AbbyNormal

This is very interesting. Many of these same people are against embryonic stem cell research. One argument is that it is immoral to sacrifice the unborn fetus so that another may live. Yet these very same people suggest that the mother's life is secondary to the unborn. I stand here absolutely flabbergasted by the hypocrisy!

I do not understand the obsession with the unborn. I really don't. Once you've popped out the chute, well you're on your own, sorry!

What would be the rebuttal to "God must have wanted the abortion"? Many fertilized eggs are naturally aborted. Miscarriages happen all the time. People are murdered, and X-ians console themselves with "he/she was needed by God". Maybe it was "just the fetus' time".

I could continue ranting, but I'll spare the board from my wrath....

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: AbbyNormal ]</p>

babelfish

I'm sorry Sabine. I didn't mean to leave you no room to answer. I really do want to know what you think. In fact I don't even know your views on the issue as a whole. Are you hoping to see Roe v. Wade repealed?

Sabine Grant

Happy Thanksgiving babelfish! A yes or no answer on my part is not what I will give you. I do not want to see women getting back street abortions and facing infections and other serious complications that could result in death. In that sense,I support the legalisation. Only as a damage control legislation.

Here is my position : I believe that scientific and medical data should prevail in the choice of a woman to abort. There is contradiction in the way science define the presence of life in any human being and the way we deny the presence of life in an unborn child. Vital signs and brain activity will define the presence of life in an already born human being. It appears that we draw the line not based on those scientific facts but on whether the fetus is born. Constitutional identity is what defines the right to life of a fetus not the fact that at some stages, it does fit the definition of being "alive".

The absence of constitutional identity and the the fact that the mother does not want the fetus are what support the present legislation not the scientifical data.

A 12 weeks old fetus will be either celebrated as mom observes it on an echogram and the same fetus can be aborted if unwanted. Do you see the absence of scientific analysis?

My concern is that Health Clinics do not necessarly provide scientific data which presents the humanity of a fetus prior to an abortion. Does it have vital signs? is brain activity detected? does it feel pain?etc...

I believe that many women would carry their pregnancy to term and choose the alternative of adoption if they were presented with the human traits of their fetus.( they would also prevent any other unwanted pregnancies)

Most people do not care to see pictures of aborted fetuses.... why babelfish?

On the other end, adoption procedures are costly and lengthly in the US. The percentage of babies born with birth defects is at risk of not being adopted.

Abortion is also considered as an alternative to the lack of proper birth control which in my sense feeds the lack of motivation for men and women to use birth control. There is still the exit door from unwanted pregancy via abortion... is it really a solution to the lack of responsible behavior?

As I worked in a Crisis Pregnancy Center, I saw women from all different backgrounds and circumstances. From the married couple who could not assume the 4 th unexpected child to the 16 year old pregnant and "dumped" by her boy friend. In both cases,the pregnancy could have been prevented. I dealt with one rape case.

IMO if any legislation, it should target motivating greater responsibility in two consenting adults,include in schools'sex ed curriculums detailed and medicaly updated material on the stages of developments of the human fetus.

The only way Roe v Wade was supported was by diminishing the actual humanity of the fetus and dwelling on constitutional identity. I feel that if we present accurate scientific data on the humanity of the fetus, many consenting adults would exhibit more responsible behavior.

We have to reverse to the root of the problem... which is the lack of responsible behavior. How does responsible behavior get motivated if we persist in calling a fetus " material of conception" no matter what his morphological status is?

The concept of the humanity of a fetus is accepted and applied when criminal law will punish the author of an assault on a pregnant woman which results in the death of her fetus. Then the fetus is protected and is assumed to have had the right to life. How do we solve those contradictions?

Should the concept that the woman has the right to choose be the only factor which determines the potential for life of a human fetus?

babelfish

Happy Turkey Day to you too, Sabine!

Thanks for your lengthy response to my question.

Obviously, you're not one of those thoughtless people who equate a just-conceived zygote with a newborn child.

On the contrary, you seem like a very thoughtful, compassionate woman.

Having worked at a crisis pregnancy center, you no doubt have much experience with people who have come up to a difficult crossroads in their lives. I think that education and knowledge can only help diminish the number of these situations in this country. So I think you and I agree on that point.

It is interesting, isn't it, that at the end of life, the lack of brain waves indicates to the medical profession that human life no longer exists, even if the heart still beats inside the body. In fact, organs are often harvested for transplantation purposes at this time. Yet at the beginning of life, pro-life groups never talk about using this same criteria. Can brain activity be measured in a 2-celled zygote? What about an 8-week embryo? If not, can "human person" status be attributed to these entities?

I don't enjoy looking at photos of aborted fetuses. Most of these photos are of late-term babies (yes, they certainly look like babies), and are used by the anti-choice movement to elicit an emotional response from their constituents. "Look, they're killing babies, are we going to let them get away with this?"

Obviously, a very effective tool. Also, very misrepresentative of the actual number of late-term abortions that occur in this country.

I'm not in favor of using abortion in a cavalier and thoughtless manner. But frankly, of all the people I've known who have had abortions, I can honestly say that none of them ever sounded like this: "Oh well, (yawn), I didn't use birth control, because I knew that I could get an abortion if I got pregnant. No big deal really!" Have you every counseled anyone with an attitude like this? Or did the people you counseled consider unwanted pregnancy to be quite a big crisis in their lives? Those large numbers of women out there who are always carelessly getting pregnant and just casually getting abortions because it would be so "inconvenient" to have a child right now - honey, they don't exist! They are a fictional group of monsters used by the "pro-life" movement to energize the troups!

No matter how much quality sex education and how much birth control is available, unwanted pregnancies will continue to occur. And most pro-life people aren't like you, Sabine. They don't believe in sex education or birth control. They believe in abstinence. Some of them would like erase sex from the lives of all unmarried people.

That's a lovely goal. But sort of impractical, I think.

What do you think?

Sabine Grant

Babelfish : I am between my turkey and all the other goodies to fix and this very sensitive topic!

Maybe could both moderate and reasonable pro choice and pro life folks put their brains together and find a middle somewhere? by moderate and reasonable I mean people who are looking for long term solutions which will still allow a woman to make a choice but only as a last resort.

A choice where we have the certainty that we have eliminated the possibility that the fetus has no sense of pain, no brain activity, and all alternatives have been explored.

Babelfish, I am concerned for third trimester abortions because we are dealing with a human being who will feel the pain of saline solution injected in its lungs as well as other existing rather cruel procedures. Even if a minority,those abortions are protected by the same legislature which allows an abortion at 6 weeks.

Should we draw the line at the time brain activity is detected? How do we measure the humanity of a fetus?

The law is such that until the baby is born, it has no identity. But how different morpholigicaly is a 6 months fetus from a full term fetus? Delivered at 6 months, it will need life support mostly until the lungs are fully developed. Premature 6 months babies can now survive in ICUs. And as science progresses, who is to say that medecine will not provide means for a miscarried 4 months fetus to be nurtured to full term outside the womb?

It still appears that the potential for life of a fetus is determined only by the willingness of the mother to host the fetus in her own body and to "life support" it until full term. And I am concerned that we are bypassing the actual physical potential of the fetus for survival outside the womb.

Unfortunatly multiple abortions are the product of repeated unsuse of birth control. Russia has the highest rate of abortions in the world and it is used as birth control. Even the term" birth control" is misguiding as we should talk of " conception control". For example, RU 486 interferes with the fertilized egg attaching to the uterine wall and after the conception. It is presented as a "birth control" method but is not a contraceptive method per say. It causes a miscarriage.( with all the side effects of a miscarriage... possibility of hemorraging etc)Whereas your standard pill will prevent the conception in various ways.

I think we can reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies with a realistic presentation of all conception control methods and if we readjust the life potential of a fetus with scientific data.

Before we approach the ethics of sex out of marriage, we must find ways to control the amount of unwanted pregnancies which can be prevented the majority of the time. That is where the critical subject is.

The problem with some pro life groups is that they view abstinence as the solution to the entire critical subject. Abstinence can be taught by the family of the young adult in his home. It cannot work with everyone. And as far as conception control is concerned, I do not support the "no birth control" platform of some christians as they have no problem with it within marriage yet they use the argument of " life start at conception" for all the other categories.

Most christian families I have met must be using some kind of conception control as they do not end up with 10 kids.... granted I have met a minority who does and is faithful to their conviction that any birth control causes to interfere with what they define as God's Will.

On the other end I can understand that the liberalization of birth control methods can be percieved by the same christians ( also non christians who support abstinence)as an open door to promiscuity.( multiple partners etc...).As a parent I wish for my children to be protected yet to nurture monogenous and long term relationships.

It is as if everything ended up in the same pot.When each matter needs to be dealt with step by step.

The Other Michael

[moderator mode]

babelfish and Sabine, thank you very much for posting your thoughtful messages on both sides of the abortion topic. If there were more of this kind of discussion that went on in the public arena there might be more progress being made.

[/moderator mode]

The problem that I see is that there is a very vocal, motivated, and wealthy group on the anti-choice side that is quite willing to impose their extreme personal moral beliefs on others.

As long as that is the case, there is going to be a lot of tendency on the pro-choice side to view ANY reduction in choice as a step down the slippery slope to total outlawing of abortion rights.

I don't know how the polarization can be reduced if the folks in the middle don't work together. My personal view is that things aren't too bad as generally practiced now, and any steps to restrict access to abortion will be steps in the wrong direction. It looks like reducing the need for abortion is a far more productive avenue to pursue.

cheers,
Michael

babelfish

Thanks Michael.

It's possible that the majority of reasonable people, while they may be personally against abortion and see it as a last resort, would be against legislation criminalizing it. However, these voices (like Sabine's) are often drowned out (as you pointed out) by the more militant and vocal far right, who say that a human being with full rights exists from the moment of conception. These same people also oppose stem cell research.

I also agree that the reason the pro-choice side is reluctant to even consider any cut-off point for legal abortions is that they see this as a slippery slope leading to all abortions being illegalized. Also, many late-term abortions are performed, not because a teenager was scared to tell her family she was pregnant until she started showing, but because a severe birth defect has been detected, or the mother's life is in jeopardy. To deny these women the right to a legal late-term abortion just seems cruel.

Sabine Grant

Merci for your encouraging comments Michael!

Hello Babelfish ! I wish I could tell you that third trimester abortions are only performed in the tragic circumstances you have brought up. Because there is no limiting legislation which specifies the overwhelming circumstances during which a third trimester abortion can be performed, anyone can change their mind and decide to abort a fetus at any time.

You mentionned birth defects for example. Most can be detected in earlier stages of a pregnancy. Intra uterine surgery can also fix some of those defects. There are exceptions of course where the health of the mother can suddenly deteriorate in later pregnancy and her physician recommends that the pregnancy be interrupted to spare the mother's life. Or because medical treatment has to be applied to the mother which would cause the fetus to deteriorate and be born with serious birth defects. I am not sure but does not the Catholic Church place the life of the mother as more valuable than the unborn child ? any catholic who can answer?

Most 16 year olds can have an abortion without any parental authorization.

Again my concern is at what point can the fetus feel physical pain? if there is no way to avoid an abortion, should we take in account the stages of development of a human fetus to apply certain procedures? there is great contradiction in the way a human being will have the right to die given means to not suffer in their last days and the way we seem to not care for the physical pain of a human fetus during some procedures.

I wish to see equal compassionate treatment for all human beings. Again I define human being as a being with human characteristics with vital signs and brain activity. I cannot even consider what is called a " vegetable" as a non human being even though brain activity has ceased.( I admit this is more of an emotional statement on my part than rational)

I also realize that extreme reactions to the whole issue have been engendered on both sides. And I deplore it. I am often accused by the extreme pro life wing to be an abortionist as I try to balance what is best for all concerned.I am also chastedized by the other extreme wing as I still stand to bring back the focus on the condition of the human fetus. Babelfish, my position is far from being comfortable with either sides. Maybe that is why you do not hear more voices similar to mine.

But they are out there... too silent at times. We are that minority who is caught in the middle of that endless battle. I have met and talked with pro choice individuals who have a similar concern to mine. Most pro choice individuals do care about the human condition of any human being.They are reluctant to approach the condition of the fetus for fear that they may open a " can of worms". And pro lifers will not negociate as most of them do reject any type of abortion in any given circumstances and by doing so remain totaly uncompassionate to the human condition.

While those crowds are engaged in justifying their positions, there are still 1.5 million abortions performed per year many of them could have been avoided with proper conception control or alternative counseling. That is what I grieve the most.

Individual action even if only a drop of water can alterate that vicious circle.Belonging to one group or the other tend to paralize that individual action.

I think one general principle ought to apply to the whole issue: dwell on compassion for the human condition.

brighid

This is completely WRONG. Late-term abortion is regulated, much more stringently then early-term abortion where it can be had without medical necessity. The reason the Supreme Court did not appropriate broader restrictions is because the language used to support the ban was TOO vague.

Take a look at the Wisconsin law <a href="http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/wisctalk.html" target="_blank">http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/wisctalk.html</a>

28 States have bans on abortion, varying in degree from state to state and most states restrict late-term abortion with the exception of saving the life or health of the woman. S

The myth of unregulated late-term abortion is NOTHING more then a myth, even if in SOME cases a woman is able to procure one for no other reason then selfish ones such that she just doesn't want the baby anymore. However, THAT can and IS addressed by legislation and banning the procedure in order to "catch and punish" this extremely small (if even existent) number of women damns THOUSANDS of women each year to death or permanent disability. I find the later to be far worse then the possibility that SOME women MIGHT be able to have a D&X procedure for selfish reasons.


From the Allan Guttmacher Institute: State by State overview of post-viablity legislation -

<a href="http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/spib_RPA.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/spib_RPA.pdf</a>

17 States with laws that restrict to ONLY preserve the health of life of mother ... 19 that have potentially unenforceable restrictions ... 10 with NO post-viability restrictions ...

For more detailed information:
<a href="http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/spib.html" target="_blank">http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/spib.html</a>

The viablity issue discussed:
<a href="http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib13.html" target="_blank">http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib13.html</a>

Brighid

babelfish

Hi Brighid,

Thanks for the links and info. Especially timely due to the fact that there has been some gloating in fundie circles recently about the inroads that have been made into making abortions, even though legal, virtually inaccessible in many states across the nation due to clinic closures.

<a href="http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/point_of_view/Archives.asp" target="_blank">Here's an audio link</a> to a radio show I heard yesterday on this very topic.