A new fault line has opened in the abortion debate. The fight is no longer between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. It’s between militants and pragmatists.
While some extremists have been raising hell and shooting doctors, pragmatists have been hashing out common-ground legislation. Their latest bill, introduced Thursday, is the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act. If that sounds like a jumble of ideas from both sides, it’s because lots of bargaining went into it. Among other things, pro-choicers got money for contraception and sex education. Pro-lifers got abstinence-friendly curriculum, a bigger adoption tax credit, and financial support for women who continue their pregnancies.
The two sides talked, listened, and compromised. Pro-lifers couldn’t stand postcoital birth-control pills, fearing they might kill early embryos. The fear was unwarranted, but pro-choicers agreed to leave the pills out. Pro-choicers couldn’t stand even the vaguest legislative description of what doctors should tell patients. That anxiety, too, was unnecessary, but pro-lifers agreed to drop the language. Pro-choicers hated abstinence-only education but agreed to fund “evidence-based programs that encourage teens to delay sexual activity.” Pro-lifers wanted women to see prenatal ultrasound images but settled for money to make the machines more widely available.
Each side faced the other’s truths. Joel Hunter, an evangelical minister and former president-elect of the Christian Coalition, endorsed the bill’s provision of “better access to contraception.” So did two other pro-life theologians. Frances Kissling, who served for 25 years as president of Catholics for Choice, embraced pregnancy-prevention efforts that “meet women’s own goal of avoiding abortion where possible.” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-CT, the bill’s principal pro-choice sponsor, said at a Thursday press conference that “we all want to see fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions” and that “we must also foster an environment that encourages pregnancies to be carried to term.” Such statements are forbidden among pro-choice groups: You’re supposed to endorse reducing the “need” for abortion, not abortion itself, and you’re never supposed to concede that financial support for childbearing should influence abortion decisions. But DeLauro blurted it out. That’s what happens when you open your mind.
Scott–there are two invalid responses to your question. One better than the other, so I’ll give you the worse one:
The anti-choice/pro Fascist position will eventually figure out that their argument is that every sperm is precious. As such, every abortion involves the killing of at least one human being. Your statistics subtract this 1.0 occurence rate==add it back in and you will see that the “murder rate” from legalized abortions is from 20000 to 600 per cent higher than live births–using the figures you provide.
Asking a bible thumper for analysis beyond the bumper sticker is like an ant contemplating god don’t ya thing?
Good luck making the women adopt children, each and every middle-aged woman who wants kids that I know ever time time I’ve suggested them the choice of adoption they curl their lip in disgust as if I have told them the most offensive thing in the world.
Angel, they aren’t offended by adoption, but rather the suggestion they are too old to have one themselves.
#21, bobbo, sorry you missed it,
. . . every abortion involves the killing of at least one human being.
The basis of your error. And every anti-abortionist.
Can you show me even ONE human being killed during an abortion? As Misanthropic Scott pointed out, even with dated numbers, it is more rare for the mother to die during an abortion that it is to die during childbirth.
The collection of cells that form the fetus does not make the transition to human being until they draw that first breath. Until then, they are just a collection of cells, drawing sustenance from the host. Exactly the same as a cancerous tumor. And were you aware that both cancerous cells and fetuses have their own distinctive DNA?
Ralphie, you got me totally. Let me change my definition of human being, then I can change my statement that the response is invalid to valid, and voila==our agreement should be obvious even to you.
24. Ralph, the Bus Driver: And were you aware that both cancerous cells and fetuses have their own distinctive DNA?
Yes, that’s how you know there’s not just a single individual involved.
“the fetus does not make the transition to human being until they draw that first breath.”
I love reading these kinds of poorly thought out missives. These Rube Goldberg definitions just pop out from thin air for the purpose of clumsily justifying a position. People are artificially stopped from breathing all the time for various medical procedures. If the same was done to a foetus during and after birth, I guess this wouldn’t be a human being you say? Keep going.
There’s no difference between a baby born at term and a child born 2 1/2 months premature and that same child moments before birth – except in your convenient political imagination. They are all human beings.
RBG
Here’s a news item from yesterday where earnest politically correct writers have no clue as to when their party line supposes a foetus to be a person.
“A female fetus that was pronounced dead Sunday and found to be living while being prepared for burial later that night…”
“the father noticed signs of life in the female fetus and an uncle rushed it to the home of Dr. Aziz Daraushe…”
“The fetus, however, died a few hours later…”
http://tinyurl.com/n3obnh
RBG
RBG==aren’t you being unnecessarily strict in your requirement for accurate definitions of words to be used when discussing a subject?
We both know what Ralphie is aiming at even if he can’t put two words together.
Give him a break.
28 bobbo. My comment goes beyond Ralphie and is directed at a powerful and understandably desperate segment of society that has come up with weird definitions of life to conveniently justify their brand of sexual power politics and assuage what otherwise would be the behavioral equivalent of a horrific monstrosity. Nothing new here though if the ancient art of exterminating people is any guide.
In Canada, for example, they still believe you are suddenly transformed into a human only after the Great Pumpkin spreads pixie dust or some other magical process that can only happen during a delivery. One moment, uh, boogly cells… the next moment -kazaam!- human.
The same to-term infant could have easily been born one, two or more months earlier. The foetus is clearly more than a collection of inconsequential cells however much wishful thinking and group-think is involved.
RBG
I’m a very discrete surgeon
with instruments long and thin
I only do one operation
My god, how the money rolls in…
#29–RGB==your anguish overflows so much, its kinda hard to tell exactly what has you upset. But, I’ll give you a few Rube Goldberg definitions:
1. a powerful and understandably desperate segment of society /// Can’t tell if that is the Supreme Court of the USA, or pregnant women wanting an abortion.
2. sexual power politics /// a careful/thoughtful balancing of conflicting moral majority vs individual freedom/autonomy
3. behavioral equivalent of a horrific monstrosity /// nope, can’t equate a verb with a noun.
4. could have easily been born one, two or more months earlier /// easy for whom? Ever been to a premie ICU? The cost? The life time disability? The joy and relief of parents turning to pain and heartbreak?
5. foetus is clearly more than a collection of inconsequential cell /// Everybody knows that and says that except anti-choice advocates who want to mischaracterize their opponents. Has to do with weak arguments/losing in the Supreme Court/being a minority opinion I think.
#6–group-think //// Who is engaged in group think? The dozens of activists screaming “baby killer” 100 years from a clinic, or the single mother and her doctor making individually considered opinions?
RGB–use your intelligence for something more life affirming==I hear air conditioning and heating is still a good field.
#29 – RBG,
One moment, uh, boogly cells… the next moment -kazaam!- human.
Just the way our tax code and murder laws say it, though with a bit more legalese. Born 12:01AM January 1st, no tax deduction for the prior year. Two minutes earlier … kazaam! … tax deduction.
Ditto for our murder/manslaughter laws.
Do you really want to be charged with manslaughter if you accidentally bump into a woman who does not yet even appear pregnant and knock her down causing a miscarriage?
Think about the implications.
Then, when you are done, think about whether you really personally have received the one true message from on high about exactly when life becomes fully human with rights. There seems to be some debate about this. Most of the arguments are religious … and we have separation of church and state here, or did and would still like to maintain at least the illusion thereof.
Besides, when exactly does the woman lose her rights as a human being in your mind? Does she become a slave to the fetus at conception? during the first trimester? the last trimester? When does she lose the right to enjoy a nice walk or engage in other pleasurable activities because it might put the fetus at risk? Should she be strapped to a bed for her entire pregnancy?
31 bobbo
1. And then some…
2. Like Canada’s legal abortions until moment of birth huh? Nice balance.
3. Yet the meaning is crystal. Magic.
4. As in watching my and others’ healthy 2.5 month early child look into mom’s eyes during kangaroo care? Experience that first before stating the zero-value of under-developed humans.
5.Has to do with extreme selfishness of the large conveniently self-deluded “no-choice for under-developed humans” group.
6. The people in #5 who pretend #4 doesn’t exist and isn’t routine.
32. MS. Turns out actual biology is just a little less artificial. Which is why preemie wards have a large range of treatments depending upon development age.
She begins to lose her rights at least when the underdeveloped human becomes viable. That’s when she loses her “nice walk.” Your inquiry is like stating black or white cannot exist because, dang, where exactly does one end and the other begin? When do moms get to go for a nice walk whenever they want?
The problem folks is that our “get-it-on” society and culture gives near zero import to the creation of human life. There’s the start of your birth control.
RBG
#33 – RBG,
Meanwhile, all of your arguments are based on procedures like IDX, which is already outlawed in this country even for the health of the mother.
As for birth control, I agree. Let’s give real sex ed. Let’s distribute condoms in schools. Let’s teach people about what really works and what doesn’t.
I’m all for reducing the number of abortions. I’m just not for imprisoning and killing women in the process.
In your many rants about laws in Canada and the U.S., why not consider the most egregious of all, the one that bans a procedure that was already rarely used, even when it could be necessary for the health and even the very life of the mother?
In short, why do you hate women? Why do you prefer fetuses to developed thinking humans?
Viability of the fetus is not all there is to this.
Unless … wait a minute … stop the presses … have you just invented a procedure for removing the fetus from the woman at any stage of development and baking it in the lab? Did you find parents for all of these human larvae?
The dying women I know are the ones dying to adopt babies but are faced with 2-4 years wait list.
I’m for not killing women in the process as well. So now that we’ve dealt with that, all the others -almost all of them- need to face up to their responsibilities towards fellow humans. The laws need to reflect that responsibility as well. Turns out we also have other laws governing even rare events.
RBG
RBG,
Sorry. I have to say bullshit in the extreme. If there are so many women dying to adopt babies, why do we have web sites like this?
http://tinyurl.com/ff9l3
Will your dying-for-babies women only take newborns? Does this, once again make the point that the anti-choice crowd only values fetuses not already born humans?
I’m not sure who posted this on the last abortion thread. I think it was bobbo. If I’m wrong, I apologize.
#26, RBG,
I love reading these kinds of poorly thought out missives. These Rube Goldberg definitions just pop out from thin air for the purpose of clumsily justifying a position. People are artificially stopped from breathing all the time for various medical procedures.
Don’t you just love the way some people twist things into meaning what they want and decide for the rest of us. If a person’s breathing is stopped during a medical procedure than so what? That has exactly nothing to do with when a fetus becomes a human. Because that person was already alive and has had that first breath.
I suspect you don’t like the definition because it doesn’t fit your ideas. When did your baby get her SIN? When was she named? Was it before or after she was born? What date on her birth certificate says she was born? If she was still born, would you have written her off your income taxes?
The baby in Nazareth? Did the baby take a breath? Then she was alive. At 22 weeks she might have lived a short while but would most likely succumb anyway. That 21% O2 the baby is breathing is also searing her lungs, ruining the already weak and underdeveloped tissue.
#29,
The same to-term infant could have easily been born one, two or more months earlier.
No. A baby can not be “easily born” premature. That is why they are called premature and require higher care than term babies. The lungs are the last to mature and premature babies can drown in their own fluids if the O2 is too high. Get a little earlier and the liver isn’t fully functioning. That could cause anything from mild jaundice to death, depending upon the development of the baby.
Yes, many babies are born every year that not too long ago would not survive. That only means we can save many premature babies. Most of these babies though are very sick and will carry problems throughout their life. If they live.
BUT, all that is a sidetrack to the issue of when a fetus becomes a human baby. And the answer is when the baby takes that first breath. Then she is human and has lived, even if she expires 15 seconds later. If the fetus never takes that first breath, it was never born.
Whether the baby takes that first breath at term or two months early makes little difference. Not until that first breath can we say “she is a baby”.
*
Two analogies.
I am on the sidewalk in front of your house. You don’t want me to come onto your property. Yet I am so very close. Until I actually cross that property line though, I am not trespassing. Even if I am touching the property line with my daddy toe. Even if you see me plain and clear. I’m good.
*
Alfred ONE shoots someone in the head. The victim’s heart stops beating. Most of the victim’s organs may still be transplanted. Most of the tissue is still alive, some remaining alive for several hours.
His kidneys could help someone live. His heart could be made to beat in another body. His eyes could still see in a third person’s body. His lungs could breath for a fourth person. If they are fast they could even drain his blood for transfusions. Maybe even use his skin for a burn victim.
Yet we can expect to see Alfred charged with murder even if all his body parts live on in others. Simply because he ceased to breath on his own.
36 Mis. And not one newborn among them, huh?
“Will your dying-for-babies women only take newborns?”
That’s kind of the definition.
Thanks for the link, it allows me to quote: “Waiting times for infant adoptions vary tremendously and can be as long as 2 years or more. Many agencies now involve birth parents in choosing adoptive parents and have discontinued traditional “waiting lists” (first come, first placed) because so few infants are available through agencies.”
RBG
37 Ralph, the Bus Driver.
“In general, outcomes for premature babies are very good.”
The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.
http://tinyurl.com/57dhma
That doctors do not deliver these babies early is a choice, not because it’s procedurally impossible to do so. Sometimes they must be delivered early for the protection of the mom and/or the baby as in the case of preeclampsia. And, what do you know, these inert collection of inconsequential cells surprise us by turning magically into people. Who would have thought?
Why first breath? There is no difference between the structure of the newborn at birth or moments before. Your “breath” thing is simply created by you artificially to suit your own sad end. It’s a bit like stating you’re an adult at 21 in some states while 18 in others. Meanwhile biology doesn’t give a rats what you might think.
For that matter, on the island of Bali, infants are considered gods. They aren’t considered human until they are six months old.
What if a newborn could be placed on a lung machine for a year without ever breathing at all? Suddenly your ridiculous definition goes out the window and you are left wondering about millions of aborted “non-humans.” But, not to worry, I know you would change the definition to cover yourself. Like: “Ok, so now you’re deemed biologically human only if you have a passport.”
You’re saying trespassing is an artificial law just like your definition of life?
So now you’re saying brain function is the definition of being alive? How does the newborn brain work at moment of birth and the moment prior? Pretty much the same I’d have to say.
RBG
#39, RBG,
Why first breath? There is no difference between the structure of the newborn at birth or moments before.
You could not be more mistaken. As my analogies in #37 point out, there is a definite line. Standing in front of your house, either I am or I am not trespassing. With Alfred shooing that guy, either he is or he isn’t dead.
When a baby takes that first breath, she is no longer dependent upon the mother to supply her tissues with O2. The baby survives upon its own. She has completed the last obstacle to being a human. If the baby doesn’t take that breath, the heart will soon starve for O2 and cease beating. If the umbilical cord continues to feed the fetus, the the fetus is totally dependent upon the mother.
Argue all you like, but as I was taught from an early age, close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and a good shave. We either have a fetus or a baby. A fetus totally depends upon the host (mother) for survival and a baby does not. Even you could care for a baby but I doubt you could care for a fetus to term.
*
From your link,
Your own link confirms what I said. Premature babies are not the norm and not “easily” delivered or cared for. A baby born 2 1/2 mths premature has a poor survival rate and very high morbidity rate. READ YOUR OWN LINK !!!