Pharyngula

Don't statistics show that there women who profess to be pro-life have abortions about as much as women who are pro-choice? Have I read that? It's in my head from somewhere.

Posted by: Will E. | April 24, 2007 2:55 PM

Will E., I've been trying to re-find the article I once read that showed exactly that, but can't find it right now. So yeah, not helpful, but I've read that too.

Posted by: kmarissa | April 24, 2007 3:13 PM

This is precisely why I refuse to use the term "pro-life."

Try "pronatalist"--that's where it's really at.

Posted by: Eric | April 24, 2007 3:25 PM

Limbaugh and Coulter once were fetal.
Keep abortion safe and legal.

Posted by: Mark | April 24, 2007 3:28 PM

Will E.,

For what it's worth, this article, by a pro-choice group in Canada, discusses "When the anti-choice choose", although it's really a collection of anecdotes rather than statistics (although it does give some statistics).

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

Posted by: kmarissa | April 24, 2007 3:35 PM

That's the link- I actually did a cartoon based upon that anti-tales site: http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a229/dhonig2/YourAbortionMyAbortion383.jpg

Posted by: dhonig | April 24, 2007 3:46 PM

Don't statistics show that there women who profess to be pro-life have abortions about as much as women who are pro-choice? Have I read that? It's in my head from somewhere.

Every abortion is immoral... except mine.

Also Abe... I'm not going to call by that stolen name, you are not fit to wear it. You do not get to decide what is moral or immoral for me or anyone else. If someone wants your opinion on these matters they will ask for it. But whatever you do, do not hold your breath while waiting. You will be sorely disappointed in the outcome.

Posted by: commissarjs | April 24, 2007 4:00 PM

Sheesh commissarjs--Abe acts as the voice of reason about how things ACTUALLY are with regards to therapeutic vs. induced abortion, and you jump all over him. I guess if anyone expresses an opinion (or in this case, a FACT) that doesn't agree with your narrow view of the world (which is, apparently, all Pro-lifers want women to die), it can't possibly have any merit or basis in reality.

Reality dose here--whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, rhetoric as expressed by the majority of posts here so far does nothing more but widen the gap between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Do you really want this issue to come to some solution? If so, then put down the slings and arrows and actually take some time to learn what the other side ACTUALLY believes rather than what you think they believe. Many comments here exhibit the height of ignorance. But, forget it--far easier to just sling insults than it is to come to solutions, even when people's (BOTH the living and unborn) lives depend on it. Best we just keep this a political issue so that the Dems and Reps can continue to use it as a wedge issue so that we stay in their camps and ignore other relevant issues they don't want us to think about.

Or alternatively, we can get beyond politics and actually start listening to the concerns each side has. I, for one, believe we can find a middle ground that would benefit BOTH mothers and children. And, for your information, this is NOT a religious issue. Not all people of faith are pro-life, nor are all secularists pro-choice. So stop discussing it purely in those terms.

Posted by: squeaky | April 24, 2007 4:32 PM

Check out this other example of the clearly intended effects of the PBA ban:
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp

Doctors just don't train in the procedures anymore because of so-called "conscience clauses". These are life-saving procedures and this wasn't even an abortion! It was a stillborn.

Posted by: jennhi | April 24, 2007 4:40 PM

Pygmy Loris,

Forgive the subtlety of my sarcasm. I thought the lower-case "g" would give away my position.

Thank you for using the term "potential". Nicely done and well thought out. I've expressed those sentiments myself many times before. A cluster of cells does not a human make.

Posted by: Alex | April 24, 2007 4:44 PM

I remain opposed to abortion on the grounds that I believe the right to life should be extended to the very earliest stage of an individual's existence as such.

That said, this tragic case illustrates exactly the kind of medical exemption that should be allowed and which should be decided by the doctors and parents.

For example, so-called 'partial-birth abortion" may look and sound disgusting to a layperson but then so do many surgical procedures and that abhorrence is not, in itself, sufficient grounds for denying it as a medical option.

Doctors must be free, on a case-by-case basis, to decide the best course of action by weighing the rights and needs of both mother and child should the two come into conflict.

However, while the mother has clear rights both to protect her own life and decide what should happen to her own body, she has no absolute right to make unilateral decisions concerning the life and body of any other individual, even if it is just a fetus in her womb.

Either way, politicians should not interfere based only on one narrow interpretation of the particular faith to which they happen to belong and which they have no right to impose on others who do not share that belief.

Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 24, 2007 4:50 PM

Squeaky,

No. It's really simple. You either believe that women are people who have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies or you don't. It's a very clearly demarcated line, trying to straddle the line doesn't make you better. It means you partly side with a group of authoritarians who want to control the lives of others.

Trying to draw imaginary lines between therapeutic abortion and abortion-on-demand is what is known as slut shaming. It's a wedge strategey meant to chip away one segment. "You're not like those other women, they're immoral sluts, you're just a poor helpless woman who had something bad happen. We'd NEVER take away your rights... just those OTHER women who aren't like YOU."

Posted by: commissarjs | April 24, 2007 4:53 PM

squeaky,

I believe that pro-choicers must vigorously defend the rights we have. That is the best solution. The South Dakota ban was voted down by the population in a referendum, and I believe that the risk of first trimester abortions becoming illegal is very small. Most of the people in the country do not oppose those procedures. The problems are that anti-choice folks VOTE and many times they vote based solely on that issue and that second/third trimester abortions seem to be a more contentious issue.

The continued assault on the rights of women over their own bodies (of which fetuses are a part, not separate) by certain segments of society is the battle ground. I do not need to compromise with anti-choicers. I need to know what they think to find ways to prevent them from endangering MY rights.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | April 24, 2007 5:00 PM

"The mother's life trumps the life of an unborn child when her life is at risk, any reputable doctor will tell you that."

Yeah, but the point is that until her _life_ is certainly at risk, the anti-choicers are willing to make her endure whatever torture their god cares to put her through.

About twelve years ago, very early into my wife's last pregnancy, we were told that the pregnancy was ectopic. We were advised that she could bring the pregnancy to term, but it would be extremely painful and she would be bedridden for most of it.

It doesn't sound like a difficult decision to make, but it was. A week later when she went the emergency room with severe pain and bleeding, it was suddenly less difficult, even though the doctor maintained that she could continue the pregnancy for at least a little longer.

I attended church at the time. When my pastor came for visitation and learned that we had terminated the pregnancy, he gently told us he disapproved.

One of the great regrets of my life is that I didn't gently tell him to go take a flying ...

Anyway, since then, everything I've read about ectopic pregnancies tells me that we should have been instructed in much stronger terms that the pregnancy was impossible and that we should terminate it post haste. It would have saved us a little bit of false hope, never mind the pain.

My heart goes out to anyone who has to make a decision like that. It's one a woman makes with the significant people in her life (which may or may not include spiritual advisors) and with her physician. But she can't make it for anybody else and nobody else should be allowed to make it for her.

Posted by: Billy | April 24, 2007 5:03 PM

Thank you very much, Ian Spedding! Your response is a credit to you and your position-- it is very well reasoned. I happen to disagree about the point where a collection of cells becomes a human life, but your point about D&X strikes a chord.

Posted by: Kith | April 24, 2007 5:11 PM

Ian,

I will have to second Kith about your D&X point. I'll probably use it in some future argument.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | April 24, 2007 5:13 PM

It comes down to what you really are defending. There are two lines of argument running here--one is the argument that women's lives need to be protected when their pregnancy becomes life threatening. I certainly agree with that, and I believe many pro-life advocates would as well. That isn't the issue that is being argued over, at least not on the pro-life camp. the pro-life camp is primarily concerned about abortions of convenience. "Although I'm healthy and the baby is healthy, this child will really screw up my life, so I will just abort it." How is that argument justifiable?

Posted by: squeaky | April 24, 2007 5:14 PM

How is that argument justifiable?

Because it's her body. She gets to decide what happens to her own body.

Posted by: commissarjs | April 24, 2007 5:17 PM

Ian,

Your point sounds good, but it doesn't hold up.

You say that doctors should be free to choose the best course of action for their patients (mom and fetus). But those are often in conflict. What you omit is the fact that you think a doctor who is too pro-mother should be punished.

The fundamental error is your idea that this scheme would work out. Imagine a doctor in South Dakota who believes his patient needs an abortion in a close case. Then, a zealously anti-abortion District Attorney prosecutes him. (The State will find a doctor to argue on the stand that that the abortion was not needed.) Now the abortion doctor is in jail for years. What message does that send?

Any serious abortion restriction involves the state looking over the doctor's shoulder to make sure the doctor 'balances the needs' correctly. Doctors, being people who don't want to go to jail, will err on the side of the fetus - to the harm of many women.

That's why the pro-choice side of the debate is so all-or-nothing, they know that a middle ground is really going to be quite restrictive.

You say, "Doctors must be free, on a case-by-case basis, to decide the best course of action by weighing the rights and needs of both mother and child should the two come into conflict." This is no restriction at all unless you provide penalties for doctors who go too far, and at that point you have removed the objectivity of the doctor. The Partial Birth Abortion Act says that a doctor can perform a PBA if the mother will die without one. These things aren't black and white. It won't be clear that the mother WILL die without one, and second-guessing WILL occur. If a district attorney can convince a jury that the doctor got it wrong and performed an unneeded PBA - then the doctor goes to jail.

PS. I take it that you oppose the new Partial Birth Abortion ban then, since it contains no health exception? If a doctor performed a PBA on a woman who would be seriously injured without one, the doctor could be thrown in jail for 2 years. What kind of balance is that?

Posted by: Chris Bell | April 24, 2007 5:27 PM

Partial birth abortion is not a medical term. Pro-choice advocates should shun the term outright. It is an emotionally charged term used by abortion opponents to confuse the argument.

Posted by: Alex | April 24, 2007 5:37 PM

Alex is correct, my apologies. I used PBA only to refer to the PBA Act. It is called a Dilation & Extraction (D&X) or a form of Dilation & Evacuation (D&E), depending on which doctor is describing it.

Posted by: Chris Bell | April 24, 2007 5:45 PM

Pro-Life should really be changed to Pro-Birth. They have never shown a damn about caring for life.

Posted by: Mark | April 24, 2007 6:01 PM

"Although I'm healthy and the baby is healthy, this child will really screw up my life, so I will just abort it." How is that argument justifiable?

Posted by: llewelly | April 24, 2007 6:11 PM

That is a very important story that I think women in general should read. There are so many ways things can go wrong that cannot be accounted for, that will put a woman's body in legal limbo so fast. And this was a case where they did everything they could to cover their bases as a married couple, and yet within minutes, had they been in a place that had made abortions illegal, that man would've watched his wife and his potential child disappear into a surgical room never to be seen alive again.

I'm of the same opinion on the matter as that man: I support the right of women to have an abortion, but personally I wouldn't go there if it was my relationship. But just the same, I wouldn't have done any different than this man, had I been in the same situation. You're going to lose both if you don't act, and you might as well save one. Can any person even try to fathom what that would be like, the entire situation turning on a dime in that way? If the person that this happened to was a preacher at his church, what would he have done? Would this be one of God's scantron tests, or would this be a tragic choice that unfortunately must be made.

As for the abortion for convenience argument, I might actually put some credit in those waters if the so-called "pro-lifers" weren't such rabid abortion haters who act politically only for that reason. They hate sexual freedom, they do not want women to control their own bodies, and they almost without fail invoke a religious text as giving them the license to do this to fellow women they have never met. Abortions for convenience are bound to happen, but an unborn child, especially one that young, is not a baby yet. That is why it's called a fetus.

Also, the few that convince themselves and do abort out of convenience would likely make bad parents anyhow, so a wasted human life is still being saved, in a way. I hate to end my post on this subject sounding unkempt like this, but that's how I look at it.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 24, 2007 6:29 PM

Can we all consciousness raise a little - they're not prolife, that's spin, they're anti-choice. (nods to Bill Hicks and George Carlin).

Posted by: AlanW | April 24, 2007 6:32 PM

A lot of comment.

1) D&X is accepted almost everywhere as a procedure that is both medically sound and reasonably free from 'complications' (such as caesarian extractions can cause). Look at the situation in almost any other country in the world (with the strange exception of those strictly fundamentalist nations for whom GOD is the ruling authority)

2) Almost EVERY woman responding to this (and other related thread) I've seen has been adamant that the choice should be theirs - their body, not yours! I can only imagine that those few 'women' who demonstrate 'anti-choice' sentiment are either trolls, or are sadly misguided and too-fully-indoctrinated to be capable of any choice without the say-so of their guiding 'father'. In the latter case I can only feel sad for them.

3) Anyone (and Squeaky I'm taking specifically to YOU & your kind) who think that any woman would enter into an abortion lightly, has obviously never met or talked with women who have had abortions. Without fail (and I include many personal friends in this) it it one of the most difficult decisions a woman can make... Simply ASK someone who knows from personal experience..... assuming you don't make abortion a retroactive crime !

Posted by: tony | April 24, 2007 6:46 PM

See, the thing is, often it is more a case of "wantedness." Who among you would tell a woman who just lost a child, at any point in her pregnancy (assuming it was a welcome pregnancy) not to worry about it because it was just a mass of lifeless cells?

Pro-life that I am, I will tell you I personally don't think abortion should be illegal. That won't stop abortion. Personally, I would like it if the legal issue was taken off the table so that we can work on the core issues--unwanted pregnancies. But will it ever be taken off the table? Not as long as neither side is willing to let go of the inflammatory rhetoric and start listening to each other and working together. I think we can all agree that reducing the need for abortion would be a very good thing.

Posted by: squeaky | April 24, 2007 7:54 PM

See, the thing is, often it is more a case of "wantedness." Who among you would tell a woman who just lost a child, at any point in her pregnancy (assuming it was a welcome pregnancy) not to worry about it because it was just a mass of lifeless cells?

I wouldn't, not least because I don't think a fetus is "just a mass of lifeless cells." But I don't think it's a baby, either. I do believe that the moral status of the fetus is to a considerable degree a matter of how the pregnant woman feels about it.

By the way, if she lost the "child" (ahem) in the early stages of pregnancy, she probably wouldn't even be aware of it.

Posted by: JasonR | April 24, 2007 8:06 PM

Reality dose here--whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, rhetoric as expressed by the majority of posts here so far does nothing more but widen the gap between pro-life and pro-choice advocates.

Squeaky, you wouldn't know reality in this matter if it kissed you on the lips.

What widens the gap between the pro-choice and snti-choice camps is that the anti-choice camps are so clearly lying about their motives. Pro-life? It's a joke, but not a funny one; you have to be excruciatingly stupid to fall for it.

These are the same people whose reaction to any public program for kids, for neonates, for their parents--health, prenatal care, schools, housing, anything--is to whine about their taxes. Moreover, they're the ones who overwhelmingly voted for Bush's war, for America--America!--to become a country where torture is okay. Only the profoundly gullible think the anti-choice crowd holds life in any way sacred.

On the other hand, they're also the people who still beat the drum for "abstinance education," despite study after study showing that it not only doesn't give students any more control over that part of their lives, but is a conduit for tax-subsidized out-and-out lies. They're the ones who oppose access to contraception. Who insist that homosexuals remain in a ghetto, legally. Whose sole concept of morality begins and ends in their--and everyone else's--underwear.

What isn't consistant with these people is respect for life, in any sense. What is consistant is their sexophobia. You have to be practically brain-dead not to see it. Almost none of them are interested in the welfare of neonates. They're just interested in bullying women for having sex.

Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 24, 2007 8:25 PM

That's a mighty big brush ya got there Molly, NYC. Again, you assume ALL pro-lifers are Christians, which is simply not true. Other than sharing Christianity with the camp you portray in your post above, I do not at all share ANY of the other views you point out (truth be told, I don't know too many other Christians who fit that stereotype, either--but then maybe that's just my crowd). All you have done is portrayed a particular stereotype and thus you paint the issues that those who are pro-life are concerned about in black and white--it's not a simple issue no matter what direction you look at it from, so it doesn't help at all when you over simplify an opposing viewpoint. Stereotyping has no place in an open and thoughtful person's life. If you consider yourself to be one of those people, then cut it out.

Posted by: squeaky | April 24, 2007 8:49 PM

I feel like I'm only being a link fairy today, but this is a very good encapsulation of the issue : Do you trust women?
When I was starting to realize that the "pro-life" stance had a lot of flaws but was still grappling with it, this particular post helped cut through the rhetoric in a big way.

Posted by: Carlie | April 24, 2007 8:54 PM

Squeaky (at 60) - Exactly where in my post (#58) is the word "Christian"?

I said they were mostly sexophobes. It's absolutely fascinating that you think that's the same as being a Christian.

Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 24, 2007 9:39 PM

"2) Almost EVERY woman responding to this (and other related thread) I've seen has been adamant that the choice should be theirs - their body, not yours! I can only imagine that those few 'women' who demonstrate 'anti-choice' sentiment are either trolls, or are sadly misguided and too-fully-indoctrinated to be capable of any choice without the say-so of their guiding 'father'. In the latter case I can only feel sad for them."

Ok, I'll bite. I'm a woman and I'm not pro-choice. I'm in the middle, undecided. I'm an atheist and sometimes I wish I could make the choice to side with the pro-choice movement because the evangelical crowd makes me so mad. But I'm not quite there.

While the situation PZ illustrated is *certainly* reason for an abortion, I think there are times that it is morally wrong. Obviously a 1 week fetus isn't capable of thought or feeling and just as obviously a 39 week fetus is. There's a line in there somewhere that can't really be defined or legislated because our physiology can differ so much from person to person.

The argument about being a slave to the fetus has never washed with me. Sorry if that's a betrayment of being a woman.

I have a really hard time with this issue and I've struggled to find peace with it, but it's continued to be a struggle for me and I think it always will be. There's no easy answer. In all solutions someone is going to be hurt. We live in an imperfect world.

I think some of the comments on this post have been very trite and it's a disservice to handle this story or this issue with such dissmissal. It's not that easy. Either way we are making sacrifices.

Posted by: ordinarygirl | April 24, 2007 10:50 PM

Correction:

I, for instance, generally oppose them; the situations in which I would consider abortion acceptable are

Should read "abortion after the point of fetal viability"

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 24, 2007 11:27 PM

I'm not saying it is easy to come to consensus, but it is necessary to work for one

Look, don't pretend like this is a debate between two equally unreasonable extremes. This is a debate between the irrational fringe and the reasonable mainstream.

There's one "compromise" that makes sense; it's the pro-choice position, where women who support the option of abortion are allowed to have them, and women who think abortion is a moral outrage aren't required to have them. A perfect compromise.

If you think the "pro-life" side is ameinable to any position short of a complete moratorium on both abortion and hormonal birth control, then you're just being hopelessly naive. The "pro-life victories" you're so worried about are a direct result of your irrational need to seek a "compromise". So point a few of those fingers back at yourself.

Posted by: Chet | April 24, 2007 11:52 PM

Who among you would tell a woman who just lost a child, at any point in her pregnancy (assuming it was a welcome pregnancy) not to worry about it because it was just a mass of lifeless cells?

One of my wife's very close friends miscarried last year, and it became rapidly clear that her grief was largely for show, to "keep up" with her religious husband and his family who saw it as something to be really upset about. As far as we can tell she really did see it as little more than a mass of cells at that stage in the pregnancy, but, of course, there was a social expectation that her grief would have been deepest of all, and so she largely played along.

But your question is just stupid. I don't think dogs have legal rights either, but when my best friend's dog died, I didn't tell him "dude, it was just a dog, QQ!" What would I tell a mother who had sponatenously aborted? Whatever I thought she needed to hear, or I might just keep my mouth shut. And, of course, if you think telling a grief-stricken mother "oh, don't worry; your little baby is up with the angels" (or whatever religious nonsense you think would be so comforting) magically makes her feel better, you're an idiot. Not even religion has the power to salve the loss of a child. (Even a perceived one.)

Posted by: Chet | April 25, 2007 12:03 AM

Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD wrote:

How can they be an individual if they have no functioning brain, eyes, hands or the ability to be an individual?

Are you saying from the moment of conception it's an individual? Or that it's life... period doesn't matter how developed and you can't terminate it?

Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 25, 2007 12:12 AM

By "individual" I simply mean that they are genetically unique and have begun to occupy a unique position in space and time not that they yet have a personality.

Yeah. Sorry, no. The cells of your skin, as they accrue mutations from exposure to the sun, become "genetically unique"; and the Pauli exclusion principle makes it pretty clear that every particle in the universe occupies a "unique position in space and time."

So neither one of those are a basis for overturning the traditional view of when life begins - birth.

It should be entitled to the same right to life as it will be later, which is the right not to be killed without good cause.

Accepting your premise for a moment, "unlawful occupancy of a uterus" is justification for deadly force if that's what i