Chattel Prod
Are children parents' property? At what point should you get to decide your own fate -- especially when the decision being made will substantially affect the course of the rest of your life?
Being a pregnant teenager almost certainly means stunting your personal and professional growth -- especially if you marry at 18.
I cited Lassek and Gaulin's research before. Gaulin presented it at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Conference at William and Mary in 2007, showing that women who have children before the age of 18 are cognitively worse off, as are their children, because their children are developing as they're still developing, and they rob the mothers of cognitive resources and end up shorter in that department as well. (Gaulin and Lassek actually showed that women with "bimbo" bodies -- an hourglass figure with big boobs -- are more protected from this and are, in general, smarter and have smarter children.)
Of course, a Barbie body won't do anything for the lost personal development and career years, the time in a girl's late teens and in her twenties when she should be experimenting to figure out who you are and what you will be in the world.
Plus, a person changes enormously between 20 and 24, let alone 17 or 18 and 20. This is probably why Helen Fisher found, reading U.N. divorce stats a few years back (and I'm not sure if these are exactly true now), that more marriages end between age 20 and 24. If those marriages end with children in their wake, not a good thing, not a good thing at all.
But, back to the question -- I have been thinking about that recently, but it's been a question I've had for years -- about why parents should be able to decide the lives of children on the cusp of adulthood. This view is a view of these near-adult children as property. At what point are they deserving of autonomy?
William Saletan at Slate is wondering the same thing, noting that one category of Americans remains officially subjugated -- maturing minors (links within the piece are live at the Slate link):
A maturing minor is someone already in transition to adulthood, as evidenced most clearly by the ability to produce children of her own....A boy and a girl made a mistake that has forced them to become a man and a woman. They are, in Palin's words, shouldering the responsibilities of adulthood.
Yet Palin refuses to treat a young woman in this position as an adult. She thinks the parents of pregnant girls should have veto power over the most life-changing decision their daughters may ever face. Palin made her position clear last fall, when she denounced and sought to reverse an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of teenage girls. "It is outrageous that a minor girl can get an abortion without parental consent," said the governor.
The court affirmed that minors often needed guidance, that parents were entitled to provide that guidance, and that states could facilitate this role by notifying parents whose daughters sought abortions. But the law in question, the Alaska Parental Consent Act, went further. It required girls to get their parents' written consent. If the parents refused, the girl had to go to court. Any doctor who granted an abortion request without parental or court approval faced the threat of criminal prosecution.
These provisions made parents not just stewards of their children, but owners. The justices concluded that the law "allows parents to refuse to consent not only where their judgment is better informed and considered than that of their daughter, but also where it is colored by personal religious belief, whim, or even hostility to her best interests."
The argument for parental consent laws is that if girls can't even get their ears pierced without parental approval, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to get something as serious as an abortion. As Palin's spokeswoman put it last year, "She feels parental consent is reasonable because it is required in nearly every aspect of a child's life." But that logic is backward. The more profoundly a decision affects a girl's future, the more vital it is that no one, even her parents, be authorized to veto it. And nothing short of death alters a person's life more profoundly than bringing a child into the world. It is the moment when you cease to be the primary purpose of your own existence.
...Watch the video of Palin answering abortion questions during a 2006 gubernatorial debate. "If your daughter were pregnant ... what would be your reaction and advice?" asks a reporter. "I would choose life," she answers, smiling. The reporter persists: What if your daughter had been raped? "Again, I would choose life," she replies. Not she would choose. I would choose.
McCain speaks similarly about his daughter:
"Cindy and I will make that decision."...But restrictions that start with minors have a way of leaking out. A month ago, junk-food crusaders crossed the line from kids to adults: Los Angeles prohibited construction of new fast-food restaurants in a section of the city occupied by 500,000 low-income people. And last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on some abortions for adult women. The court reasoned that some of these women "did not know" how gruesome the procedure would be and that the ban, by "ensuring so grave a choice is well informed," would "encourage some women to carry the infant to full term." Paternalism once reserved for girls now extends to women. McCain and Palin want more justices like Samuel Alito, who voted to uphold a law requiring women to notify their husbands before getting abortions. In fact, they want a constitutional amendment to ban nearly all abortions.
The idea of letting minors, even maturing ones, make abortion decisions may sound radical. But that's how autonomy for blacks and women used to sound, too. It's hard to recognize the injustices of your own era. One reason to try is that paternalists may have targeted people like you in the past. The other reason is that if you don't speak up, they'll come for you again.
UPDATE: Robert Wright says Palin's daughter's pregnancy is a reason to vote against her. Dr. Laura is bothered by the same thing.
OK, second try at this. Somehow the first deleted itself before I posted.
I am not with you on this one Amy. As long as the age of adulthood in the US is 18, no child should be able to get any surgical procedure, whether it's an abortion or boob job or tonsillectomy, without the parents or guardians or courts' consent. If a teen is so mature that she can make the life-ending decision of getting an abortion, then she is mature enough to have chosen to use any one of the 16 readily-available forms of birth control, or to choose not to have sex if she's not prepared to handle all the possible outcomes. Pregnancy is one. Herpes is another that stays with you for life. High-risk HPV is a very common one, requiring pap smears every 3 months to detect the very-likely cervical cancer it can cause. Oh, and HIV, which will kill you, it's just a matter of time.
I am sick of people trying to use the "they were horny and can't be expected to think clearly about it" defense, for teens in particular. We as a society do hold people responsible for the outcomes of their stupid decisions. You drive drunk and kill someone, you go to jail. You have sex and get pregnant, you need to deal with that too, and not by killing the kid in a desperate attempt to pretend none of this ever happened.
Why is everyone saying poor Bristol, having to get married? Anyone consider they might want to? And if their parents told them they can't get married when they want to, that's no different than a parent telling them they can't get an abortion, which by all accounts they do not want.
momof3 at September 7, 2008 6:36 AM
Amy - what did that assnozzle in the video say? I tuned out as soon as he said "Dobson".
What Dobson thinks is as relevant to me as what my shit smells like. Once I flush it, it doesn't exist.
And please, get off this high horse about how having a child at 17 impairs cognitive ability. If that was true, then we'd have been a nation of stupid women in colonial times, and the evidence just doesn't support it.
As to professional development - if a girl wants a family, she's got till she's 35, 45 at the outside, to do it. Statistically speaking, she's probably going to live to 80 or 90.
It doesn't take an engineering degree to figure out how to optimize the available choices.
brian at September 7, 2008 7:12 AM
Deferred parenting; when you let someone else take over making the parenting decisions for you. This also gives you an out when things go awry; you can point fingers at either the "young adult" and/or all the agencies that failed you, since apparently you're not ultimately responsible.
Consider this; so long as I am legally responsible for my child, I get to make the decisions for her. If she goes out and shoplifts as a minor at Walmart, guess who gets busted? ME!!! Cleared this with the Wally World manager when I turned my then-8-yr.-old in for stealing a glitter butterfly from sewing notions. If my kids break something in a store, I'm responsible. If my child does not attend school, I'm in trouble. If my child drives through someone's living room, I'm paying for the whole tab (this happened here in town awhile ago, not my kid) The list goes on and on and on. In this case, if one of my daughters gets pregnant before 18, I can either insist the babydaddy marry her (oh dear God! Let the fox guard the henhouse?), keep her and the baby at home while she finishes her education (most likely), or the easiest, let her join the ranks of welfare moms (hell to the NO!).
Funny aside: my girls are already getting sex ed at home. I had microbiology last semester with an instructor obsessed with venereal diseases. A great way to start the discussions with my girls of the ups and downs of sex.
The state holds me accountable for the feeding, clothing, education, health, and safety of my child. If at any point I declare that I am no longer willing to do any of those things, they are begrudgingly going to take over in the form of social services. But until I "tap out", it's my ass (and my husband's) on the line, and we understood this before we even made the decision to become parents.
As to the stats about a woman's physique and her cognitive abilities; thank God those "curves" are represented by a statistical curve. I'm built like a teenage boy, have a 140-ish I.Q. and a 4.0 G.P.A. while working on my second degree.
juliana at September 7, 2008 7:33 AM
>> Yet Palin refuses to treat a young woman in this position as an adult.
If Palin / Mccain win, all women will be treated like children in this manner. Government will be their parents, making this decision for them.
Eric at September 7, 2008 7:54 AM
I'm always baffled by the 'take responsibility' crowd. Jail time, fines, inconvieniences are consequences.
Children should not be consequences! What better way to ensure a shitty mom than to force someone to do it who doesn't want to? "Nyah, nyah, you shouldn't have been having sex then!" It's a baby, not a parking ticket, people. If you really care about that 'life', you should care what happens to it after its sullen teenage mom is forced to 'grow up' and 'raise' it. Or haven't you noticed the whiny, selfish, spoiled-rotten teenagers these days? Their behavior isn't a function of their youth, but a symptom of their underlying inability to be mature. This house of cards we're building with our misguided self-esteem parenting combined with a father-knows-best government is teetering wildly.
Ever seen "Idiocracy"?
Christina at September 7, 2008 8:09 AM
When the debate came up a couple of weeks ago about lowering the drinking age to 18, someone objected to the use of the argument that 18-year-olds can vote and go to war. That, they said, is a good argument for raising the entire age of adulthood to 21. I just groaned and shook my head.
If anything, I think 18 is too high. Lower the age for everything to 16 and start shoving the infantilized little bastards out of the nest even sooner. Come on, it's NOT that hard to take care of yourself as an adult. 90% of it just involves spending less money than you take in, staying off drugs, and using birth control. If your 16-year-old kid isn't even that smart, you should ask yourself why you have been such a crappy parent.
Sure, they may be inexperienced in other areas, maybe, like work or social skills. But the way for them to learn those things is to get them out there in the real world with some actual responsibility, interacting with people of DIFFERENT ages (which high school and college both prevent them from doing), and not going through the busywork pretend-responsibility of "getting good grades," which most schools have dumbed down to the point of irrelevancy. If your kid has any sense at all, he or she already knows this.
Get them out of the nest sooner - it's all this overprotectiveness that is making them irresponsible, immature, and unable to cope in the first place. We keep kids sheltered in high school and college for too long as it is - neither of which bears any resemblance to living in the real world whatsoever. Besides, they will have a lot less free time on their hands for getting into trouble if they have a full-time job, bills to pay, and evenings full of college classes to keep them busy.
Pirate Jo at September 7, 2008 8:16 AM
...it's all this overprotectiveness that is making them irresponsible, immature, and unable to cope in the first place.
Afuckinmen to that, Pirate Jo!! I've been saying this for years too. Legally, parents are responsible for their children until they become "of age". But what about the myriad parents (my ex-in-laws included) who keep on babying and coddling and bailing out their adultchildren? I keep telling mine that no way in hell can I afford to support them the way their grandparents support their father, so they need to study hard, get good grades and get good enough jobs to be self-sufficient. It also involves cultivating a large amount of common sense, if I have to beat into their heads through the seat of their pants! o_O
Flynne at September 7, 2008 8:26 AM
Juliana - Exactly. If parents are going to be held legally and financially liable for their children and the actions those children take, then parents get to decide what is going to happen.
Amy said - At what point are they deserving of autonomy?
When they are paying their own way. Who, most likely, is going to foot the bill financially for a girl who gets pregnant before the age of 18? The parents or the taxpayers. If I'm paying for someone else to have kids, then I should damn well have a say in what happens.
I've got to agree with brian. If that was true, then we'd have been a nation of stupid women in colonial times, and the evidence just doesn't support it.
It took a couple of hundred years and the feminist movement for most of them to get to that point. :)
wolfboy69 at September 7, 2008 8:29 AM
Can you sue someone who is paying their adult child's college tuition for their adult child's acts? Does your paying their expenses past the age of 18 convey that you are still ACCEPTING responsibility for them? Have seen some litigious nonsense to that affect, wanting to sue a college student's parents for the student's actions since the parents have the cash and the kids don't, using the aforementioned "reasoning".
Here's another age-issue Catch-22: Yes, I plan to pay for my girls' college tuition, but what rights does that give me legally? None. Look at people who are suing universities for not being informed of problems their college kids are having. There's no legal recourse, but if my girls screw around in college, I will cut off their funds and pass the money on to the next sibling for educational purposes.
juliana at September 7, 2008 9:15 AM
Right on, Christina! Forcing an unwilling teenager to bear a child punishes not only said teenager but also her innocent child and society at large. Yes, I do believe it is preferable to abort a 5mm embryo than to cut short a young woman's development and for us all to deal with the repercussions of an unwanted child.
Katie Bennett at September 7, 2008 9:33 AM
If this is really an issue of parental consent over their kid's medical options, then let's look at it the other way. Childbirth carries a far higher risk of maternal morbidity and mortality than a first-trimester abortion. You'd think the emphasis would be on getting parental permission for a teenager to carry a pregnancy to term! The risks and consequences are higher. No, this is not about parental authority. This is just more of the religious among us trying to restrict abortion access, period. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Don't want your kids to have an abortion? Do a good job of teaching them your values and/or about safer sex and give them access to birth control. Or get ready to raise your grandkids just as you were ready to get a little bit of your own life back, say, by running for a high level public office.
Katie Bennett at September 7, 2008 9:40 AM
re: age-issue catch-22
At 16, kids can make the decision to drop out of high school. They are, in most states, able to get a drivers license as well. If they are adult enough to do these things with no parental choice, then how can you hold the parents liable for anything that the kids do?
Why is it that at 17 years and 364 days your are not considered an adult, but 1 day later at 18, you are? Insane.
wolfboy69 at September 7, 2008 9:53 AM
The children of politicians and anything about their lives should be COMPLETELY off limits. Absolutely. Without Question.
Today is Day #1 in a brand new federal election campaign up here in Canada. Only political insiders and reporters would remotely know the names of the children of our politicians. I believe our way is better, much better.
Robert W. at September 7, 2008 10:00 AM
Robert Wright says Palin's daughter's pregnancy is a reason to vote against her. Dr. Laura is bothered by the same thing.
Read Dr. Laura's article again, Amy. It's not the daughter's pregnancy she objects to, but the fact that Palin herself has small children--the same objection you yourself have cited. (It must have pained her greatly to write that, because in terms of policies and positions, Palin is Dr. Laura's wet dream.)
Rex Little at September 7, 2008 10:11 AM
Hi Amy.
I think the ability to produce children, which can occur for children as young as 10 these days, or actually becoming pregnant, does not correlate to being mature enough to make a good decision regarding keeping and raising that child.
Ms Palin knows her child best, and may have felt that she was not ready to decide the fate of her child.
Parental prerogatives should not be questioned by outsiders, except under special circumstances.
I believe Ms Palin is a good parent, and therefore assume she has made a decision that is very likely best for her family.
Cheers,
Bruce
Bruce at September 7, 2008 10:14 AM
> If Palin / Mccain win, all women
> will be treated like children in
> this manner. Government will be
> their parents, making this
> decision for them.
Say that again! Be scared! Worry about that, Eric! Government is going to fuck you up!
Seriously, are Julianna, Wolfboy, Momof3 and Katie Bennett and Lovelysoul the same person?
They're odorless and colorless. There may be some others who's signatures don't come to mind. (Don't take this personally if you're real.) They have details in their lives the way a politician has talking points. Sometimes they write long and sometimes they write short it's always the same voice. It's like daytime TV variety show from the 70's in Columbus or Kansas City, where the same announcer reads the viewer mail. Not a Patrick or Tressider's worth of personality in the bunch... How did Amy attract a dozen such people within a few short weeks? I'll always have doubts.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 7, 2008 10:28 AM
No crid...we're not all the same person. Sorry if I came late to the party, and have just begun to respond to things, but you have to start sometime.
Who cares if sometimes we write long posts or short. There are times when I have more to say, and time when I have less.
And I apologize if I wasn't aware that I had to meet your definition of personality to write a response. I'll make an effort to write responses that entertain everyone next time.
Have a great day.
wolfboy69 at September 7, 2008 10:53 AM
Or maybe we're all just voices in your head. Question is, is there room for one more?
Sorry Crid, couldn't resist, and must tip my hat to Despair.com for that one, it's their definition of Madness. ;)
Juliana at September 7, 2008 11:06 AM
Bristol Palin has a mind of her own . There is no reason to assume that she did not come by her own pro-life beliefs honestly, or that she let Sarah tyrannize her into keeping her child and marrying Levi.
I see the Palins as being much in the mode of Loretta Lynn, who was married at 13, had 4 kids at 17, and is a fiercely independent minded woman regardless (read "Coal Miner's Daughter" or listen to "Don't Come Home A' Drinkin' (With Lovin' on Your Mind)" or "Your Squaw is on the Warpath" if there's any doubt).
Martin at September 7, 2008 11:13 AM
Crid doesn't feel like responding to the points raised, so he's attacking the posters. Seems like I've seen that kind of behavior before.
A motivator for me to start posting after long-time lurking was to balance out the influx of troll attacks and petty bullshit. You may not like what I think or how I put it, but at least I'm not attacking the site host's gender and appearance. Just trying to engage in discussions about politics and culture with interesting people.
Katie Bennett at September 7, 2008 11:22 AM
To be fair, when Crid feels like putting his 2 cents in, I'm all ears. I may not always agree, but when he has a point to make, it's usually very well thought out and presented, intelligent, humorous, and therefore worth my time. He definitely would never insult Amy's appearance or question her gender; he genuinely respects our hostess with the mostes'. Sometimes, like the rest of us, he just loses his patience.
juliana at September 7, 2008 11:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/07/chattel_prod.html#comment-1588168">comment from wolfboy69No crid...we're not all the same person.
Sorry I'm not commenting right now, but I'm working like mad on my book, plus I'm on deadline for my column.
I do have to say that most of the commenters here today are people I've exchanged e-mail with. I know who many or even most of them are, and even what some do for a living. And they are different people!
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2008 11:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/07/chattel_prod.html#comment-1588170">comment from julianaHe can lack respect for my reasoning and judgement -- and does, from time to time -- and that's fine. And people are free to think what they will of how I look, but if the topic is, say, whether minor children close to adulthood should have autonomy over their bodies, there's no reason mine should be up for discussion.
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2008 11:38 AM
I am married and have 3 kids, and at some point on another thread, put out my autobiography in response to some dumbass thinking I spend too much time commenting and not enough parenting.
I find Crid frequently amusing and often agree with him. Oh wait, then maybe I am a voice in his head!
Anyway.....someone did a study once (can provide no more details than that, but I think it an interesting tidbit) comparing marriage certificates and birth certificates in puritan new england. Over 60% of the women back then were pregnant at their wedding, some very much so. And they were almost all teens. Yet, their decendants are all among us and at least bright enough to pass for normal. So I don't buy the diminished cognitive abilities line. An IQ point or two perhaps, at most. Whoopee. Now, in developing or 3rd world countries where nutrition is sadly lacking, maybe the baby does pll needed fat and protein from the mom at her expense. The typical teen in the US is not lacking for nutrients and to spare.
Also, obviously religious people have sex. And get preggers. The difference, then and now, is they are much more likely to marry the father, and not continue to pop out daddy-less kids. That's a bad thing why?
And I said pregnancy was a consequence of sex. Do I think a lazy stupid sullen teen should be forced to raise said kid? No. Be unselfish and give it up for adoption. Think about someone other than yourself for one tiny moment in time. There are tons of parents waiting years for a private-adoption newborn. But I must be wrong, it must be much much better to kill the baby. Hey, the teen's mom probaby should've aborted her, since she was going to grow up stupid enough to get preggers in this day and age in this country. Can we retroactively rid her mom of her little problem??
momof3 at September 7, 2008 12:20 PM
I share Cathy Seipp's views on the main issue here.
As for Dr. Laura's opinion that Palin shouldn't have run given that she has young children at home, I disagree with her (especially given the news that Todd Palin has quit his job), but at least she's being consistent with her previously stated views. Good for her. And Amy has discussed Dr. Laura approvingly before, so I'm not surprised that she's citing Dr. Laura now. What's macabrely hilarious to me is seeing the people at Dan Savage's Slog over at The Stranger's Website - people who have typically presented Dr. Laura as an agent of the devil - quote her approvingly on Sarah Palin.
As for Palin on abortion, I might be more concerned about her views if we were also facing an anti-abortion majority in Congress OR if 40 years of mostly GOP presidents with only two Democratic presidents - one for just a four-year term - in the bunch had managed to produce a Supreme Court looking to leave abortion up to the states. Neither is the case. I am willing to bet cold hard cash that the Supreme Court won't overturn Roe v. Wade in my lifetime, for various reasons, and I don't think we're going to face the prospect of an anti-abortion majority in Congress until 2012 at the very earliest (and probably not even then). Palin can oppose abortion all she wants; the likelihood of it affecting other women in a titanic way, in my opinion, is highly unlikely. In the meantime, I'm going to try to find ways to push drug companies to research and develop more innovative forms of birth control for women and men. I am more than open to suggestions on how to do so...
marion at September 7, 2008 12:28 PM
OK, now - be consistent.
If you insist that a particular public policy be made the rule, you have to be thorough.
Yes, you MUST set an age where an individual is responsible to the public for their own actions. You SHOULD drive social issues like the drinking age, weapons possession, draft eligibility, smoking age and the age of majority w/r/t contracts to the same point to avoid hypocrisy. Likewise, you SHOULD recognize that not every 12-year-old is an idiot, and not every 30-year-old can tie her shoes.
And everybody will do as they damned well please when nobody's looking. Some will be caught out by the consequences.
No, there is NO way to force immature people to forgo sex. Somebody has to be responsible.
If no one is, government will step in and do something to no one's advantage.
-----
You should set the issue of "Rights" straight in your mind right away, because no two groups of people seem to "get it". Do minors have rights? No. Their rights are an extension of the protections provided by their guardian. Unfortunately, slang has been used for decades to declare such things as "children have a right to...{shelter, not be molested, fill in blank}" - but the word is not the same.
Primarily, you must choose to exercise a right, and take on the commensurate responsibility. For a litmus test, hand someone a pistol, and ask everyone in earshot if that person is exercising a right. If it is not something you can choose to do, it is not a right.
Radwaste at September 7, 2008 12:40 PM
"Seriously, are Julianna, Wolfboy, Momof3 and Katie Bennett and Lovelysoul the same person?"
This is getting old and a little obnoxious, Crid. I am a real and separate individual from the others.
On this issue, I find it rather hypocritical that the far right thinks that I, as a parent, MUST be notified of my teen daughter's potential abortion, yet they swarm my son in his senior year of high school - at school and without my input - to get him to enlist in the military.
Why is my parental guidance suddenly so unimportant in that case?
lovelysoul at September 7, 2008 12:44 PM
See, this is about we know that Marion is a fully individuated, aspirating, flesh & blood, mammalian carbon-unit!
> Palin can oppose abortion all
> she wants; the likelihood of it
> affecting other women in a
> titanic way, in my opinion,
> is highly unlikely.
1. She's right!
> What's macabrely hilarious to
> me is seeing the people at
> Dan Savage's
2. She's interesting!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 7, 2008 1:37 PM
lovelysoul - It's not unimportant. They may swarm him to get him to enlist, but he cannot legally sign the paperwork to join the military until he is 18 (of his own choice). Before then, a parent or guardian must sign off on it -(10 U.S.C., 505), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent).
as Radwaste said - not every 12-year-old is an idiot, and not every 30-year-old can tie her shoes.
I think it depends on the individuals involved.
With the abortion issue, I would hope that a parent would want to know when something of this magnitude is happening with their daughter. I would want to be informed. And I would then want to sit down with my daughter and find out her reasoning for having an abortion.
I'm an odd mixture of pro-life/pro-choice.... I don't really agree with abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or the mother's life is at risk, but it also is the choice of that person as to what they do. With the availability of contraception nowadays, unplanned pregnancy should be very rare.
wolfboy69 at September 7, 2008 1:58 PM
Notes!
[A] That's "how we know", not "about we know"
[B] I hate Robert Wright with the scorching fire of 10,000 undying suns. When in nightmares I formulate the prototypical Liberal Who Must Be Stopped, his face appears, and he's looking at the space over my head; he in turn is dreaming of some commie paradise that everyone else should be able to see too that he just hasn't explained in enough detail for the rest of us to understand.
So I probably won't follow Amy's link. (Bloggingheads is a great little enterprise though, even if most of them are silly. Didja see the one between Kagan and Fukuyama? Shoulda been fireworks, right? Nope... Nothing but the pissy tensions of the academic lunchroom.)
But if you did follow Amy's link to bloggingheads, speak up: Is there any doubt that he'd have had a different opinion in the candidate had been Obama's pick?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 7, 2008 2:00 PM
"On this issue, I find it rather hypocritical that the far right thinks that I, as a parent, MUST be notified of my teen daughter's potential abortion, yet they swarm my son in his senior year of high school - at school and without my input - to get him to enlist in the military.
Why is my parental guidance suddenly so unimportant in that case?"
Hey, another call for consistency... umm, aside from comparing apples and oranges...
But: don't you think it's equally unjust that your daughter is not required by law to register for Selective Service - the Draft?
By the way, and veering somewhat: there's a lot worse that can happen to him than to join the Navy. There's a lot of false outrage at the idea. A lot of people cannot figure out that the reason military force is misused is because they cannot be bothered to know who their Congressmen are.
Do you hate the use of military force? Tell your damned Congresscritter what to do before she makes something up. Meanwhile, you sleep soundly because rough men stand ready on your behalf. If that changes, you can forget about sleeping any more.
Radwaste at September 7, 2008 2:35 PM
Wolfboy69, I would want to know if my daughter had an abortion too. I mean, she can't even have her tonsils out (which she did this year) without my involvement. I just find the military recruitment of my 17 yr old son behind my back to be in conflict with the conservative stand on parental input.
I've been in both camps regarding abortion. I started pro-choice, then after seeing my son on ultrasound at 13 weeks - a tiny little person with hands and feet responding to the sound waves - I began to give the idea of life much deeper consideration. Since then, I've seen many in utero photos and videos, which are amazingly clear and detailed today. At the time of Roe v Wade, we didn't have any of this visual evidence of what happens in the womb. Now that we do, I can't see how anyone can argue that an unborn child isn't a living being. The brain is formed in the first 4 weeks - before a woman usually even knows she's pregnant - then the heart starts beating. Within a few weeks, it's a miniature human being; a life.
That said, I am hesitant to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to term - especially if there are serious defects. I personally think I would abort if I knew I was carrying a Down's Syndrome child, and I had a girlfriend who made that painstaking choice.
So, I believe in abortion under certain limited circumstances, such as physical or mental defects. Yet, I don't really believe rape or incest qualifies. In my opinion, those situations do not justify ending the life of an innocent, healthy fetus. If the mother can't emotionally bear to raise the child, there is always adoption. If I was raped and became pregnant, I wouldn't blame the child for that event.
And I'm revolted by late-term abortions. There is almost no health condition of a mother that is so life threatening that it requires a late-term or "partial birth" abortion. That is a pro-choice lie. Almost no condition requires the killing (rather than removal) of the baby in order to "save the mother". The truth is that late-term abortions are primarily given to abort defective babies or when a woman can't make up her mind early enough. They are gruesome procedures - sucking the baby's brain out of its head to collapse the skull.
I think that should never be allowed unless the child is so severely malformed that it wouldn't live long anyway, and in that event, it seems there should be more humane methods for ending its life.
lovelysoul at September 7, 2008 3:19 PM
I don't think Palin is Dr. Laura's dream girl. She's been working since her kids were little, and that's Laura's biggest objection.
And that her daughter is having a baby and getting married--well, it's not my ideal, but I'm not voting for her daughter. Nor am I voting for Obama's mama, who got knocked up by an exotic foreign student with a wife in the village back home.
Since Bristol's got younger sibs, I'm guessing that baby-sitting has been part of her life. And Palin's parents are a big part too. It takes a village, right? The Naval Observatory's a big house.
Kate at September 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Pirate Jo, I think I love you!
Yes, I see no reason why 16 year olds can't be considered "of age." It *might* be the kick in the ass some parents need to stop coddling the little shits so late, honestly. I remember thinking that the shitty job I had at 18 was nothing that I couldn't have done at 14--basically, no reason at all I couldn't have been self-supporting then, except for a bullshit, arbitrary age of majority.
Kim at September 7, 2008 4:27 PM
lovelysoul, as long as schools get federal funding, we'll always see military recruiters at high schools. I'm not really against that. Grew up around the military and joined myself. Of course, I used the G.I. Bill to go to college afterwards. Good trade off in my opinion. As long as they are straightforward about what they are doing, the schools should send a notice to parents that recruiters will be on campus on such and such a day at such and such a time. Then, no worries.
I agree on the late term issue. It seems very cruel, unnecessary and barbaric. At that point, have the child and give it up for adoption. Of course, like most other things the government gets involved with, the adoption system in this country is problematic, at best. When so many good people would like to adopt and can't, because of all the paperwork and hoops they must jump through, I'd probably head overseas like a lot of people do.
For those of the religious right who scream the loudest on this issue, I would like to be able to ask them one question. Will you take all of those kids who aren't wanted, and care and provide for them for 18 years? If you aren't willing to step up and do that, then mind your own business, and stop telling people that abortion shouldn't be an option. It might be a sin (their idea, not mine), but that is between that individual and their "Insert Deity here".
wolfboy69 at September 7, 2008 5:25 PM
So, we are into eugenics now? It's ok to abort a baby that's physically or mentally deformed? You would love your son, whom you saw alive at 13 weeks on ultrasound, less if he had a clubfoot? Or would it have to be more severe like missing a limb? Well then what about people who only want a certain gender? Does lack of a penis (or vulva, some people like me really want girls) count as physical deformity? When does it end? Yes, I would give birth to a down syndrome baby. Except I don't bother to get the in-utero tests, because nothing they test for can be treated in-utero, and nothing would ever cause me to have an abortion.
And I came within minutes, maybe seconds, of stroking out and dying with my last baby. I had severe sudden-onset preeclampsia, my BP-the last I saw it before I was out cold-was 265/187. So I think I have a pretty good handle on the having-this-baby-could-kill-you issue too and I would never, repeat out loud never, kill my kid to save my own life. Talk about selfish. If I needed a new heart, I would not walk into my daughter's room and blow her brains out for hers. Why is it different when the baby is unborn? Because other's can't see it?
And yes, there are some conditions that cause the baby to live a short, painful life. But you know what? There are pain medicines, and it's amazing how much pain can be soothed by snuggling to mommy's warm boob. Do you think literally being ripped limb from limb is less painful for that baby? Less painful for the mother, sure, she doesn't have to see it. Again, selfish. I've seen 24 week babies, 23 week babies, 22 week babies, and 21 week babies in the NICU, and you better believe they can feel pain. In the NICU, they do things to ease it. An abortionist does no such thing.
Yes, I think women should have to register for the draft. I think women should be in combat, provided they pass the same physical tests men do.
In closing-it's late and I ran a $40,000 charity fundraiser this weekend-you were you the moment your DNA was made (sperm and egg met)The fact that you like opera and hate eggs and have big protruding ears was there, then. I know of no other way to define the start of life. So if killing you then is between you and your deity, then me killing you now should be as well. Except it's not. Society has said I can't infringe upon your basic right to life and there are consequences if I do. The same should be said for unborn babies. Because yes, having that baby and then giving it up for adoption is a pain and cramps your style. Shitty drivers are a pain and cramp my style, but I can't kill them.
momof3 at September 7, 2008 7:24 PM
Do you suppose the father of the child could sue the grandparents for loss of income if they preveted the abortion?
And momof3 human life is only more valubale than anmial and plant life inso much as the human in question functions properly.
I have no qualms about killing an animal in pain - a few years ago the neihbors dog ripped up a few of my goats - they would have died naturally within a few minutes or hours. Why give them morphine when I could just end it quickly and cleanly?
A severly deformed human has no natural chance for survival - they get warehoused and people are paid with tax dollars to take care of them. Given the number of probelm our pecies faces we could put those funds to fare better use than keeping natures' mistakes alive
lujlp at September 7, 2008 8:00 PM
Momof3, I think you are taking this topic to a new level that no one went to. No one said that abortion of a baby because it's not the gender you want it to be was right. This was never even touched upon. You think it's even wrong or selfish to abort a child that has Down syndrome, but I think people like you are the selfish ones. You don't think of the hardships and struggling life style that child will have. You really are telling me that you rather have a child that will be prone to congenital heart disease (typically a ventricular septal defect), hearing deficits (maybe due to sensory-neural factors, or chronic serous otitis media, thyroid disorders, and Alzheimer's disease, other less common serious illnesses include leukemia, immune deficiencies, and epilepsy.
I would rather give birth to a child that will live a happy life as much as possible. I would never put my child through that hardship on purpose because I didn't want to give it up. As a parent your obligation is to provide for that child and teach it to thrive in this world. Guess what, Down syndrome children have a harder time in accomplishing that if they even can.
There have been those few success stories where children with Down syndrome lead a semi-normal life. This is not a guarantee for all of Down syndrome children. Their life expectancy is also mostly only into their 40's or 50's. As they also often encounter patronizing attitudes and discrimination in the wider community. I am not saying this is right but I am also a realist that this is the type of society we live in. As much as people wan to deny it or act like we have evolved so much. It is still in our nature to believe in the survival of the fittest.
The part I find funny most of all. Is that you would actually want a woman to give her child up for adoption rather than have an abortion, but yet you believe killing a baby is wrong. Didn't realize that abandoning your child was better. You can say all you want that someone will adopt that child and give it a home but how many children do we now have in orphanage homes still needing that home. This country makes you jump through so many hoops in order to adopt a child it's not even funny. I say for people like you that scream so much against abortion and rather have children given up for adoption, why don't you get up and adopt a lot of these kids. Don't preach if you don't intend to do anything about it.
Realist at September 7, 2008 8:13 PM
*sigh* And so the hysteria begins. I love the uterine root of the word 'hysteria'. I don't think this is what the Greeks were referring to when they suggested uteri as the sources of insanity, but if the shoe fits...!
Katie Bennett at September 7, 2008 8:26 PM
Realist - AWESOME....couldn't put it any better.
wolfboy69 at September 7, 2008 8:33 PM
"Do you suppose the father of the child could sue the grandparents for loss of income if they preveted the abortion?"
No, because he irresponsibly made the baby, not the grandparents. But your question brings up a scenario I have often wondered about concerning abortion.
What if a woman, on her way to an abortion clinic, gets into an accident and is rushed to the hospital? They save her baby, as premature as it may be, because that is what doctors are sworn to do. They don't ask the mother, "Do you want this baby?" So, can she sue? Was her right to choose denied?
This is one of the inconsistencies I see that could easily challenge "Roe". We are already treating the unborn in separate and unequal ways under the law. One 21 week old fetus can be aborted at the mother's whim, while another 21 week old fetus is saved at all costs by modern medicine.
In some states, murderers are charged with double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman, but should it really count if the mother had the right to abort the child anyway?
Our laws regarding the unborn make absolutely no sense. We either have to say, at a certain point of viability, that this is a citizen with equal protections under the law or it isn't.
I would be ok with a cut-off point like that, and I think most moderates would be. You'll never please the "life begins at conception" crowd, but a point of viability standard seems reasonable and would perhaps prevent legal challenges that could wipe out "Roe" completely.
My personal choice regarding not having a severely deformed or mentally-challenged child is because I grew up with two of them. My parents adopted me and two mentally-challenged boys. I've seen the drain on family resources and the pain of caring for a disabled child. Not everyone can do it, and I can't. I'm just being honest. And if I can't, I wouldn't feel right about passing that burden onto someone else or expecting the taxpayors to bear the costs of that child's care.
lovelysoul at September 7, 2008 8:55 PM
Amy:
Saleton, who I read often and whose writing I generally like, has waltzed right past the primary point without even noticing it go by. You follow right behind. Along the way, you both also make, by omission, an implicit assumption that is completely wrong.
(In the following, keep in mind that I Am Not A Christian, although I know some who are, and also that I Am Not A Woman, although I know some who are. Also, I am pro-choice.)
First, the point: The Mr. & Mrs. Palin have a strong moral attitude towards life and abortion. That I, or you, do not share that attitude does not mean we can avoid its implications in their lives. For them, life begins at conception, and any human action to end it constitutes murder. Abortion, even of a blastocyst, is murder, pure and simple.
This is not the thread to debate the advisability of this moral decision, or some very real contradictions in practice.
However, this is very much the place to discuss the consequences of that moral decision.
First, for Christians, moral decisions do not become optional simply because their consequences are inconvenient, or even life changing. Second, that means that so long as Bristol is a dependent, and her parents are not Christians of convenience, then there is simply no discussion, regardless of all the harrowing statistics surrounding teen pregnancies. For true Christians -- and, I suspect all truly moral people -- moral decisions are not in thrall to the difficulty of their consequences.
I doubt Mr. Saleton even once acknowledged this aspect of the Palin's moral life, which is surpassing odd considering how central it obviously is. Typical of a liberal, but that is a topic for another thread.
The second is the implicit, but far from acknowledge, position in this statement:
The more profoundly a decision affects a girl's future, the more vital it is that no one, even her parents, be authorized to veto it. And nothing short of death alters a person's life more profoundly than bringing a child into the world.
Can you see what the assumption is?
That of the three options on offer -- abortion, adoption, and keeping the baby -- the assumption is that abortion does not constitute a death, and that death will not profoundly alter the mother's life.
Now, as mentioned above, IANAW. However, I happen to know some people who are. One of them is my 15-yr old daughter. In her world, the angels shed a tear whenever a kitten is hurt. There is simply no way, should she become a teen pregnancy statistic, that she could have an abortion and not carry that with her for the rest of her life. It might be the most convenient decision, but that sure as heck does not mean it comes without profound costs.
All the options facing a pregnant teen are bad; all are likely to be emotionally scarring -- for life. Pretending that one is not is simply nonsense. (Since IANAW, nearly everything women do leaves me in a pretty constant state of astonishment, but the obvious failure of girls and young women to take this glaringly obvious -- and existentially central -- fact on board cranks the astonishment level right up to 11.)
As a consequence of missing the fundamental point, and making an unwarranted assumption, Mr. Saleton's conclusion is fatally holed below the water line.
As a society, we must make laws that define one thing from another, even where the boundary may not be terribly clear. Our society defines adulthood as starting at 18. Consequently, a young woman, Bristol in this case, is simply not a moral agent: she does not get to make moral decisions that contradict those of her parents.
Perhaps he would see this more clearly if the shoe was to be shifted to another foot. Do the young man's parents get to make a decision about whether he must -- not should, must -- marry Bristol?
Allowing Bristol to have an abortion would make a mockery of the moral instruction her parents have provided her. Citing inconvenient statistics changes that not one whit. Pretending that an abortion makes the problem go away is staggering nonsense, no matter one's view on abortion's moral considerations, and succeeds only in objectifying women.
So, instead of describing how certain actions -- in this case, pre-marital sex -- can have inescapable life altering consequences, and that stories such as this underline that point, Saleton creates a new victim class; somehow, I doubt he is a parent.
If one wanted to find the shortcomings of the liberal outlook, there is no need to search any further than this.
What surprises me, Amy, is your following his lead.
Hey Skipper at September 8, 2008 12:20 AM
You sure your not a christian skipper, or some other religion at least?
"Allowing Bristol to have an abortion would make a mockery of the moral instruction her parents have provided her"
Abortion denied on grounds that it would embarass religious athority?? - If one wanted to find the shortcomings of the religious consevitve outlook, there is no need to such any further than that.
lujlp at September 8, 2008 2:19 AM
> Abortion denied on grounds that
> it would embarass religious
> athority??
No; that it would "make a mockery of the moral instruction her parents have provided".
It's not the same thing.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 8, 2008 3:19 AM
Sorry Crid, but given that the Palins' morality is dependant upon their religion it is the same thing
lujlp at September 8, 2008 4:38 AM
Viability changes. In my rather short lifetime it's gone from 32 weeks to 21 weeks in some cases. So, do we change the law as medicine changes? Seems hypocritical, as nothing about the baby itself has changed. So how does that ratonally work?
And yes, there are lots of kids in "orphanages" and waiting for adoption. All of them were taken from their parents at a later age, not given up at birth. Many many mnay of them were abused and have serious problems. There is no such thing as a newborn who's mom knows she is going to give him up for adoption who can't be placed immediately. Also, many of the kids in foster care can not be adopted. Their parent's rights have not been terminated and they are in limbo. So yes, you can argue that those kids should have been aborted (maybe you should have been? Who knows? Did you drain your parent's money, time, and resources? Bet so.)But I bet the kids themselves would not agree. And I am very pro-birth control, and think the state should have a right to sterilize those who's children have been removed from them for abuse etc, and also people on welfare. You can't take care of or afford the one's you've got, you should not be able to have more.
You would seriously say a hearing impairment or heart disease is grounds for a kid not having a life? Wow. I bet the hundreds of thousands of deaf people in the US right now would be thrilled to know you think they'd be better off dead. Not to mention those who eventually suffer heart disease, which is, by the way, almost everyone in the US.
Adoption is not abandoning your child, it's giving it a better life. That's worse than death how? Do you even know how adoption works?
My point on gender being a physical deformity is that if you say it's ok for parents to abort a kid because it's deformed and they don't want to deal with that really is the same as it being a certain gender and they don't want to deal with that. Which happens all the time, by the way. It's not just China doing it. And really, if you're pro-choice, you're pro-choise, and it is ok to abort on gender or any other reason. Either it's the moms decision period, or it's not.
I'll stop responding to this thread now as yeah, we're never going to change each other's mind. But I am not hysterical, or being hysterical. Merely quite logically stating my personal views on the subject of this thread. I am also all for gay marriage. I'm not exactly a super-righty. I have voted democrat since i was 18, until now. That was in spite of the pro-choice topic.
momof3 at September 8, 2008 5:22 AM
momof3 you are either being hysterical or just plain lying.
No one said anything about aborting the deaf, the guy was listing problems associated with down syndrome
lujlp at September 8, 2008 5:56 AM
"So yes, you can argue that those kids should have been aborted (maybe you should have been? Who knows? Did you drain your parent's money, time, and resources? Bet so.)"
Only until I became an adult. Not until now, when my parents are in their 70s and STILL dealing with his care (my other brother died at age 17). My remaining brother is now 43, in and of mental hospitals, and on many medications. He has the mental capacities of a third grader.
So, I define a severe physical or mental deformity as one that would require that sort of lifetime care. Not deafness or gender!
I am talking about SEVERE deformities and mental challenges that drastically effect quality of life, not just for the parents but the child. I see how much my brother suffers.
And there are not adoptive parents lined up just begging for a mentally-retarded or crippled child.
Momof3, I tend to agree with you that life begins at conception, and I was very involved with the whole pro-life movement through my church for awhile. But I never saw any of those christian families actually adopt any mentally or physically challenged child. They were too busy having babies of their own -the "Quiverful" movement - which is fine, but very few are adopting.
One lady adopted a lovely little girl from China, but I didn't see any if them take on a mentally-retarded child. I doubt you would ADOPT one either - any more than I would. Let's just be honest. We talk about it as something OTHER people should do.
And I just decided that was an unreasonable part of my pro-life position - to mandate that sort of sacrifice and burden on other people.
Viability can only reach a certain level. It's not going to be within the first trimester unless we invent an artificial womb...which they are working on. Now, THAT will change the whole debate! If a woman doesn't have to carry a child in her body to term, does she still get to determine its fate?
I believe what we will ultimately see is that killing an unborn child will be deemed inappropriate and barbaric. But allowances will also be made for severe defects that would result in long-term burdens on the parents or the state.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 6:30 AM
"momof3 you are either being hysterical or just plain lying.
No one said anything about aborting the deaf, the guy was listing problems associated with down syndrome"
Yes, he was listing hearing problems, and the heart disease that's waiting for us all, as reasons down syndome people have no quality of life and should be aborted. That was quite clear. No lying. No hysteria.
momof3 at September 8, 2008 6:57 AM
You DID suggest, momof3, that it would be murderous to terminate a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother. If every embryo is sacred, I guess we need to stop terminating ectopic pregnancies. And if a mother is diagnosed with cancer in the first trimester, she's just going to have to sit out the pregnancy and get chemo postpartum (if she's still alive that is). Otherwise she might as well chloroform a 4 year old and leave her in her trunk, right? How about an epileptic who gets pregnant unplanned and faces going off her anti-seizure meds, or giving birth to a baby with massive neural-tube defects? Ever seen a newborn whose mom was on Depakote? That's a prime adoption candidate, let me tell you.
You can point to these as rare exceptions, but there's a million of them. Some women are not physically or emotionally prepared to become mothers. No one should force them.
Katie Bennett at September 8, 2008 7:15 AM
Katie, I don't think Momof3 said that. She said she almost died in childbirth, but she would never take her baby's life to save her own.
There really is no reason to kill a baby late-term to save a mother's life. Even in distress situations, a baby can be quickly and easily removed by C-section.
This "life-threatening condition" is merely rhetoric that the pro-choice movement uses. It's tactical but not factual.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 7:29 AM
It's rhetorical and tactical until it's you, lovelysoul. It's rare, but unfortunately factual. Hydrocephaly (brain development is limited and the fetus's head fills with fluid, making it balloon much larger than it normally would) is a prime example. You are more likely to develop pre-eclampsia if you are pregnant with a hydrocephalic fetus, the large diameter of the head makes normal vaginal delivery dangerous, the condition is incompatible with life, and c-section is riskier for the mother's health and future fertility. Why should we ban this procedure because of this fantasy that women in their 8th month of pregnancy are skipping out for abortions in droves just for the hell of it?
Here's a JAMA paper on the subject:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/747
"Illnesses of women and fetal anomalies lead to requests for late abortions. Late abortion can be lifesaving for women with medical disorders aggravated by pregnancy.17 Conditions such as Eisenmenger syndrome carry a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, the latter ranging from 20% to 30%.18 In recent years, I have performed late abortions for a Kampuchean refugee with craniopagus conjoined twins and a 25-year-old woman with a 9 x 15-cm thoracic aortic aneurysm from newly diagnosed Marfan syndrome. Cancer sometimes makes late abortion necessary. For example, either radical hysterectomy or radiation therapy for cervical cancer before fetal viability involves abortion.
Incest and rape are other compelling indications. Pregnancies resulting from incest among young teenagers or among women with mental handicaps may escape detection until the pregnancy is advanced. Approximately 32000 pregnancies result from rape each year in the United States; about half of rape victims receive no medical attention, and about one third do not discover the pregnancy until the second trimester.19"
It'd be wonderful if this WAS rhetorical, but it's reality nonetheless.
Katie Bennett at September 8, 2008 8:22 AM
Thank you lovelysoul for reading me right. I said I would never kill my kid to save myself. In the womb or out. Cervical cancer or no. Dangerous to deliver or no. And I find it very hard to wrap my head around the fact that there are moms who place their life above their kids lives. Even lesser mammals don't do that. Heck, even a lot of reptiles will die to save their young. Shouldn't we be a bit above them in standards of parental care?
At my second ultrasound, I was told my twins were conjoined. They weren't, thank god, but I would not have aborted anyway. They were monoamniotic. I was offered a procedure to clamp one's umbilical cord to give the other a better chance to live. I would no more do that than I would strangle one now so the other could have her liver. Unfathomable to me. They are super-healthy school-going happy bright little girls now, and both are irreplacable.
And I'm sorry, but if a person doesn't know they are pregnant until the second trimester, they are stupid. Rape or no.
momof3 at September 8, 2008 8:35 AM
"C-section is riskier for the mother's health and future fertility". That may be true, but I had one with my first child, then a vaginal delivery with the second. As I'm sure you know, C-sections are very common. Many women routinely choose them over vaginal deliveries now.
If it's for treatment of cancer or some other medical emergency before viability, I agree. Ectopic pregnancies, of course. Serious fetal anomalies, yes - that's what I've been arguing. But if there is a HEALTHY and VIABLE fetus, why should it be killed? You haven't answered that.
Incest and rape, and lack of knowledge of being pregnant, doesn't rate as justifiable reasons to kill an otherwise viable and healthy child if it can be delivered by C-section.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 8:35 AM
...or not just delivered by C-section...naturally too. That was the wrong wording. Rape and incest just don't cut it for me. Yes, it's tragic, but why double the tragedy by killing an innocent and healthy child?
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 8:39 AM
Yes, c-sections are very common now... way too common in our country. They carry with them the following risks:
Higher risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancy
Higher risk of placenta acreta (placenta growing into the uterine wall), previa (growing over the cervix), and abruption (placenta detaching from the uterus prenatally)
Higher risk of unexplained late-term fetal demise in subsequent pregnancies
Higher risk of maternal hemorrhage, infection, death
Risk of damage to abdominal organs
Risk of uterine rupture in following pregnancies and births
Longer and more painful recovery time- a matter of weeks not days
Higher rate of secondary infertility
Again, rare and hypothetical until it's you. C-sections aren't the wisdom-tooth removals that many OB's portray them to be.
I am against elective late-term abortions, but would rather leave it to women and their health care providers to determine what's elective and what's not. I think legislators defining it for us is patronizing and runs the risk of letting women who legitimately need the procedure done fall through the cracks.
Katie Bennett at September 8, 2008 9:00 AM
If there was a pre-natal test for autism, I wonder what people would do? There's a lot of buzz about being "neurotypical" and "what we can learn from the autistic", and while I have no strong opinion, I wonder how the media classes would react?
Kate at September 8, 2008 9:15 AM
Yes, it's tragic, but why double the tragedy by killing an innocent and healthy child?
So where do you draw the line - at the adult woman who was raped on the way home from a bar, or the 12-year-old raped by her uncle? How does the trauma of that one act get shoved aside and justify forcing the woman or child to go through with a pregnancy of "an innocent and healthy child", only to create another just-as-real trauma? To go through all that a pregnancy entails, from the bodily and hormonal changes to the emotional changes, as a result of rape, something that wasn't wanted and was forced on you, and then to be told you MUST go through with the pregnancy and MUST bear the child, and give it up for adoption just so someone else can have a baby? You don't know how much MORE trauma that can cause somebody, but that's okay, because saving the BABY is more important than the mother's emotional well-being?
Flynne at September 8, 2008 9:17 AM
Flynne, I draw the line at the point of viability. It's not really my personal conviction regarding when life begins, but as I said, I don't agree with forcing that belief on others. There is still reasonable doubt on that. So, if a girl who was raped or molested wants to terminate her pregnancy in the first or early second trimester, I think she should have that choice.
There has to be some responsibility on the part of the mother to be aware of her pregnancy. I don't find it a credible excuse to say you don't know you're pregnant until you're late-term.
By late in a pregnancy, certainly by the last trimester, when the unborn child is viable and healthy, I honestly believe we have to consider it murder. And murder shouldn't be allowed just for a mother's "emotional well-being".
I mean, it gets down to whether you consider it a life at that point or not, and I think science is solidly on the side of life. So, if it's a life, the consequences of having that child exist are the same as having any other child exist. I mean, I may feel it's tough circumstances for a poor woman to have 6 kids, but I don't remedy that situation by eliminating one of her children.
As a civilized society, we should address those unfortunate circumstances with other remedies, not murder.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 10:08 AM
Katie Bennett, I appreciate all those risks involving C-sections that you've detailed, but as you say, they are rare. And aren't many of the same risks associated with abortion? Especially multiple abortions?
I, too, hate to have it legislated. The government tends to screw everything up. I fear there would be cases when a mother might be denied an abortion that was truly necessary, such as when she needed cancer treatments. Or that the choice to abort when there are major fetal anomalies would be denied.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but pre-natal tests are pretty obsolete and often false - just like what Momof3 experienced when they said her twins were conjoined. I believe often you are just given a percentage of risk...like 60% chance your child has such and such.
I would find it hard to abort under those circumstances, and I probably wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't in the case of autism, which is a broad spectrum disorder. You can't possibly know prenatally how seriously autistic or impaired your child would be.
(Sigh)...this is a very complicated issue, but I think both sides make the mistake of seeing it as "all or nothing". Pro-life supporters think zygotes should be treated as human beings, and pro-choice supporters think they must argue for partial-birth abortions, even of healthy children.
Both positions are motivated by the fear that cracking the door open to any compromise will lead to the floodgates breaking wide open in the wrong direction.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 10:31 AM
Incest and rape, and lack of knowledge of being pregnant, doesn't rate as justifiable reasons to kill an otherwise viable and healthy child if it can be delivered by C-section.
lovelysoul - on the lack of knowledge, I would agree...but if it's rape or incest, we are likely to disagree...it does seem to be punishing the victim twice.
Flynne, that having been said, if they have carried it to viability, then I would say they have made the choice to have the child, and would agree that giving it up for adoption is the way to go. If it is within the first 2-3 months, we are in agreement.
IMO, these types of situations would need to be handled on a case by case situation. But if you've waited long enough for the baby to be viable, suddenly changing your mind is reprehensible.
wolfboy69 at September 8, 2008 10:44 AM
Wow! What an interesting thread and debate with good points all around. Well, for my two cents worth -- as a mother, grandmother and daughter.
Hey skipper, got to say I know exactly what you mean -- always felt the same way about my daughter, that she could never live with having had an abortion -- but you rather make the case for choice rather than against it for the pregnant minor. In other words, take said child who would choose to have it with a parent who would say you're too young, abort. It works both ways.
Now my daughter, no way could she have lived with an abortion -- but me, in a heartbeat. In fact, the second I gave birth to her I knew that if I ever got pregnant again, I'd have an abortion. Point blank. And, if a teen daughter decides she can't do that -- point blank, go stand on your own two damned feet. It's your child. Not your parents. You -- not they -- are responsible for it and it would be grossly unfair to make them responsible for the consequences of you having sex.
And don't get me started on the move to lock up parents' for their children's crimes! Fucking A! That just ain't right -- whether they tried to teach their offspring right from wrong or not. As has been stated here, no one has 100% control over another human being. The one who does the crime should do the time. Unless you have proof they actually forced the kid to do it.
momof3, get real. Maybe you don't understand how someone would choose her own life over another human being's that doesn't even exist yet. (And no they are not a human being at conception! They may or may not develop into one but they aren't yet.) Frankly, I don't understand how you could not. Maybe I just want to live more than you and believe me, my life has been no bowl of cherries.
I was against abortion -- until I gave birth. In other words, I was against abortion when I was ignorant. Then I gave birth to a 9 lb 14 1/2 oz baby enduring 5 days all told of labor pains and a blood transfusion as a result. It was fucking hell on earth! I was agnostic at the time and still thought this is what hell is. NO ONE, repeat NO ONE should ever have to go through that for a baby they don't want -- their fault they got knocked up or not. Only goes double, triple, for someone (read rape, incest, etc.) whose fault it isn't.
As for late-term, no, but there should be an exception for baby or mama's health. I've read horror stories about women whose babies died in vitro who were denied late-term abortions. And as Katie states above. You can't just put a blanket they should know within three months and ignore the fact that sometimes the health problems arise later than that.
As for all the silly -- and I do mean silly -- maybe your mother should have aborted you:
A) Can you get any more grade school? This is rather I'm rubber, you're glue ridiculous.
B) Who says she shouldn't have. I have shouted this very thing at anti-abortion protesters. My religious nut of a mother had 8 children in 10 years because Gawd wanted that for her or something. Both my parents shouldn't have had one child let alone 8. My mother bore me to beat me, to have my father beat me, to have the sister whose care she left me in beat me, she bore me to a lifetime of poverty (the older and wiser I get the more I see I was screwed from the moment I was conceived out of "wifely duty".) 50 1/2 years old and I still have emotional scars I will never get over. Fucking A better believe it -- yep, my mother should have had an abortion. 8 of them to be precise.
Oh, and if you want to go calling a fetus a person, when do we start charging women who miscarry with negligent homicide? My mother had one of those too. My aunt only had 3 instead of 8 like my mother because she had 5 miscarriages. Even when our cousins and us were little we recognize they were middle-classed to our poor because of this. Being kids, we were free to not only recognize that harsh fact but voice aloud to one another.
Imagine that.
And, yep, before anyone accuses me of it, I freely admit there's a ton of anger and bitterness in this post. Emotional baggage because I would have been better off being an abortion.
T's Grammy at September 8, 2008 10:52 AM
Whoops! Just to clarify, my daughter was 20 when T was born -- not a teen. Just realized it kinda sounded that she was a teen mother. Not quite. ;)
T's Grammy at September 8, 2008 10:58 AM
> Don't want an abortion?
> Don't have one.
Aw c'mon, Katie, make some more jokes about yourself being a baby-killer. Those were more persuasive!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 8, 2008 11:02 AM
momof3, no, women who are "surprised" with a pregnancy in the second or third trimester are often not stupid, but do tend to have psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia and psychosis. Just who we want to be forced into childbirth and parenthood!
lovelysoul, the tests are definitely not 100%accurate... That's why several different tests are run when a pos. results get back. If the blood test ("quad screen") comes back with a suspicious result, a chorionic villus sampling, an ultrasound and an amnio can be done. That's one reason for the existence of second trimester abortions- amnio for example can't be done until week 14-18. So you might not confirm existence of an anomaly until later in the pregnancy.
Crid, joking aside, I save the word "babykiller" for people like the father of the baby of a 15 year old teen mother I know. The court required her to leave the 2 month old with this teen father, for visitation. The father and one of his cousins beat the child to death. That my friend, is a babykiller, and children of teenaged parents are more vulnerable to them.
Katie Bennett at September 8, 2008 11:41 AM
1) For all you "anyone who doesn't know they're pregnant and needs a late-term abortion is an idiot" etc, folks... well, that's easy to *say*. My sister, back in the 60s, had a suspicion she might be pregnant, despite continuing to have her period, I'll add, and took two tests - one from the pharmacy, and one from the doctor. Both showed her as not pregnant. Between that and her period, she was pretty confident. So when February rolled around and her belly suddenly went "poing!" and the period stopped, they discovered her to be a good 6 months along. You bet everyone was plenty surprised. Now, in her case she was delighted to be pregnant, but that's just luck of the draw.
2) As for viability, I, personally, only consider a fetus to be viable if it could live without vast medical intervention. But that may just be me.
2a) I rather like the ol' spiel about fetuses being, essentially, parasites. And me, as host, making the rules. But if we drop the provocative word "parasite", even, and call it "precious baby", there are things that still don't fly. We don't mandate blood or organ donation, which kills tons of people every year. You have the right to say "no, I'm not going to donate my liver to this person" even if it means they'll die. I should have the right to say "no, I'm not going to rent my body to this precious baby" even if it means it'll die.
3) Great for the folks who'd rather die than sacrifice a fetus/baby. If leaving any other kids you have motherless (or orphans, in some case) and in the care of who-knows-who is to your tastes, that's awesome. Me? Sorry, my kids on the hoof need me, and if a hypothetical fetus seriously risked my life, it'd have to go.
Eileen at September 8, 2008 12:29 PM
> joking aside, I save the word
> "babykiller"
No, don't be bashful. Like too many on the left, you do too much condescending to pretend it's not a big part of your worldview.
Cute anecdote, though.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 8, 2008 1:48 PM
"If you don't know you're pregnant, you're stupid."
HA! So in that case, procreate away!
Eileen - I'm so with you on the 3rd point. Actually, on all points, but especially the 3rd. The reason, Momof3, that you're coming off as hysterical is because you seem to be so focused on "LIFE FOR BABIEEESSS!" that you don't take anything rational into consideration. Yes, you go ahead and die for that baby, and hope the rest of us will be around to help whoever's left raise and pay for them.
People that will die for their beliefs, absolutely, no matter what, aren't martyrs or heroes. They're idiots.
Christina at September 8, 2008 2:23 PM
Oh, and Crid - you're grumpy today. Fed up at last? Don't let the fembots get you down!
Christina at September 8, 2008 2:25 PM
They're not idiots. They are actually right. Science supports them, but you don't want to know the truth. What we're talking about is LIFE. You can choose to believe that or not, but defy the science - I
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 2:29 PM
dare you.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 2:33 PM
Yes, indeed, LIFE.
The life of a mother, who already has kids and a family. She should die rather than a not-born?
I believe that the Jewish faith, which does not approve of abortion, has taken the position that the fetus/embryo/almost-born/whatever should be sacrificed for the life of the mother. Because the mother has responsibilities to her family, and a life of her own.
If it's an either/or thing, how can that answer not be obvious.
Oh, and your overdramatic hand-wringing is embarrassing. If you were in front of me, I'd blush for you.
Christina at September 8, 2008 2:40 PM
After all this, I'm still sure that those who would back their minor child deciding to carry to term, insisting that it's her body and her choice, would pitch a fit if the girl decided to abort.
A lot of this issue is about telling others what to do, even when it means forcing diseased, incompetent and even evil people to give birth. What, again, about that is a good idea?
I suggest that both sides act is if the issue were totally lost. Pro-abortion? Continue with promoting contraception. Abortion's not really a "win" for anybody; if you got one, you made a mistake, and in one way or another, you pay for it. Pro-"life"? Quit acting like sex is dirty and haranguing the young about it and promote a healthy life. You should be pushing contraception, too. At the same time you should welcome gays, who don't have this problem at all!
Radwaste at September 8, 2008 3:02 PM
Well, I'm sorry you would "blush" for me, but that doesn't make it right. It may be "inconvenient" but it doesn't make the killing of an innocent, viable life less wrong. Just because you're Jewish, which I am partially (biologically), doesn't make it right. Use your logic - this is a LIFE. We're not sacrificing it for the life of the mother....how RARE is that? We should not condone the killing of an innocent, healthy baby. There are very few reasons for that.
But I guess Jews can justify anything after the persecution of Palestine. An unborn child is nothing compared to what you have put innocent Palestinean children through. Despite your own persecution for centuries, you justify that sort of persecution, much less killing the unborn. It's nothing to you.
Well, it is a life. Prove to me it isn't. And then, tell me why you should be allowed to end a healthy, viable life. For what reason?
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 3:04 PM
HA! It gets better. I'm not Jewish. Reading comprehension, dear. Do try to calm down.
I was responding to Momof3's assertion that she would rather die than abort, in any circumstances. I was not debating you on abortion. You are clearly not open for reasoned debate on that issue.
I wouldn't blush for you about your position, though I do think you're wrong. I would blush for you that you're hyperventilating, clearly not reading closely, and embarrassing yourself by working yourself into a fit. It's rather like when a child throws a tantrum and goes swinging wildly and an adult just holds them at arms length and waits for them to tire.
Christina at September 8, 2008 3:22 PM
Philosophy and current medical/scientific opinion on when human life begins (Cliffnotes verstion):
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
Scientific data only goes so far in this debate, the "answer" depends on your worldview. If you say Judeo-Christian you have to specify the century! Good reading.
Um, unless you're looking for flame-fuel, come here for that:
http://www.zazzle.com/pd/find/qs-anti-abortion?pg=2
It's catchier.
Katie Bennett at September 8, 2008 3:45 PM
Those considerations are way outdated, Katie Bennett. Now, we can measure brain activity in unborn children. If you and I were in an accident and emergency doctors measured our brain activity, and they saw we had the same brain activity as a 6 month old fetus, we would be considered "alive" as opposed to "drain dead". In other words, we would be considered salvageable, and they would take all life-saving measures. That's good enough for me...especially considering that an unborn child would only have the potential for MORE brain growth, whereas we might not.
We had had none of these measurements in the past. Now, it is clear and scientific. We have a fiberoptic view into the womb. The science is conclusive. An unborn child meets all our legal criteria for life, any way you define it. That debate is over.
Let's have a new debate over what we do about it.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 5:06 PM
"The life of a mother, who already has kids and a family. She should die rather than a not-born?"
No, but there's no reason she should have to die. That is purely pro-choice rhetoric. There are very few maternal conditions that require that we suck out a healthy baby's brain to collapse its skull and kill it in a brutal, painful, and barbaric way to save the life of the mother. Even Katie Bennett hasn't named one. She only states that a C-section - which would remove that healthy baby ALIVE - would add some slight risks to the mother. So, in the pro-choice view, we KILL the baby to prevent even the slightest risk or inconvenience to the mother...even though in most cases the mother created this life by her own irresponsible behavior. That is wrong.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 5:19 PM
I agree with Skipper. Having an abortion is a horrible decision to make. It definitely lingers in the psyche long afterwards. I am definitely pro-choice because I do not have the right to tell anyone what they should do with their bodies. If I am ever pregnant unexpectedly, I would probably keep the baby, but I might not. In my mind, the government forbidding me from having an abortion would be like me telling momof3 what decisions to make when she was pregnant with her twins and expecting her to abide by them. Utterly ridiculous and none of my business.
Amy K. at September 8, 2008 7:03 PM
So, in the pro-choice view, we KILL the baby to prevent even the slightest risk or inconvenience to the mother...even though in most cases the mother created this life by her own irresponsible behavior. That is wrong.
That would be the anti-choice view of the pro-choice view. The pro-choice view is we don't interfere with the doctor/patient relationship and let them consider the risks and benefits of continuing or terminating the pregnancy. That is right. (And I'm so extreme and out there, I think the mother's life should be given more weight even if she's got NO other kids! Purely on her own merits as an extra-uterine, fully developed human being!)
Katie Bennett at September 8, 2008 7:28 PM
Yeah, and how many times does the doctor say to the mom, "I know you want to terminate this pregnancy, but there's no reason you need to kill the baby"? Honestly, how often have you seen that happen? It's just a way to hide the baby's murder behind a "doctor/patient relationship". We all know that. If a mother wants to abort, she can just shop around until she finds a doctor willing to condone that. It doesn't mean taking that baby's life is really medically necessary. You know that too. Please, let's deal with truth not hide behind that sort of subterfuge.
lovelysoul at September 8, 2008 7:38 PM
“There is no such thing as a newborn who's mom knows she is going to give him up for adoption who can't be placed immediately.”
This may be true for healthy babies. There are not many adoptive parents out there lining up to adopt a Down syndrome child. Many adults understand the type of commitment a special needs child requires. Not many can offer this type of commitment. Why haven’t you adopted a special needs child since your believes are so strong that even these kids should be born no matter what.
“ Also, many of the kids in foster care can not be adopted. Their parent's rights have not been terminated and they are in limbo. So yes, you can argue that those kids should have been aborted (maybe you should have been? Who knows? Did you drain your parent's money, time, and resources? Bet so.)”
Keep in mind that as a parent of a Down syndrome child you will not be the only one who’s resources are used. They will always need constant care no matter what age they are. So if they reach their 40’s and you don’t happen to be in their life anymore or your just not physically or mentally capable of giving the same amount of care. What then? Who takes care of that special needs person. They either get institutionalized or family members have to step up and take care of them. In either instance you just forced upon a person a burden they had no say in taking. If someone plans to have a child, the parents should be the sole responsible person for him or her, no one else. As they grow older they have to be responsible for themselves. It would not be fair to impose responsibilities onto others that they have no need in acquiring.
“And really, if you're pro-choice, you're pro-choise, and it is ok to abort on gender or any other reason. Either it's the moms decision period, or it's not. “
Having an abortion should be by a case by case situation, but you did touch on the ultimate point. It’s the mother’s decision if she wishes to have that child or not. Regardless of why. (Now for those fathers involved, it should be both your decisions to make) We all have choices in life we make, we just have to be responsible enough to bear with the consequences of those choices. But to actually tell someone what choice to make because of religious beliefs or because of what a person thinks is right or wrong, I don’t agree with. Would you be happy to live in a world where you were told what decisions to make instead of using your own judgment of what is right for yourself?
”I'll stop responding to this thread now as yeah, we're never going to change each other's mind.”
It should never be about trying to change any ones mind. Everyone has the right to their opinion even if others like it or not.
Realist at September 8, 2008 7:51 PM
Wow Amy, bet you never saw this coming. This has gotten quite a bit off topic. It was about at what point do you decide your own fate. Now we are off on deciding others fates before they are even born. We made the 180 degree turn so fast, I think I got whiplash.
wolfboy69 at September 8, 2008 7:59 PM
lujip:
"Allowing Bristol to have an abortion would make a mockery of the moral instruction her parents have provided her"
Abortion denied on grounds that it would embarass religious athority?? - If one wanted to find the shortcomings of the religious consevitve outlook, there is no need to such any further than that.
First of all, what Crid said.
Secondly, you need to carefully rethink what you said: on what basis do you presume to denigrate someone's sincere belief that aborting a fetus is murder?
I am pro-choice, for several reasons. First and foremost, because for a significant portion of a pregnancy, the fetus completely belongs to the mother. Ownership is at least 9/10 of the law, and there is no ownership more complete than this.
Secondly, there are many things within the realm of human affairs that are not improved by government intervention. This ranks at the top of the list.
Third, following the anti-choice argument leads to moral absurdity. I can think of few things more offensive than forcing a raped woman to carry the fetus to term.
Given all that, though, I defy you to counter the argument that abortion is indistinguishable from murder.
You can't, and neither can Saleton.
In fact, I bet that if everyone, men & women, viewed abortion as murder, it would become much harder to sexually objectify women.
So, please take that into account when criticizing the "shortcomings of the religious conservative outlook."
-----
I think it odd the sidetrack this thread has taken. It has nothing to do with the very difficult decision when faced with a pregnancy gone wrong -- google Trisomy 13.
The point at hand is whether parents should be able to forbid their daughters committing what the parents view as murder.
-----
T's Grammy:
I am pro-choice; but that isn't the point at hand. The existence of choice is not at issue; rather, it is whether parents should be able to make that choice for their minor children.
Presume for the moment that the Palin's brought up their children to consider abortion murder, and that actions have consequences. When push comes to shove, how do Mr & Mrs. Palin not forbid (if they even needed to; Saleton seems happy to assume facts not in evidence) their daughter getting an abortion without making a complete mockery of everything they stand for?
They can't.
Presuming they can is the toxin of small-l liberals: moral relativism.
Hey Skipper at September 8, 2008 11:52 PM
And what I'm saying, skipper, is they don't have the freaking right to make that decision for her -- whatever her age.
If my daughter had come up pregnant at 17 and the decision rested with me instead of her, I'd say abortion knowing she (and I, for that matter, one was all I could handle and by the time she was 17, I was pretty damned wore out by motherhood under some pretty extreme circumstances and I didn't have her until I was 25) was not able to care for that baby herself. Even though I would know that -- for her -- it'd be wrong. Still, faced with something that would have overburdened both of us, I'd have made a choice that would have been devastating to her.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the parents get to choose for the pregnant teen when the parents are pro-life and then say that the parents who would order an abortion are monsters. Frankly, any parent making that choice instead of the teen in question would be a monster.
I'm glad my daughter didn't get pregnant in her teens (and firmly believe I had a little something with her not becoming so) and I'm damned glad that if she had, I would not have been forced to make that decision for her.
T's Grammy at September 9, 2008 8:04 AM
I am hysterical? I'm the one saying Row V Wade will never be overturned so why is everyone so worked up about it anyway? Because some of us dare to say a baby, that may be the next brilliant medical mind or a wonderful writer or whatever, actually is more important than a woman so fucking stupid she couldn't use birth control correctly? I am all for birth control. I am for forcing it's use. I think 90% of the world's population doesn't use it enough. I'd happily give your 6 year old condoms.
I am also saying that if even reptiles can sacrifice for their offspring, shouldn't we be held to a higher standard than them?
Pro-choice people like to assume that all prolife people are religious "nuts" who are also anti-gays and anti-birth control. We're not. Please don't lump the 3 together.
T's grammy, T needs to be kept from you at all cost. You think he should not exist. With you and your useless daughter (your words, in a previous thread, not mine), I'd be with you. But him, no, he's innocent and needs protecting. From you, apparently. And at the start of your post, you said you'd rather live than die, even though your life's been crap. Then at the end, you say you should have been aborted along with all your siblings. Decide, please!
And yes, with the soon-to-be-realized-if-it-hasn't-been-already possibility of testing for autism in utero, the abortion numbers are going to go way up. I know many autistic people, all of whom are functional in the way that just would have been considered a slightly odd personality a few generations ago. But yes, let's rid the world of their inconvenience.
My cousin was told her baby was trisomy 21 4 years ago. He's not. Here is a link to a man leading a perfectly normal life, with almost no brain in his skull. His skull is filled with fluid instead of brain, yet he can think like the rest of us. Rare, I'm sure, but so are the reasons a woman's life would depend on an abortion, yet you use those with no problem.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290610,00.html
Yes, I like my life which has been pretty great. But I love my kids too, and would rather they live than me, born or no. If I made the kid, I'm not going to kill it. For any reason. I have a great husband and loving extended family, and life insurance, and if I die my kids'll be taken care of. If you're so worried about a mom dying and leaving her kids, women should be forbidden to ride in cars.
The risks of childbirth are smaller than the risks of abortion. Read any current study.
If you want to kill your kid to save your own life, that's your business I suppose. I find it pathetic and cowardly and selfish. And much as I think any abortion is murder, I know it's not going away or be outlawed. And I do push birth control use. And I do talk about birth control to anyone who will listen. But yeah, I'm a hand-wringing hysteric.
momof3 at September 9, 2008 8:05 AM
>>I am all for birth control. I am for forcing it's use.
You've said this over and again, momof3.
Frankly, this sentiment puts you beyond the pale.
I imagine you feel your twittering about forced birth control makes you come off like a no-holds-barred straight talkin' mama, with a few charming liberal kinks (pro-gay and all that.)
Who does the "forcing" momof3?
What sort of authority do you have in mind?
Jody Tresidder at September 9, 2008 8:22 AM
Ok, you guys are being too hard on Momof3. She's not hysterical, and she's entitled to feel the way she does regarding abortion. To her, it is a life from the moment of conception, and I admire her conviction to defend that life, even by sacrificing her own if necessary.
You know, we all have contradictory beliefs - some we've grown up with and never reexamine, and some we just fail to notice how much they conflict until someone points it out.
For instance, I find it interesting when pro-choice people are also members of PETA. They think nothing of throwing blood all over you for wearing a fur coat, or killing a chicken to eat, but it's ok if you want to suck your unborn baby's brain out of it's skull. Mmmmm.
And the reverse too. People like Sarah Palin, who are so staunchly pro-life...unless you're a polar bear. Then, she'll shoot you just for sport, even from an airplane. Mmmmm.
I don't get pro-life folks being for capital punishment either. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Yet, that's what's interesting about these debates. I learn a lot, and consider specific situations that I might not otherwise, while trying to put myself in your shoes - see things from your perspective. Sometimes, I play devil's advocate just to get one of you to flesh out your views, and I appreciate that you do the same to me. But let's try to be respectful about it.
Abortion is an extremely complex and emotional issue, and there are reasonable ways to view it from both sides.
lovelysoul at September 9, 2008 9:02 AM
So, Momof3, what does your family think of this? If it came down to it, who would they rather have?
How, exactly, do you think the next brilliant medical mind is going to be raised by someone "so fucking stupid" they didnt use birth control properly? You said earlier that they should not be selfish for a minute and give the child up for adoption. Wait, what? They're either fucking stupid or they're not. Most women won't give up a child to adoption once they've birthed it. That takes someone intelligent and unselfish, which is quite uncommon these days.
T is quite safe, I'm sure. What an asshole you are for suggesting otherwise.
I called you hysterical because you're making these wild connections where there aren't any, angrily responding to comments without fully reading them or perhaps deliberately misunderstanding, and generally being completely logically inconsistent.
christina at September 9, 2008 9:17 AM
>>To her, it is a life from the moment of conception, and I admire her conviction to defend that life, even by sacrificing her own if necessary.
Lovelysoul,
Momof3 can declare her willingness to martyr herself all she likes in pursuit of her convictions.
That's fair - and admirable in its own way.
But you have to be a complete dolt to wonder artlessly - as momof3 also does -why forced sterilization isn't a more popular platform in the USA today.
Even among the most hardcore American eugenicists, even before the horror of Nazi racial hygiene (we are talking about the 'golden age' of eugenics in the late 1920s) - there was a sly recognition that promoting forced birth control as broad public policy could backfire horribly on its supporters.
So when momof3 tosses out this notion of forced birth control - as if it is dewy fresh and unsullied by history - makes me slightly irritable.
Jody Tresidder at September 9, 2008 9:37 AM
Christina wrote "What better way to ensure a shitty mom than to force someone to do it who doesn't want to?"
I've always thought this as well. If you don't trust me with a choice, why do you trust me with a CHILD?
But, by and large, the pro-life group only cares that a child is BORN, not HOW it is RAISED.
MonicaM at September 9, 2008 9:59 AM
My birth-mom gave me up for adoption, but, to be fair, she had very little choice but to have me. Where she lived, in the early 60s, abortion wasn't readily available.
And that's kind of the point. For most of history, abortion wasn't an option, so women made other arrangements. They either avoided getting pregnant or they accepted the consequences of doing so would be to carry that child to term. They also accepted the risk of having a special-needs child, since there was no guarantee of having a healthy baby.
Those of us who have grown up with choice as a birthright have a hard time imagining ever being without it. We have become spoiled by our freedoms - freedoms centuries of women before us did not have. Choice has become the safety net of our generation.
So, we are desperate to keep it. Even when science supports that an unborn child is a life, we argue against it. We find ourselves saying things like, "It's in our body, so we own the baby!" I even had a pro-choice friend say, "Well, it's a life, but not a very SMART one...it has no life experience!" As if that's a justification.
Let's face it, these aren't very good arguments. Even the C-section risks don't fly when almost every other pregnant woman is opting for one these days and abortion is even riskier. Yet, in our desperation to maintain choice, we are reaching for anything.
That's why I think the only way to ever resolve this issue is to maintain some degree of choice. The pro-lifers are going to have to drop their zygote protections. Too many people disagree that life begins at conception, and there is no proof that it does. It is merely a BELIEF.
Yet, the pro-choicers need to stop arguing against science and accept that an unborn child at a certain stage of developement is as alive, thinking and sensitive to pain, as a newborn and should have the same protections.
If we could do that, I think we could possibly find a compromise. The best solutions are usually found when neither side gets everything they want.
lovelysoul at September 9, 2008 10:29 AM
"The best solutions are usually found when neither side gets everything they want."
There's some wisdom there, lovelysoul...
juliana at September 9, 2008 11:34 AM
"What sort of authority do you have in mind"
The gum'mint! Of course.
My family would hate to see me die, no doubt. But I think my kids-make that I KNOW my kids-would be raised knowing that their siblings and themselves were all equally precious and valuable and none of them are disposable for any reason. What would my family think if I died from a (fairly rare) abortion complication? Oh, sorry kids, mom died trying to kill your sister? Oh but we really wanted you........
I hate the term martyr. As if one is dying for a cause. We actually are genetically programed to protect out young to the death. I wonder how so many have gotten around that bit of evolution.
I am well aware that enforced sterilization has been tried in various places in the world, and not worked. And almost certainly wouldn't work ever. Doesn't mean I can't wish (pray!!) for it, much like I mentally spend the millions I am never going to win in the lottery in idle moments.
I didn't know I was tossing in liberal pro-gay ideas to be cool. I was under the impression I thought for myself on issues. Huh.
Anyway, the original question being at what age does a girl get to decide what goes on with her body medically, and that's at the age the parents stop being responsible for it. Currently, 18. And I again point out the teens most likely to be capable of making a life-changing decision are the ones most likely to have used BC in the first place.
And stupid parents can have brilliant kids. Lazy parents can have driven kids. And vice versa. I've never heard of a prodigy with genius parents. Much like normal or even ugly parents can birth supermodels. Gene recombination is an amazing thing.
momof3 at September 9, 2008 2:06 PM
>>I've never heard of a prodigy with genius parents. Much like normal or even ugly parents can birth supermodels. Gene recombination is an amazing thing.
Maybe you should read more instead of roasting turkeys in August in Texas then, momof3?
You could start with learning about the Haldane family - and kill two birds with one stone!
The Haldanes were a clan that bulged with extraordinary thinkers and doers, generation after generation.
Then you could also learn why wishing/praying for enforced sterilization as a state policy should be anathema for anyone with a trace of civilized compassion. Haldane (J.B.S) is your go-to guy on the subject.
You're quite welcome:)
Jody Tresidder at September 9, 2008 2:55 PM
Not done reading all the comments, but had to respond to this one from lovelysoul, "There is almost no health condition of a mother that is so life threatening that it requires a late-term or "partial birth" abortion. That is a pro-choice lie."
My (former) sister-in-law had a late-term abortion, and if she didn't not only would the baby have been born dead, but she could have died, as well. In her case, the placenta was on the OUTSIDE of the uterus. I don't know how it happened, but it did. I didn't grill my s-i-l about it, because it was a very painful subject (in more ways than one) for her. She nearly died anyway. And they had to give her a complete hysterectomy, as well. Still think it's a pro-choice lie?
I am firmly pro-choice (which isn't the same as pro-abortion). I don't feel that abortion should be used if "whoops! I got pregnant!" But I don't think the government has a right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I'm also intelligent enough to know that making it illegal won't make it go away completely. Abortion has been around for centuries. Keeping it legal is the only way to keep it regulated so that women who do choose to abort a fetus don't die from an infection or other kind of screw-up.
Sandy at September 9, 2008 3:30 PM
Sandy, I'm so sorry for your SIL. Yet, it sounds like in her case the baby had serious complications and would've died anyway. I was talking about cases where the baby is viable.
They can usually save the mother, as well as the baby, just by removing the baby by C-section. There are very few, if any, maternal complications that warrant killing a healthy, viable baby late-term to save its mother.
I mean, I went into medical distress, so they quickly wheeled me into the emergency room and removed my son via C-section. They didn't have to kill him just because I was in distress. Yet, obviously, he was a healthy, viable child.
I'm sure your SIL would've wanted them to save her baby if it had been possible, so I'm assuming, in her case, it wasn't. However, it probably wasn't her life-threatening condition that made it impossible, only that the baby wasn't salvagable - either because it wasn't quite far enough along to be viable or the damage it had already suffered due to her condition was too great.
Think about it: If life-threatening conditions of the mother required the killing of a healthy late-term baby, we'd all have a friend or two who returned from the hospital saying, "Well they had to let my baby die in order to save me." That just doesn't happen.
Many women have emergency situations late -term, but, these days, if the baby is viable, they can almost always save both lives.
lovleysoul at September 9, 2008 4:34 PM
You can bet, lovelysoul, that there's been abortion as long as there's been birth. Babies slow you down, and our primative ancestors actually had to worry about feeding themselves and providing for their young. There was no government cheese. Oh, and guess what they did if they couldn't get rid of it in utero? They left it. This 'babies are precious at all costs' mindset is only present in wealthy places. Infanticide is an old practice. Where did you get this fluffy bunny notion that we're above this? Humans have put their needs above their childrens since time began, especially in dire circumstances. We're just doing it early now.
Much better that, then the fucked-up ways unhappy parents rid themselves of their kids now. Or worse, keep them and just make their lives miserable and all but guarantee a shitty person results.
Raising a human isn't something that anyone should be forced to do. We seem to forget the next 18 years AFTER the all-holy birth. Ok, it's born now, pro-lifers go home. Maybe a better focus would be helping at-risk teens not get knocked up. Or adopting screwed up kids. Or helping fight child abuse. Oh, but who would take care of the babies? Plenty of people. It makes me sick that there's all this focus on abortion when there are millions of hungry, hurt, at-risk kids.
christina at September 9, 2008 4:56 PM
All I ask is that everyone re-evaluate what you think you *know* about abortion. From there, you can believe whatever you want, but approach this from a critical angle first.
The pro-choice movement frequently uses the "save the life of the mother" line, which is very heart-wrenching, but is it TRUE?
They are implying that there are all these maternal conditions that necisitate doctors choosing one life over the other. It's either the mother or the baby.
Now, if it's early in a pregnancy, and a mother has to make a wrenching choice about cancer treatments or other life-saving procedures that would damage her baby - or if the baby isn't yet viable and the pregnancy is high risk - then that's another issue. But in the case of a late term - let's say, 8 month old healthy fetus - and a mother with some sort of life-threatening condition, it's not an either/or situation.
Yet that's exactly what the pro-choice movement argued about partial-birth abortions - that they are often necessary to "save the life of the mother". And that is simply false as far as I can tell. Because of C-sections, there's no reason a doctor would have to choose the mother over the baby.
lovelysoul at September 9, 2008 5:01 PM
"Raising a human isn't something that anyone should be forced to do. We seem to forget the next 18 years AFTER the all-holy birth. Ok, it's born now, pro-lifers go home. Maybe a better focus would be helping at-risk teens not get knocked up. Or adopting screwed up kids. Or helping fight child abuse. Oh, but who would take care of the babies? Plenty of people. It makes me sick that there's all this focus on abortion when there are millions of hungry, hurt, at-risk kids".
Firts, I'm also involved in helping abused and neglected children as a guardian-ad-litem. And I support choice - just not until the third trimester, unless there's serious fetal anamolies.
And yes, people always abused, abandoned, and even killed their young. Yet, you'd have to REALLY not want a baby to endure abortions of the past. They were still rare compared to today. Yet, women sometimes resorted to that because they truly had no choice about pregnancy.
What amazes me is that we have even more unwed pregancies than ever, even though we have birth control. With the exception of rape, no girl today needs to be "forced" to be a parent. If she doesn't want a child, she either keeps her legs closed or goes down to the free clinic and gets some birth control! It's not that hard!
Nobody in this country should have to use abortion as birth control, yet sadly, that is what we have increasingly seen since abortion became more accessible.
lovelysoul at September 9, 2008 5:19 PM
Oh, THANK you, Jody T, for bringing up one rare circumstance. Doesn't prove stupid people can't have smart kids. I guess I should eat take-out and make snarky comments more, then I'd be cool and lefty-approved.
I think it's fab, though, that so much about me sticks in your mind. Don't think I could tell you a thing about you, except this comment I'm responding to.
momof3 at September 9, 2008 6:47 PM
Momof3?
No need to be a cross prig. I thought the turkey roasting in August was hysterical:)
And, btw, how did the founding fathers stand on forced removal of reproductive ability? Cool with it, were they?
Jody Tresidder at September 9, 2008 7:34 PM
Being too hard on momof3? Uh, I don't fucking think I come anywhere near as hard on her as she was on me. At least, I didn't intimate that her 3 should be removed from her. What a fucking asshole thing to say. I can't help but think she deliberately misread my entire post. Either that or she thinks people who will beat their children should have them.
Useless? Did I use that exact word? Yes, I've complained about my daughter and her generation at large. Do I think every 20-something is immature? No. I've talked, openly, about problems I've had with my daughter and getting her to stand on her own too feet. I've also openly stated that, in her case, mental illness is a contributing factor. I felt it contributed to the discussions about child-rearing here particularly because she was that ideal child Amy talks about, so well-behaved that I got compliments on her.
For the record, I've been ill recently. My blood pressure soared amongst other things. Moving out on her may have been the right move worried as I was about this. But this past weekend, my daughter well impressed me. She stepped up. She stayed with me Saturday night because I was feeling so poorly I wasn't sure I wouldn't need an ambulance to see to my safety and she did my housecleaning and all for me. She really stepped up and we had a talk. She tends to think there's nothing to really be concerned about, her mom will go on forever. I'm okay (blood pressure's back to normal but it soared to stroke level) but it was the scare that made her see mom's human. She was discussing what she could do for me and not to be too proud to ask her for help as I age. I am pretty damned proud of her and, yes, one hell of a lot less scared.
And, thank you, Christina. Absolutely right. Just because I admit he was unplanned and mom had him before she was ready does not make me a substandard grandmother. Quite the contrary, since I have often picked up the slack despite my poor health. momof3 says ask her 3 about her. Well, ask T about me. He wants his Grammy in his life and there's definitely reason why.
But, don't worry. Between this and that bigoted post about Atheists, I'm sorry to say I can't take momof3 as seriously as I have in the past. She is a whole hell of a lot more petty and small than I thought.
T's Grammy at September 10, 2008 8:12 AM
Lovelysoul sez: The pro-choice movement frequently uses the "save the life of the mother" line, which is very heart-wrenching, but is it TRUE?
and then: But in the case of a late term - let's say, 8 month old healthy fetus - and a mother with some sort of life-threatening condition, it's not an either/or situation.
Oookay. I want stats on how many 8-month abortions there are in a year. Because THAT is what the pro-life folks love to trot out as if it's a daily thing.
"Late term" is apparently designated as after 20 weeks - so about 4.5 months. Not 8. The stats on Wikipedia, quoting the Guttmacher Institute, show that, on average, fewer than one percent of all abortions are after 20 weeks. I think we can assume that, if EVER, "8-month" abortions would make up a microscopic, if not invisible, percentage of that one percent.
The so-called "partial birth abortion", in fact, represents 0.17% of ALL abortions.
Pre-eclampsia and its related conditions - which have maternal mortality rates close to 2% - is certainly more common than late-term abortions. And probably more common than "8 month" abortions by a factor of tens of thousands, if not more.
And perhaps your friends or mine are atypical, but I know several women whose husbands have been told "things are going to shit - do you want us to focus on saving your wife or the baby?" (usually the woman has been incapable of making their opinion known at that moment). In some of those cases, doctors were able to save both. Which is certainly the ideal. But it's certainly not guaranteed.
You seem to imagine that people are sitting around for 8 months and then going "ew, my tummy feels icky. I'm going to have an abortion". I question whether there is ANY legitimate doctor in a first-world country that would *abort* a viable 8-month fetus.
So your side is at least as full of rhetoric as mine, Ma'am.
Eileen at September 10, 2008 1:07 PM
Eileen, I don't have to imagine it. There are tons of photos available of obvious late-term abortions.
You're naive if you think these are typically reported. There are a few abortionist, who are quite well-known within the pro-life community, who are still performing them until very late in pregnancies. In years past, pro-life supporters were able to retrieve these dead children from dumpsters of medical wastes behind their offices, but now, the abortionists have learned to destroy them better.
As we have all learned here, Wikepedia is not a reliable resource. Yet, even if your stats were completely accurate, why should late-term abortions make up any percentage at all? Yes, there may be BABIES who were not viable for some medical conditions, but most of those who were retrieved from abortion clinics were not aborted because of medical emergencies.
Here is just one site showing photos of late-term abortions. You can find many others. This does not represent only 1% of abortions. I have many other separate photos of different children in my files. This is happening whether you agree with it or not.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm
lovelysoul at September 10, 2008 2:23 PM
The only medically certified images on there are certified as 22 and 24 weeks. Still not 8 months.
Plus, of course, medically speaking, "aborted" does include natural expulsion, such as miscarriage.
The doctor certifies that the PHOTO shows an "aborted" 22 (or 24) week fetus, but that doctor does not actually indicate they examined the fetus itself, nor know specifically that it was a doctor-performed termination.
To say nothing of the fact that some of those fetuses were clearly badly deformed, leading me to an even higher assumption that they could have been spontaneous abortion.
It's hysteria-mongering. Oh noes, look at the bloody baybeee! Take a step back, and what those pics show is visually disturbing, perhaps, but certainly nothing resembling evidence that there are "8 month" doctor-performed terminations going on.
Eileen at September 10, 2008 2:50 PM
Interesting to see a challenge to that particular show-and-tell tactic, Eileen.
I always assumed it was a disgraceful hype of outlier cases. But - so far - it seems even rarer than that.
Jody Tresidder at September 10, 2008 3:26 PM
Believe me, I'm used to this kind of denial...and "oh, well, that's 24 weeks, not 8 months"...that makes it ok? "Aborted" does not mean miscarriage. And yes, a lot of them are horribly deformed - legs and arms ripped off - from the abortion process!
But, fine, believe it's not happening. I know it's not something we really want to comprehend is going on. Nobody wants to believe in something so atrocious occuring. (For a long time, the Germans didn't believe the Nazis were gassing Jews either).
All I can ask is that you do as I did years ago and open your mind to the other view. It was hard for me - a pro-choice person to swallow any of this at first. I didn't want to believe it either. I thought it was pure propaganda until I really allowed myself to look at all the evidence.
This isn't "hype". I can't scan in all the photos I have of obvious late-term abortions, but if you just search - or (god forbid) attend a pro-life meeting - you can find out more. And you can make excuses for every single one..."this one is only 20 weeks...this one looks deformed..." until you finally get tired of your own denial in the matter and your conscience kicks in.
I'm not even suggesting what we do about it, because I hate government regulation more than anybody, but I think people have to be truly informed. I force myself to look at the other side...to see what motivates their anger...and in the case of abortion, as much as I did not want to believe the pro-life side had any merit, the truth is that they do.
lovelysoul at September 10, 2008 3:53 PM
Lovelysoul, you are the one who trotted out the exmple of 8-month doctor-performed abortions as reality and assured us they existed.
The photos you offered as "evidence" provide nothing of the sort.
Late-term abortions overall encompass a tiny percent of all doctor-perfored abortions. Quite possibly even fewer than the "medically required to save the mother's life" premise that you discard as all-but nonexistent.
The latest-term image that was certified was 24 weeks, and that's certified based on a photograph. And no evidence is presented that it wasn't a miscarriage.
I'm just saying that I'm as free to scoff at "8 month abortions are happening" as you are at "medically required to save the mother's life"... although there is actual non-partisan evidence that maternal life-saving abortion exists.
Frankly, the super-late-term abortion hysteria is an emotional trick. If they exist at all, they are in such microscopic numbers as to be a complete waste of debate. The vast, vast, vast majority of medically-performed abortions happen in the first trimester, or early in the second. Clearly, there are many people, such as yourself, who still think that's wrong. I understand and respect that belief. But when people get all bent out of shape at "8 month abortions", they're dealing with something located somewhere between fiction and so statistically sub-infinitesimal as to be pointless. They might as well be protesting Lithuanian Bah'ai albino transsexual one-legged diabetic cross-eyed dyslexic left-handed Latin scholars who kick puppies. Sure, it's perfectly possible one or two exist, but jeez, why not focus on something a little more realistic?
Eileen at September 10, 2008 6:29 PM
Eileen, I used 8 months as an example only to demonstrate the absurdity of taking a viable life to save a mother. It was a part of a larger scenario. I said the mother was in distress and she had, "let's say, an 8 month old fetus"... just so I could demonstrate that a viable life can be removed from a mother's womb by C-section without harming the mother. Most people can visualize an 8 month old fetus better than a 24 week old fetus, and most people readily understand that an 8 month old fetus is viable, whereas they might not realize that a 24 week old fetus is also viable.
I am actually in favor of abortion until the point of viability, which covers most abortions. My issue is with late-term abortions, which these photos and many others clearly show. Once a child is as fully-formed as these - and its healthy - I do not think we should allow abortion.
Certainly, maternal life-saving abortion exists, but not in the case of a late-term, healthy fetus. There's no reason not to save BOTH lives if possible...and it is usually possible, as you've even admitted.
So, the most likely reason these photos exist is because a mother CHOSE a late-term abortion, not because she was in medical distress. There are valid reasons why she might opt for one - maybe there were serious fetal anamolies - but we don't know that. And given the pain and brutality of the procedure for the unborn child, I think we should reserve it only for those circumstances.
But don't call it "maternal life-saving". That makes no sense late-term. Those cases would be "sub-infinitesimal" too. Either the child had serious mental or physical complications and the mother opted to abort late-term, or the child was healthy and deserved to be saved.
I don't have an issue with the former reason, but I do with the latter. Even if it's only ONE child who died needlessly. Don't you? When you look at those photos, doesn't that concern you at least a little?
lovelysoul at September 10, 2008 7:10 PM
Here's a link to a story involving one of the abortionists who is known to do late-term abortions. He even operates a crematoriam in his offices to burn the fetuses...
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/snapshot-a-day-outside-tiller%e2%80%99s-late-term-abortion-mill/
I am not very religious or involved with "Operation Rescue", but I do believe their reports that many of these late-term abortions are unnecessary. True medically necessary abortions would usually be performed elsewhere, like a hospital. The existence of abortion mills like this confirms to me that these late-term abortions are being performed more for money than necessity.
lovelysoul at September 10, 2008 7:36 PM
Lovelysoul... here's my personal criteria. I'm not telling anyone else what they should do or think, but it's mine.
1) Until a fetus could live and thrive outside of the mother *without* massive medical intervention, it's not a person, and has no rights. It's a parasite, essentially. And I mean that in the technical sense, not as an insult. If it could survive with food, water, warmth, and love, it's a baby and I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a reason to abort it (as compared to induce labor or c-section, or a delivery complication that required a choice between mother and baby) that would really stand up. That's somewhere 'round about 6-7 months, give or take. And, while this may surprise you, I think a doctor who would perform an 8-month abortion of a healthy fetus for any reason other than to literally save the life of the mother, should probably be barred from medical practice.
I acknowledge there's grey area. Is there Day X when its a parasite and Day X+1 when it's a baby? That's between a woman and her doctor to decide, not me.
And THAT, precisely, is why I like Canada's current stance, which is that abortion is not criminalized. Anything lawmakers do to try to stop the .0001% that are "oh my god!" situations, is going to hurt a lot more women, than it will save babies. And unlike some folks, I think that existing people have more rights than future/potential ones. YMMV.
2) I have no right to decide why or why not a woman may choose to end her pregnancy. Yep, that means if ultrasound shows it's a girl and she wanted a boy, she can do it. I disagree with her choice and am saddened by her thinking, but because of (1) above, I have no say over what she does with something that exists and lives solely because it is using her body.
3) I believe in handing out contraception like Halloween candy, every day of the year. I believe in teaching kids that they should wait to have sex until they're sure they're ready, that its okay to wait, that there are lots of options besides ones that risk STDs and pegnancy... but if they're gonna do PIV, they should be using at least one contraceptive and use at least one barrier.
I'm not a big fan of the "thin edge of the wedge" argument, but abortion is one where no law is the best law because of that very reason.
While I cannot imagine a situation where a reputable doctor would abort a healthy 8-month fetus, it is impossible to determine precisely what day it goes from "parasite" to "baby", as mentioned above. But the fact is that there is far, far less clamor by pro-choice people for the right to, say, *require* doctors to abort 8-month fetuses, than there is by pro-life people to *ban* doctors from aborting 8-week fetuses.
The staunchest pro-choicer still doesn't want to *force* people to have abortions! I think most of us would much rather pregnancy be prevented than terminated. In fact, I'm sure of it. The reason pro-choicers oppose nearly all abortion-restricting legislation is because it invariably *will* be used by more extreme pro-life types to push the envelope to be more and more restrictive, until abortions are all but impossible to obtain. Of course they consider that an ideal goal. But pro-choicers are not advocating FOR the right to have 8-month abortions. Again, because they represent such an absurdly small, if not nonexistent, number of cases.
And to finalize this excessively long post... I'm sorry, but I also don't buy the "even if it's only one" factor very much. Because I will always, always, always vote for the rights of the existing person (the woman) over the rights of a potential person (the fetus/baby). And if "saving one baby" causes *even one* woman to die, then - for me- it's not the way to go.
But then, I'm one of those people who thinks that adults should be prioritized over children in emergency situations, too. ;)
Eileen at September 10, 2008 7:47 PM
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/snapshot-a-day-outside-tiller%e2%80%99s-late-term-abortion-mill/
I do apologize, because this is going to sound snottier than I mean it... but... one 27-week pregnancy is proof that there's some vast bank of doctors aborting babies seconds before they're ready to go to Kindegarten?
I've acknowledged that late-term (as defined as over 20 weeks) abortions exist. Of course, they exist as less than ONE percent of all abortions.
And as for "necessary", variants of which you use twice in that post... it's not really up to you or me to decide whether a 17 year old girl (or a 40 year old woman) should be obligated to gestate and birth. She gets to decide what's necessary for her body and life. The young woman who changed her mind in that story? Good for her! If she can raise it, or give it up for adoption, then it's a good choice for her. But it's not for everyone, and I believe it's important that that choice exists.
And the "he even has a crematorium!!!!" aspect... that's an even bigger "so what?" Would Operation Rescue be more or less outraged if they used a dumpster? A garbage disposal unit? Little oak caskets with silk linings, carefully buried under marble markers? Again, the propagandists are using hot-button things to cause an emotional, rather than rational, response. See "Oh noes!" above.
Eileen at September 10, 2008 8:02 PM
Eileen, I appreciate your opinion, although I disagree...except for the birth-control part. I am an staunch advocate of giving our teens birth control.
If you follow your "parasite" argument on viability, then we should probably not be paying such exorbitant amounts of tax dollars to save the lives of so many preemies...but tell that to the parents!
And the problem is that we don't really know what age fetuses are being aborted because the rules are easily skirted. Please read more about this doctor, Tiller...
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/operation-rescue-releases-powerful-evidence-of-illegal-late-term-abortions-at-kansas-abortion-mill/
lovelysoul at September 10, 2008 8:15 PM
Eileen, that was an account of just ONE day...and a girl who was 27 weeks along showed up. And the reason he has a crematorium - that almost all abortionists do now - is because they don't want pro-lifers to expose the true age of these fetuses. In the past, that's where those photos came from - dumpsters.
And, think about it, a crematorium would only be required for older babies, where the bones are hardened and there's a lot more flesh to dispose of. There's nothing to make me believe that this doctor - or any like him - would stop at 8 months.
I sympathize with your feeling that no law is the best law in this case. I don't want to lose abortion rights altogether, but these late-term babies are viable - they have fully-formed central nervous systems. They feel pain. This is barbaric.
There must be a way we can monitor this better...which would also be safer for the mothers. Women still die having abortions, especially these late-term ones.
lovelysoul at September 10, 2008 8:28 PM
Eileen/Lovelysoul,
>>And, while this may surprise you, I think a doctor who would perform an 8-month abortion of a healthy fetus for any reason other than to literally save the life of the mother, should probably be barred from medical practice.
I'm with Eileen all the way.
Lovelysoul,
Like Eileen, I respect your views and your caveats.
This bit is not meant to be argumentative. But yesterday I googled around (which I've done before) about the late term abortion stats and - once again - I end up dismayed and discouraged by the vicious, unhinged, semi-literate, smug bilge I read on the pro-life sites.
Yes, yes "my" side often stumbles badly too. We tend to dismiss the genuine post-abortion anguish experienced by some women as a social construct - when sometimes it's nothing of the sort.
Yet, I have often debated with great mutual courtesy with Catholics. There is a middle ground for an exchange of views (if not for exchanged positions!).
But I so often find myself made more squeamish as a result of the emotive garbage written on some pro-life sites - even more so than by the "abortion-butcher-who-chucks-these-dismembered-8-month-fetus-corpses-in-front-of-his-office" photo illustrations.
Jody Tresidder at September 11, 2008 8:00 AM
Thanks, Jody. I know where you're coming from on that. It's kind of how "Progressives" give the left a bad name. I cringe at much of the pro-life rhetoric myself.
And, last night, I did a lot more reading about the abortionist, Tiller. He is a bit of a heroic character in many ways. He was shot through both arms several years ago by a pro-life nut and has to work in a bullet-proof vest. His clinic has been bombed twice.
The bulk of his late-term abortions appear to be due to fetal anomalies, although there's very little verification of what sort of anamolies that includes. I read some accounts of women who went to him to abort Down's Syndrome babies, and one whose child would not have lived long after birth anyway due to a rare skeletal disorder. To them, he is a savior.
So, I'm quite torn between the two sides. I disagree with the pro-life stand that every child must be born, no matter how deformed or how they might suffer - that it's only "God's will" to take a life. These are the same people who would deny me the chance to die with dignity if I so choose. I think they take "life" too far.
On the other hand, it bothers me that these abortionists, like Teller, seem to be in collaberation with doctors they know to sign off on these procedures, and it doesn't seem, from what I read, that they bother to confirm that there really ARE fetal abnormalities. No doubt some women have lied and paid him to abort healthy late-term fetuses, and at $5,000 or more per procedure, he has little incentive to say no. That is not how the law should be. The referrals should come from objective, outside doctors.
By his own admission, he aborts healthy, late-term babies if the mother is "very young" or was raped. I have an issue with aborting healthy late-term babies for those reasons. If you were raped, you surely knew that you were - why wait 6 or 7 (or maybe 8?) months to abort the child? One baby at an abortion mill in AL was 6.9 oz when it was delivered dead after a procedure. That's pretty far along, almost term.
Anyway, I don't know the answer. But it seems to me that we should only be doing late-term abortions because of maternal complications or SEVERE fetal anamolies - but, absurdly enough, fetal anamolies is specifically EXCLUDED from the law in KS where Teller practices! How much sense does that make?
lovelysoul at September 11, 2008 8:59 AM
Lovelysoul,
I really appreciated your courteous reply! Thanks.
To end on a lighter note. I once read a bolded post title on a pro-life site which made me read on (ironically, because I felt this was potentially a GOOD message for thoughtless teenage girls who might suspect than an abortion was simply a form of contraception.)
The post title was: PROOF -How Abortions Make You Fat!
Unfortunately, the "proof" was that because you'll feel hollowed out by godly guilt over your first abortion, you'll overeat massively if you become pregnant again - thinking you are giving your fetus all the extra nourishment you denied the aborted baby. Then you'll look like a whale - and your husband will loathe you.
Sigh....:)
Jody Tresidder at September 11, 2008 9:21 AM
lol....(double sigh). I guess a lot of christian women must've had abortions then. :)
lovelysoul at September 11, 2008 10:49 AM
I would agree, and fight for, your right to euthanize yourself. And if that's what mothers of severely deformed fetus's were doing, I would feel for them and might even change my view. But poking a hole in a skull and sucking out the brain, then ripping the baby limb from limb, in an effort to save it from suffering after born just doesn't fly. It's the mother being saved from suffering this way, although I don't doubt most still feel bad. If mothers wanted to end a suffering life, there are any number of less painful and barbaric ways to do it that would garner much more sympathy.
That said though, and the possibility of me maybe changing my mind on fetal abnormalities aside, euthanasia is for adults who can logically choose it. It's not for one person to choose for another.
And wow on the thinking adults come first in emergencies thing. You must've done some great things for society to warrant that, and it's a pretty callous way to treat those who's taxes are going to pay for your retirement and healthcare when you're old. Unless you're one of the 2% of Americans who will actually be able to afford their own retirement without the government kicking in. I'm glad most of society disagrees with you and thinks those who can't help themselves deserve the help first.
Outside of tv, the only "mother or baby" situations are severe trauma like car wrecks, when the baby and mom are both in distress and mom is bleeding too much to do a quick C. Want to hazard a guess as to how common that is and how likely the mom is to survive anyway? No other situation I've been able to find in my research exists. Most other lifethreatening issues to a mom are treated BY delivering the baby-gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, placental detachment, etc.
momof3 at September 11, 2008 11:23 AM
>>...it's a pretty callous way to treat those who's taxes are going to pay for your retirement and healthcare when you're old.
I'm afraid that argument - more than any other - leaves me completely unmoved. Doesn't even register a flicker in either my heart or brain.
I think we have to agree to disagree fundamentally, momof3.
Jody Tresidder at September 11, 2008 11:39 AM
Momof3, I just want to let you know that in my reading about Tiller, I discovered that this whole "brain sucked out of the head" description might just be pro-life propaganda. Apparently, according to the accounts of the women who've had his late-term abortions, he inserts a needle (probably into the head, as it would be the most accessible point late-term) and injects a drug which stops the heart. Then, he gives them drugs to induce labor and the babies are born dead two or three days later (that shocked me!).
I mean, not that this sounds wonderful, but it's a bit more humane than what I was led to believe the procedure entailed. Maybe it's been improved.
lovelysoul at September 11, 2008 12:16 PM
Hi
I found some excellent articles for anyone who is looking to improve their! can be a really big issue for a lot of people, and I think more and more people are starting to understand the power of the internet and internet advertising. That's why can be such an important factor. These guys make some excellent points about how important is. Most people today look at least for ten minutes online today before doing business with someone. It can be almost compulsive if you ask me. But anyways for anyone who is looking for tips or who are looking to improve their you may want to contact these guys.
iymale2 at August 27, 2011 4:17 PM
Leave a comment