also do). And living by that world view is a personal choice. We can't legislate according to that world view, because many people have different world views.

And thats far from what I'd call religious. Philosophical? Absolutely! And last time I checked, it was completely p.c. to adhere to a philosophy. Politics is merely the forum through which those philosophies, values, ideas, etc. collide and relate to each other..... Government!

As far as "legislating your world view"...well, I'm not even sure what that means. People who live in democracies come together to forge the society in which they choose to live. And yes, that means bringing your values and value judgments to the table. Your flavor of secularism, if I understand your implications correctly, effectively cuts off society from acting upon its conscience. We can never confront each other for the wrongs we do, because its somehow enshrined in the vague, ill-defined cloud of "personal choice"- which at times I find equally philosphical and dogmatic to the point of being well...religious.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I went to get an abortion once.

But it turned out that I didn't have a uterus, ovaries or a womb.

And apparently I wasn't, nor could ever be pregnant.

And that meant I wasn't allowed to have one.

Which I think sucks.

Even with it legal I didn't get a choice.

[heretic]

I think what i'm asking is, why not something banning third trimester abortions except in cases where the mother might die.
Is there a huge number of people who would argue that?Given the number of conditions not fatal to the mother that never the less could cause severe damage and/or insure the kid is not viable... I would say yes.

HTG

[Drew Van T.]

One of the most common coping methods is to distance oneself emotionally from the experience by stridently proclaiming one's indifference to it. Not saying that this is necessarily what was going on with the women you spoke with, just that you can't be sure, and that we should beware of taking anyone too literally in such circumstances, even if they themselves might believe their own words. Because once you begin to feel secure that you've identified them as callous egoists completely unaffected by their abortion experience ... well, I think you can see the direction this takes you in.

Also, one should take into account the environment in which these "callous" women live. If it is dominated by pro-life culture and ideas, then naturally someone who has had an abortion will try to build a kind of defense against that judgment in their own heads, to compensate f