Abortion
Righty: Human life is holy and it starts at conception. Abortion is nothing less than murder. If only we could treat those pro-choice baby-killers the way they treat the unborn!
Lefty: Women are entitled to choose what they do with their own bodies. Period. Nobody can dictate how they handle their pregnancies. If a woman doesn’t want the baby, it’s her decision to make, and hers alone. No parents, husbands, boyfriends or reactionaries have the right to meddle. Got that, Bozo?
The New Moderate:
How can such bitter, divisive black-and-white rhetoric continue to swirl around a classic gray issue? We should be treating abortion like the nuanced and difficult matter it clearly is. Yes, a month-old embryo is alive, but is a clump of barely differentiated cells truly human? Is it human enough to force a pregnant woman to carry an unwanted baby to full term?
On the other hand, how can pro-choice advocates glibly argue that a fetus is simply part of a woman’s body, to be disposed of as readily as an inflamed appendix? Unless it has been cloned, a fetus is a genetically distinct individual. Nobody can argue that a fetus doesn’t represent a potential human life. The transformation of a pair of microscopic cells into a bona fide person is one of nature’s most dazzling feats.
So where does The New Moderate stand on abortion? In the middle, naturally. Early in the second trimester, a fetus begins to assume undeniably human characteristics and its disposal begins to look suspiciously foul. But where do we draw the line? Is a 20-week fetus sacrosanct while its 19-week brethren are fair game? If it were up to The New Moderate, we’d allow first-trimester abortions to any woman who requests them, outlaw them beyond the five-month mark (unless the mother’s health is seriously threatened), and permit them during the intermediate period only in cases of rape, incest or health complications.
I’ve taken this position based on my concern for older fetuses as sentient beings, at least marginally aware of their surroundings and capable of feeling pain. Sentient beings (especially human ones) should have rights. By contrast, it doesn’t appear that a first-trimester embryo has much more awareness than a bean sprout. Sometime around the three-month mark it can make a fist, while voluntary movements start appearing shortly afterward. That’s where I’ve drawn the first line. Up to this point, the wishes of the pregnant woman should take precedence over the welfare of the unborn. I’ve drawn the second line approximately where a fetus becomes potentially viable with medical care. Beyond this point, the welfare of the unborn must take precedence over the wishes of the mother.
Yes, the imposition of cutoff dates seems a little arbitrary, and I’m not sure if our solution will satisfy anyone. (Nobody said being a moderate was easy.) But we need to propose a fair alternative to the abortion-on-demand stance of Roe v. Wade, which is continually under assault and could actually be rejected by individual states. It’s time for a solution that spares us both the gender politics of the pro-choice warriors and the rigid religiosity of the hidebound pro-lifers. Say what you will about our solution — at least it avoids the all-or-none intransigence of the two warring camps. Abortion should be a medical and ethical issue, not a political one.
Summary: Keep first-trimester abortions legal, outlaw them after five months unless the mother’s health is endangered, and permit them between three and five months only in cases of rape, incest or health complications.
This post is a good one to consider the difference between being centrist and moderate. Sometimes there are opportunities to take action which both sides are unwilling to consider. I think the pro-choice and pro-life ideals can both be advanced…unfortunately both groups have different agendas than their names imply. Currently a women in intense emotional turmoil goes to an abortion clinic where the doctor has a huge financial incentive to convince her to abort. Many in the pro-choice arena are actually in favor of abortion because of eugenic ideals, the desire for more women in the workplace, or because they make money off of it. Tax abortion clinics and reduce the profit margin. Then use the money to pay for adoption expenses providing further economic incentive to choose life. Also, there should be more regulations to ensure that the women are making the choice that they truly want since there is evidence that indicates significant regret associated with this choice. When someone first finds out about a disabling illness, a doctor doesn’t let them decide if they want all care withdrawn or make other irreversible decisions until the doc is reasonably sure the patient has come to grips with the emotional aspects of the news they’ve just heard. This is not paternalistic, but it is a desire to serve the long term autonomy of the patient in situations where they are known to be under duress. It’s a similar logic for why some places make you wait three days after purchasing a gun before you can take it home which if you ask me is pro-”rational” choice. It borders on self righteous for an elitist to argue for the freedom for someone else to get on a table and have an abortion without supporting them after burdening them with a decision of that gravity. Why not have women desiring abortion go through a class to prepare them for the psychological impact of abortion, how to handle it, and then also educate them on the full range of options that they do have including open adoptions? On the pro-life side, many compromises could be made to reduce abortions such as more social programs for mothers to be empowered to actually care for the child if they decide to keep it. Why can’t we fund more sex education and birth control availability? Some think that more birth control leads to more promiscuity and more unintended pregnancies. That logic doesn’t hold up as western Europe has half the rate of abortion as the US most likely because of the low birth rate. This is one case where I disagree with moderation if it means apathy as that just leads to more extremists drumming up support to advance their own hidden agenda.
Great post, Jameson. (And welcome!) I’m trying to light a fire under moderates and dispel the notion that we’re apathetic, wishy-washy, noncomittal thinkers. I use the terms “moderate” and “centrist” almost interchangeably, and I don’t think moderate solutions always have to represent the midpoint between the two extremes. (For example, I’d want to outlaw any exchange of money between lobbyists and representatives, while both liberals and conservatives seem fine with the current system.)
Back to abortion. Yes, you’re absolutely right that there’s far more to the issue than being “for” or “against.” Abortion is such a lightning rod for polarized thinkers that we almost forget about the actual human beings involved. Education and support should be part of the process.
One irony: Adding government-sponsored counseling would probably raise taxes, which would have the conservatives up in arms even though the program would result in fewer abortions.
Good ideas, though. We need nuanced thinking like yours in the public forum.
I feel obligated to point out that humans kill sentient things all the time, and nobody makes an issue of that. How do you measure the potential worth of life?(which has proven to be oh so cheap) People who don’t want/shouldn’t have kids shouldn’t have them, and an EARLY abortion could help make alot of lives easier. Quality? or Quantity? If we value life, we must choose quality, not just keep bringing in more lambs to the slaughter. Unfortunatley, many people take sides on the issue because they are sheep and refuse to think of it in terms of their own morals. JESUS SAYS NO! WOMEN’S RIGHTS! people are fundamentally (and seemingly mentally) incapable of calming the hell down and using rational thought. (Yay for moderates, making the world a thoughtful place) These sheeple refuse to chagne their ideas no matter what anyone says(namely anti-abortion righties) and when their talk refuses to bring about change on the other side, violence ensues. (note: more so on the right, I wonder why???): And all these idiots are allowed to vote, ensuring that no progess is made, and the problem persists.
And I feel obligated to point out that a true woman’s right activist would be on the street demanding legalized prostitution and heroin, since it is a woman’s right to do with her body what she chooses. Unfortunately, a fetus is not her body; it belongs to the fetus. You don’t want children, don’t have sex. Lives a lot easier? That holds true with disposing of five year olds as well as five week olds in utero. Not a rational argument.
No, true woman’s rights activists would demand stricter prosecution of prostitution, because they feel it exploits women. As to the drugs, well, _lots_ of people, af both sexes demand the right to do as the please to their bodies. It’s not a woman’s issue.
What makes a person a person? A body? or a mind?
Does anyone on the right or left believe that abortion is good? No, not many. Does anyone on the right or left believe that fewer abortions would be better? Of course. So, do we REALLY do enough to avoid abortions? What if we did not criminalize any abortion(ie neither mother nor doctor went to jail, because that’s stupid), but that we indeed educated all involved in an undesired pregnancy about the life long effects of an abortion.
Yes, in many cases, a life was terminated. But beyond that, what of the health of the mother? The mental health of the mother. Of my limited experiences, it is the rush to ‘solve the problem’and sincere attempt to shelter the mom from mental harm is what actually causes the greatest harm. Mothers experience the long term guilt of the act of abortion. And it is this mental health issue that is mostly overlooked in this argument – ironically pro-choice arguing abortion rights in order to protect a woman’s mental health, when its been my experience that an abortion is a destructive mental force long term in a woman’s life — and except for a loss of a child – perhaps no other mental health force greater. So it is a great challenge to allow for (tragic) mistakes and protection of the innocent. It is my deep hearted beleif that real education prior to final decision on an abortion will lead to a dramatic decrease in the procedure. Is the right willing to live with the risk of ‘just education?’ Is the left willing to allow the education of long term – perhaps – permanent impact/mental repercussions of an abortion? I would say nither side like the prospect of working harder on each case instead of having a broad brush policy on their side.
Again, if a 19 year old girl knew an abortion would reasonably cause decades of potential trauma/heartache, I think we would greatly reduce abortions. But criminalizing abortions is wrong. No frightened 16 year old girl – or her doctor, should ever face criminal issues if they beleived they were doing the right thing.
The new moderate position: Education to the ‘nth’degree with women considering abotions. I believe this will reduce 90% of abortions. But criminalizing abortions is a mistake.
Luke wrote: …we indeed educated all involved in an undesired pregnancy about the life long effects of an abortion.
I think you want to “educate” in psychologically constraining the woman to give birth because… you know… “long effects of abortion”… bad, bad, bad..
Many women do feel long-term guilt after an abortion (something the Pro-Choicers rarely talk about), and abortion certainly shouldn’t be used as a birth control method. But how do we “educate” an impoverished crack addict who was just impregnated for the 5th time, or one who was raped? Who in their right mind would adopt the child of a crack addict? Sometimes abortion makes the most sense, though it should never be approached casually as a “women’s rights” issue. It’s a medical and ethical issue.
look into the causes of those mental health issues. Might they be caused by all those nay-sayers crying “murderer!”?
Rick, I do read a lot about Pro-Choice worrying that abortion can have a “long effect”, however their point is that if you have a reason to have an abortion, you have to work to make this effect “short effect”, not to point out that it is a “long effect” – it is not always a “long effect”. But the anti-abortion extremists “think” that educating in shorting this effect is akin to “let’s get a coffee, then an abortion, then see a movie” – easy attitude.
Luke is wrongly “educating” when he says: “Yes, in many cases, a life was terminated”, because he doesn’t put in perspective that and abortion had a valid motivation. Luke put on the “spot” that when a life is terminated, he is not talking about the life of the woman who died when she gave birth (for example).
Luke thinks that: “if a 19 year old girl knew an abortion would reasonably cause decades of potential trauma/heartache, I think we would greatly reduce abortions”, but if the 19 years is pregnant then the “education” instill fear of having a required abortion.
If she is NOT pregnant, then maybe she’ll avoid to have unprotected sex, or run faster so she wouldn’t be raped by her father, rapists or not get drunk at the parties etc…
So… How about them Oklahoman’s? What’s up with that.
Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, said the bill is not about women.
“It’s about the children in the womb and the life God created,” Russell said. “If it’s immoral to stand in defense of the life of the unborn children, then I stand so accused.”
=============================
Yep, the republicans want to give a religious spectacle in Oklahoma. Yupeee, Oklahomaaaaaa
77% of anti-abortion leaders are men, and 100% of them will never be pregnant.
Science can probably fix that…
lol@ yupee, I think you meant yipee. But that was funnier.
The Republicans aren’t for the rights of the unborn, they aren’t for rights in general. They just want to push their warped views of morality on everyone else.
On another Oklahomanian law where they put negations I put affirmations, so I suggest that it should be read as bellow:
“- Birth of a child does constitute a legally recognizable injury and that it is admissible to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child. This section shall award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child based on claims that tests to show injury, handicap, disease, disability of the child prior to birth have been undisclosed due to doctor’s inaction or omission to perform tests, that contributed to the pregnant woman not having the choice to terminate the pregnancy.
- Wrongful birth action can be brought by a parent or other person who is legally required to provide for the support of a child, which seeks economic or non- economic damages because of a condition of the child that existed before the time of the child’s birth, and which is based on a claim that a doctor’s inaction or omission to perform tests contributed to the pregnant woman not having the choice to terminate the pregnancy.
- In a wrongful life action or a wrongful birth action, damages may be recovered for any condition that existed before the time of a child’s birth if the claim is that doctor’s inaction or omission to perform tests contributed to the pregnant woman not having the choice to terminate the pregnancy.”
“77% of anti-abortion leaders are men, and 100% of them will never be pregnant.”
taliesinknol said: ” Science can probably fix that…
”
- Would we see men complaining that they were raped by wo… …I mean other men?
Anyway, men will abort more frequently than women because… you know… men… they don’t have time to rise children…
One point I don’t see being clearly brought out here is that there are two camps on this issue, and that neither camp actually wants the problem solved. The reason they don’t want it solved is that it’s a huge fundraising issue for both! Every time the status quo is changed or threaten, each side sends out zillions of fundraising calls, letters, and emails. And the bucks just roll in.
Abortions could, at least in developed countries, be brought nearly to zero by preventing most unwanted pregnancies. To do that we would need better methods of birth control for both men and women (fewer side effects, more convenient, cheaper, more reliable, more choices), better access to those methods, and better sex education. (The first poster touched on this.)
But the two camps do *not* want that. If unwanted pregnancies were reduced by 95%, the organizations promoting “life” and “choice” would have no reason to exist. Their donors would lose interest. Jobs would disappear. Many politicians would have one less platform plank to run on.
(Oh, the humanity.)
cp wrote: If unwanted pregnancies were reduced by 95%, the organizations promoting “life” and “choice” would have no reason to exist.
——————————-
“Unwanted pregnancies” is such a personal issue. However, viewed through a given social governing “lens”, this issue “becomes” public.
Let’s say that unwanted pregnancies would be reduced 95%, some “social” pressure from some groups may ask women: “Why do you NOT want to have a pregnancy? “
While the moderate or centrist position should call for some kind of compromise toward a mutually desirable goal (a reduction in the number of annual abortions), like so many other ethical/moral issues, sensible legislative compromise would lead to unsensible enforcement and unacceptable government intrusion in to what is at best a difficult and intensely personal decision. Several times bills have been close to passage in my state that would restrict abortions (I don’t know if it would have passed constitutional muster), but failed because some members of the legislature refused to compromise on the issues of rape, incest or the health of the mother. Were they really so ideologically rigid that they could not concede on any ground at all, or did the leaders on both sides of the issue recognize the difficulties in drawing a clear line for the purposes of enforcement? The inexact nature of determining the date of conception, the process of providing proof of rape or incest in order to receive permission for a legal termination, the subjective nature of considering mental health as well as physical health in making a medical determination of eligibility, along with other fine legal points brought up by earlier commentors, make it obvious to me that this an all or nothing issue. As such it put me on the prochoice side. I am just enough of a libertarian not to want the government involved in this personal of a decision.
HC: That was one of the most persuasive and well-reasoned arguments I’ve ever read in favor of the pro-choice stance on abortion. I think the conservatives refuse to relent in cases of rape, incest and poor maternal health because they’re afraid of the slippery slope: if they concede on abortion under the above conditions, it will be only a short step to conceding on early-term abortions, then eventually ALL abortions.
I still don’t think abortion law has to be all or none, but that’s my steadfast moderate thinking. I’m against late-term abortions, though I realize there’s only an arbitrarily imposed cut-off mark between early-term and late-term. Whatever we eventually decide, we have to realize that one camp is going to be infuriated. Though my moderate solution would infuriate BOTH camps, the degree of infuriation would be less on each side. I’ll leave it to you to decide if that’s a good thing.
Capital! It seems that compromise rules the roost where these touchy matters really hit the fan: in the gutsy innards of woman’s rights issues in the hinterlands of the good old USA. But this sort of thoroughly modernistic and urbane “woman’s rights” issue wouldn’t happen in donwtown Addis Adaba would it.
Look all you idiots that believe in abortion… You don’t own your body God does not your mother or your father! God loves us all even the abortionist…if you are truly sorry he will forgive you in anything you do!!! As long as women keep getting this procedure done and keep killing Gods gift we will never have peace on this earth till it stops why do you think we have all these catastrophic events taking place today at this very moment and it’s going to get worse in the days to come…. So people who believe in abortion go ahead be selfish… I’ll be praying for you
praise Jesus
Live,
“In Soviet Russia, unborn baby aborts YOU!!”
Why worry about unborns? They can take care of themselves, just bring back the Communism. In Communist Romania you’ll be in jail if you performed an abortion and also the pregnant woman will be in jail just for asking for an abortion.
US Americans are savages and stupid, they kill the doctors who perform abortions, Communism is better for “pro-life”-ers
I appreciate that you present how difficult these issues are. I think anyone who can take a black and white, for or against stand on many of the issues presented on this blog have not dedicated enough time to reflecting on the consequences of their decisions.
Live – it must really get your goat that there are people out there who are Christians who are pro-choice. And guess what – no matter how often you say we’re not Christians…YOU CAN’T MAKE IT SO…And as far as the “centrist” view….you will never stop women from making that choice. And even if you don’t like the reasons…it’s none of your damned BUSINESS!! I love this site, but when a man starts telling me that he at some point in the pregnancy I become a baby oven? I really don’t matter anymore emotionally or mentally…only if my BODY is threatened? And no one ever seems to talk about the reason abortion has been hard for women….they have been a culture where idiots who claim to represent Christ (and are in my opinion full of the ANTIchrist, like LIVE) shout out through the media that they are murderers….research shows a woman with a SUPPORT SYSTEM can do just fine, thank you. Just like any other major life event. But I still have to say as a woman…keep your laws off my body. And there is an underground forming that will keep safe abortion accessible. Remind yourselves of why Roe v Wade happened. Because women were dying having illegal abortions. Overthrowing Roe v Wade won’t stop it.
Cindy: I like your argument; you seem like an impassioned but fair-minded feminist. The crux of the issue for me is whether a woman with a genetically distinct organism growing inside her can still be considered a single being, and if not, why the woman’s rights should automatically trump the fetus’s rights. I know it starts to sound like early church disputes on the nature of Christ (is he purely divine, or a combination of human and divine, or does he embody two separate natures?)… but you have to admit it’s not as simple as declaring “keep your laws off my body.” There’s another body inside, after all.
I tried to stake out a moderate position by imposing cutoff points for abortion based on the development of the fetus. I think that once the little critter becomes viable with medical intervention (usually after the 5-month mark), it becomes a little dicey to clamor for abortion rights based purely on choice. Before three months, when the fetus is barely human in form, it’s a different story.
The cutoff points aren’t a perfect solution, but I think we need to move in this direction or there will always be strident pro- and anti-abortion factions fighting each other in this country. As I mentioned in the main argument, it’s possible that the pro-lifers could eventually gather enough steam to overturn Roe v. Wade. A compromise like mine would probably help ratchet down the angry rhetoric.
Live’s on the wrong website. Only a right-wing religious nut would rant and rave and blame the world’s problems on abortion. Abortion cause earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, 911, the Taliban, Oklahoma City bombings, starvation, etc…etc….huh?