Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

To: Andrew Parker
From: The scientific community
RE: Stop using science to justify your fundamentalist agenda

Andrew, I think you have a fundamentalist misunderstanding of what “science” is telling us. I suggest you read up on why abortions after the first trimester are sought out:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml

“Science” as you put it has no single thing to say about the matter. Pregnancy and fetuses are a complicated matter and human/not-human is qualitative political issue. Don’t use science to “power” your own political “truth”. Instead, stick to a) ethics, and b) social practicality as these are the ONLY means of conducting said political discussion.

Science can be referred to in terms of health risks, biological specifications, and in order to gain a basic understanding of what abortion is and isn’t, but science cannot help or harm an essentially opinionated discussion of what exactly is human. Not convinced? Try it yourself. The definition that you will ultimately accept is not one that science gives you, but one you are comfortable with.

ciaran

Posted by: ciaran at January 14, 2005 08:30 PM

So why do we refuse to let science dictate abortion reform? Why aren’t we all advocates of banning abortions past 5 months of development?

five month old premature infant: non-parasitic
five month old fetus in womb: parasitic

Posted by: ceejayoz at January 14, 2005 08:50 PM

What about the Life of the Child AFTER he is born? Single Mothers are the ones who most need help for their children. And yet this Administration is cutting Benefits for them and their children. Why tell a single mother to keep the baby and abandon her after the baby is born?

Posted by: Aldous at January 14, 2005 09:42 PM

Umm, Science is a community that uses the scientific method. That means making an educated guess or theory and then testing that theory in a controlled way.

How exactly does science test morality? Science does nothing to advance a moral judgement. Science and morality are not interchangeable words.

The issue in Roe v. Wade has to do with a Woman’s right to make her own medical choices without undue government interference.

Sorry, AParker but your confused ramble simply reveals your lack of knowledge about science in general.

I personally feel the lack of science education in this country plays well into the hands of religious fanatics and idealogues who seem to want to return us to a feudal state.

Even in the ignorance of the 18th century men like Franklin, Washington and Jefferson embraced science and the freedom from tyranny that the culture of truth and freedom of speech it engendered.

I think abortion is a poor choice often, but I also don’t believe it is a good choice to force parenthood on someone who may not be up to it. There are pelnty of poor parents as it is. I understand those that are outraged at the taking of a potential Human life. I wish they would be equally outraged at the societal irresponsibilty toward the raising of children that exists. Is it better to put down a pet or force it into an painful and neglected existence. Why can’t they show the same humanity to Human offspring?

Posted by: Greg at January 14, 2005 10:39 PM

Wedge issue!

Posted by: Tom at January 14, 2005 11:08 PM

Ciarian,
From an actual member of the scientific community, I think that Andrew’s post is quite reasonable. Science is neutral; what society decides it means for morality is a completely different issue.

science cannot help or harm an essentially opinionated discussion of what exactly is human. Not convinced? Try it yourself. The definition that you will ultimately accept is not one that science gives you, but one you are comfortable with.

Science has always powered morality. If scientific findings support someone’s preconcieved idea, while moving farther away from the opposing view, it means that the one supported by science is more like the truth. Demonstrating that if non-violently removed from the womb, a fetus would be capable of independent life really means that proponents of abortion are defining life by location, not by any scientific measure.

Greg,
I really get tired of the argument that it is better for the child to have died than to live whatever life it would have had. If that were the case, all of the poor people in the world would have committed suicide by now. I even know quite a few people who were very abused, and they would be considerably upset at your deciding that their lives were horrible and they should have been killed. I know it’s easy to assert that all of these children would have been abused and starve to death, but it just isn’t true. It’s a cop out for having to face the guilt associated with supporting the taking of even a potential human life. Your suggestion that we “put down” human offspring is repugnant on a very deep level. Who can possibly decide that someone else’s life isn’t worth living?

Ceejayoz,
As a father of two, I can assure you that children are “parasitic” until they are at least 25. By the way, I think the use of the term parasitic is just another defense mechanism, dehumanizing fetuses so you don’t have to deal with the reality of what is happening. Nobody feels good about killing a child, or even a human fetus, but a parasite is just a worm, right?

Aldous,
I agree. Any discussion of criminalizing abortion has to include what to do about the mothers, making abortion less desirable, and working to eliminate poverty.

Posted by: brian at January 14, 2005 11:29 PM

Thanks, brian, for understanding the point of this discourse:

Demonstrating that if non-violently removed from the womb, a fetus would be capable of independent life really means that proponents of abortion are defining life by location, not by any scientific measure.

Greg -

Umm, Science is a community that uses the scientific method. That means making an educated guess or theory and then testing that theory in a controlled way.

Yes, the theory is that late-term fetuses are established independent humans, and tests/premature births are proving this theory true every day.

How exactly does science test morality? Science does nothing to advance a moral judgement. Science and morality are not interchangeable words.

There is not a single moral argument in my article. You’re not just putting words in my mouth, you’re trying to fit an entirely different article in there.

The issue in Roe v. Wade has to do with a Woman’s right to make her own medical choices without undue government interference.

As I stated in the article, I’m quite aware of the legal ramifications of RvW. My argument is wholly independent of legal matters, as we are discussing science, and as a result of such observations, we should consider changing our legal policies to reflect that.

Sorry, AParker but your confused ramble simply reveals your lack of knowledge about science in general.

Sticks and stones, friend. I imagine it wouldn’t be so rambling if you wouldn’t keep trying to put words in my mouth. If you can’t argue the actual points I presented, I guess you can always resort to personal attacks.

I think abortion is a poor choice often, but I also don’t believe it is a good choice to force parenthood on someone who may not be up to it.

This statement shows me that you hardly paid attention to what I had to say. I think its a poor choice also, but banning abortions after the 5th month is hardly “forcing parenthood” on anyone.

Aldous -

What about the Life of the Child AFTER he is born?

This is _definitely_ an issue to discuss entirely apart from abortion, but in light of the argument presented, there’s no advocation of banning abortions entirely. So, abortion is still an option, you’re just limited to doing it within the first 5 months.

and Ciaran -

Where to begin? I would hardly call my proposal for only banning abortions after the 5th month “fundamentalist”.

I suggest you read up on why abortions after the first trimester are sought out:

This is hardly an refutation of the argument I present. 5 months is plenty of time for anyone to realize they’re pregnant, find a doctor, or discuss it with their parents.

but science cannot help or harm an essentially opinionated discussion of what exactly is human.

Do you deny that society views a premature baby as human? Then science would help by showing all the similarities between the premature baby at 26 weeks of development as compared to the fetus at 26 weeks. And would impartially argue that the differences (umbilical cord and physical location) do not constitute enough substance upon which to argue lack of the same humanity with which we view the birthed baby.

Posted by: AParker at January 15, 2005 12:27 AM

Greg

I think abortion is a poor choice often, but I also don’t believe it is a good choice to force parenthood on someone who may not be up to it. There are pelnty of poor parents as it is.

I have two problems with your claim about not “forcing” parenthood on someone.

1) No one forced that person to conceive the child (apart from the RARE instance of rape), pregnancy is very easy to avoid…

2) There are hundreds of thousands of people who want children and for some reason are unable to bear their own. Adoption is a wonderful option for those who have unwanted pregnancies and are not “up to” parenthood.

No one is forcing anyone to take on parenthood.

Posted by: danny at January 15, 2005 12:35 AM

Ciaran:

I think you have a fundamentalist misunderstanding of what “science” is telling us. I suggest you read up on why abortions after the first trimester are sought out: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml

I find this quote from the site you listed interesting:

In Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy. Only after the fetus is viable, capable of sustained survival outside the woman’s body with or without artificial aid, may the states ban abortion altogether. Abortions necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health must still be allowed, however, even after fetal viability.

This is the crux of Andrew’s statement. When is a baby viable? Experience tells us that 95% of premature births, even as much as FOURTEEN weeks, survive. To me that says that a baby that has been in the womb for only 28 weeks (6.5 months) is viable. And 80% of those babies born after 26 weeks gestation also survive.

I realize that in your article it states:

In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (428 U.S. 52 (1976)), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that judgments of viability are inexact and may vary with each pregnancy. As a result, it granted the attending physician the right to ascertain viability on an individual basis. In addition, the Court rejected as unconstitutional fixed gestational limits for determining viability. The court reaffirmed these rulings in the 1979 case Colautti v. Franklin (439 U.S. 379 (1979)).

But this is also from nearly 30 years ago, science has prgoressed a long way in those 30 years. I would say that we have much more information than we did 30 years ago.

A hypothesis was formed then, in the past 3 decades we have had plenty of time to test that hypothesis, we’ve come up with a good gauge as to viability, 28 weeks gestation provides an 95% survival rate. Seems pretty viable to me!

That is science, hypothesize, experiment, observe, revise.

(On a side note, while I am thankful for a ban on late-term abortions, I hope even more for the day when there are no abortions at all.)

Posted by: danny at January 15, 2005 12:59 AM

Andrew, the question posed in the law is not whether the fetus is human or not, but whether it is an individual yet, a being that can survive by itself. That is why viability is the golden standard. The issue is also more complex than simple survival, since premature birth causes greater problems, the further one gets from full term.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2005 01:23 AM

Stephen -

My argument is that the law should reflect the observable individuality of the fetus. With viability being the golden standard and observation that 26 weeks of development produces a 95% ‘viable’ individual, I think it logical to request a ban on abortions after 26 weeks regardless of the potential defects inherent in premature birth. The crux is the the establishment of the individual, clearly it is best to carry fetuses to full-term, but that’s not the discussion. The issue is whether or not the fetus is viable.

Posted by: AParker at January 15, 2005 01:51 AM

AParker said, “My argument is that the law should reflect the observable individuality of the fetus.”

And there you have it. Not a scientific argument at all. A moral one, whether your opinion of what the law should dictate to others regarding their family structure and numbers, or whether individual familiies should make those choices for themselves. That is a political argument, and one that flies in the face of our Constitution which preserves and protects individual rights, not taking them away from some so others can dictate their drothers.

It is why freedom of procreative choice shall always remain a free choice in this country whether some dictators change the law or not. Laws have never deprived individuals of freedom of choice, freedom of choice is endowed by the creator and only the creator can take it away. The worst governments can do, is dictate consequences for the exercise of freedom of choice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2005 02:34 AM

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who want children and for some reason are unable to bear their own. Adoption is a wonderful option for those who have unwanted pregnancies and are not “up to” parenthood.”

danny,
And yet there are hundreds of thousands of children waiting for adoption, that aren’t being adopted.
Why do you think that those same people are going outside the U.S. to adopt children?

The actual rate of abortions has gone down since 1995, however, the rate of adoption has remained pretty much the same. That is fact.

Posted by: Rocky at January 15, 2005 03:33 AM

I realize not everyone agrees that it is more merciful to abort a child than bring them into chaos.
The difference being, I don’t attempt to force my familial choices on you.

If that is your position what are you doing about it? How many children have you adopted? Talk is a cheap. Condemnation of others choices is a sleazy way to avoid responsibility. Why do unwanted and abused children continue to get bounced around and ignored. Visit India, if you think there aren’t many unwanted children. There are plenty here, too.

I’m sorry AParker, but trying to make science the purveyor of your spiritual, societal and moral choices just doesn’t wash. I put no words in your mouth. Science is about facts, not moral choices. If you wish to argue that there are logical reasons for people to cooperate. That still isn’t science and ignores the fact that people aren’t always logical.

Yes, science allows a fetus to be viable at an earlier time. But science doesn’t make a twenty or thirty year commitment to nurture that child.It doesn’t make moral choices about the mother’s health risks. You have confused moral choice with medical fact.

Saying that the mother had a choice to not have sex is naivete run amock. It is a sophmoric argument from someone that either chooses to ignore reality or wishes to subjugate women.

Why are all the anti abortion advocacy groups run by men? Trying to twist mysogeny and religious zealotry into a scientific argument is deeply offensive to me.

Posted by: Greg at January 15, 2005 04:11 AM

And why are so many Pro-abortion individuals so Anti-Christian? I find Ciaran’s remark “I think you have a fundamentalist misunderstanding of what “science” is telling us.”, to be quite revealing of his own biases; was it an attempt to be punny, of was it a Freudian slip?
Mac

Posted by: Mac at January 15, 2005 06:07 AM

Greg,
I have adopted one child and would happily adopt more, so angry accusations of hypocrisy are not going to work on me. Despite all of the ranting about how Andrew is misapplying science, there has not been one reason given as to why the demonstrable viability of mid to late-term fetuses does not mean that they are people. For those claiming superior scientific thinking, some evidence would be nice. Andrew described evidence suggesting that mid to late term fetuses should be considered people—what evidence do you have that they should not?

Saying that the mother had a choice to not have sex is naivete run amock. It is a sophmoric argument from someone that either chooses to ignore reality or wishes to subjugate women

Lots of invective with no basis. Do people not have the choice to have sex or not? Or are you arguing that we are all just animals, with no ability to make decisions? Or maybe, women are too stupid to know that sex makes babies? How on earth is suggesting that perhaps it might be a good idea to not kill demonstrably viable human offspring subjugating women? I think you’re trapped in the rhetoric.
Characterizing those who are anti-abortion as being mysogenistic is ridiculous and offensive, much like if I were to say that everyone who is pro-choice hates children. My wife is vehemently anti-abortion, does she hate herself?

Rocky,
The reason that the children are not being adopted is that they are older. People waiting for adoption usually want babies. Going overseas is more of a sure thing than waiting for an American baby. Considering that babies are in very short supply for American adoptive parents, anyone choosing to place for adoption rather than abort would be welcomed wholeheartedly and the object of grattitude forever for the lucky family who recieved their child.

Posted by: brian at January 15, 2005 09:14 AM

I’ve noticed that a lot more men discuss the abortion issue than women.

Posted by: dawn at January 15, 2005 10:21 AM

Andrew,

You need to distinguish between science and your own moral beliefs. Yes, fetuses are human. So are convicted murderers. Does “science” also tell us that capital punishment is immoral? The people we bomb in Iraq are human. Does “science” prove that war is immoral?

We’ve talked about the “there’s nothing special about birth” argument before. (Or maybe it was another poster…) You can argue this until you’re blue in the face, but it flies in the faces of millenia of human culture. Why do Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus?

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 15, 2005 11:31 AM

Brian, adopting one child does not resolve the problem.Until you can demostrate that you can relieve the burden of unwanted childeren, your position of imposing yur beliefs on another family or parent is rather weak in my opinion.

You wish to impose burdens on others and take no responsibility for it. Shame on you.

I am not saying that people have no choice. Many people choose not have children and use bith control to prevent it. Sometimes birth conrol fails. Sometimes women are raped. Sometimes teenagers are ignorant.

What is the substantive scientific difference between a zygote and few month fetus? Why are you ok with terminating a child by IUD rather than abortion? Studies have shown that the poor and youth were those that suffered most under abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade. What gives you the right to impose this sentence upon them?

The invective is yours. I ask noone to adhere to my beliefs, I don’t impose my decisions about my family upon you. Have a zillion babies if you choose, but if you fail to nurture them, then you are being immoral in my opinion.

This is not a scientific argument was my point and wrapping the anti abortion argument in science is completely phoney. Science has nothing to do with these decisions. I believe that you nor I have the right to interfere in the most personal of decisions about raising a family. The Supreme court agreed that the state had no place imposing itself there.

This is mysogeny disguised as morality. Keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant. It is immoral to use these arguments to enslave women, who after all suffered the heaviest consequence of the anti abortionists prior to Roe v. Wade. It is clear to many that the motive is to return to this time period when teenagers and the poor women were driven to back alley abortions and suicide.

Posted by: Greg at January 15, 2005 11:42 AM

It’s a human life from conception not an inviable tissue mass or any other thing.
Abortion is wrong at any stage.

Prochoise is a polite way of saying murder.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 15, 2005 12:01 PM

Woody,
Although “science” does not make moral judgements, it provides information for us to base those judgements on. Advocates of abortion tend to characterize fetuses as unliving, parasitic balls of cells. Pointing out that there is no difference physically between a mid to late term fetus and a premature infant moves the discussion into the realm of reality, rather than rhetoric (although there is still plenty of rhetoric to go around). Science generally does not answer moral questions so much as it raises them. In this case, is it moral to allow the killing of viable beings which are physiologically indistinguishable from children?
I agree that birth is important, and I enjoy Christmas. However, in the light of evidence suggesting that birth ocurrs at a somewhat arbitrary time concerning the viability of the fetus, especially in the context of modern medicine, the question of whether birth should continue to be the defining characteristic of personhood should be adressed.

You can argue this until you’re blue in the face, but it flies in the faces of millenia of human culture.

Millenia of human culture have also considered abortion to be abhorrent. What’s your point?

Greg,

Brian, adopting one child does not resolve the problem.Until you can demostrate that you can relieve the burden of unwanted childeren, your position of imposing yur beliefs on another family or parent is rather weak in my opinion.

I adopted one child, relieving one parent of her “burden” (my joy, incidentally) and doing my part. As danny pointed out, there are thousands more like me out there. I don’t have to do it all by myself. I don’t see how I am imposing my beliefs on anyone. The whole point of this article is that science suggests that fetuses are human, and that point should be discussed. The ones making the argument that fetuses are not human are the ones who are inflexibly tied to ideology. If fetuses were human, they wouldn’t be able to be killed with impunity anymore, so any evidence to that effect must be supressed as a “fundamentalist agenda”. I have asked several times for evidence supporting your point, and all I get is you saying I want to send women back to the stone age.

This is mysogeny disguised as morality. Keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant. It is immoral to use these arguments to enslave women, who after all suffered the heaviest consequence of the anti abortionists prior to Roe v. Wade. It is clear to many that the motive is to return to this time period when teenagers and the poor women were driven to back alley abortions and suicide.

Wow, what a horrible person I am. I revel in forcing poor, raped women to die from infections from coat-hanger abortions. I jump up and down exulting, “serves them right, they’re WOMEN!!” It’s nice to know that you can see my motives and heart and expose me to the world. If you would actually read what I write instead of assuming that I’m some kind of fundamentalist nut job, you would see that I am in favor of supporting the poor, promoting adoption as a viable alternative to abortion, attempting to reduce the root causes of abortions, enforcing the responsibility of birth fathers towards their children, and discussing the criminalization of abortion. I guess it’s eaisier to rely on stereotypes than to actually debate what I say.

The invective is yours. I ask noone to adhere to my beliefs, I don’t impose my decisions about my family upon you. Have a zillion babies if you choose, but if you fail to nurture them, then you are being immoral in my opinion.

I have used no invective. I realize that most people defending abortion are sincerely concerned about the rights of the mother and preventing the consequences of criminalization. However, you have called me immoral, shameful, mysogenist, naive, sophomoric, and a religious zealot, all without the slightest bit of basis. Again, I guess personal attacks on stereotypes are what you have to use when the facts aren’t on your side.

To adress the points you made:

What is the substantive scientific difference between a zygote and few month fetus?

Few month fetuses have hearbeats, brain activities, feel pain, respond to stimulation, and can live outside the womb. I think that’s quite enough to start a discussion.

Why are you ok with terminating a child by IUD rather than abortion?

First, most IUDs prevent implantation, not through abortion. Second, why do you assume I’m pro-IUD? This article was about scientific assessment of viability, so that’s what I’m talking about.

Studies have shown that the poor and youth were those that suffered most under abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade. What gives you the right to impose this sentence upon them?

I have stated several times that I think that increased support for single mothers and the poor is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to a successful and moral anti-abortion policy. I am imposing no sentence. However, in the real world, actions have consequences and risks, and those who engage in sex know those risks. I don’t feel that killing a child to escape responsibility for your action is moral. If you aren’t willing to have a child, don’t have sex. Hard, yes, but responsible. If you make a mistake or birth control fails, there are options like adoption. In cases of rape, you have no responsibility, so abortion would be justified if wanted.

There are two camps. One believes fetuses are human, and should be protected. One beleives they are not, so deserve no protection. They cannot both be right. I am in the first camp, and science backs me up, at least after the first few months. Opinion and morality are subjective, but both must be based on something. Saying science has no place in this decision is wrong—you just don’t WANT it to have a place because it doesn’t support your position.

Posted by: brian at January 15, 2005 12:36 PM

Ron Brown, that is your opinion. And you have every right of an American citizen to live up to your opinnion. But, what in the Constitution, gives your opinion more weight or justification to dictate your opinion upon the choices other women and their doctors and families must make when facing an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. Want to save a child, send money to relief agencies who can’t get enough to end the suffering of 10’s of millions of children in the world.

But, don’t presume to dictate through law your moral choices on others. That is dictatorial, pure and simple. A pro-choice person does not purport that others MUST abort. Their position is non-dictatorial. Politically, pro-lifers are, and always will be, on the defensive as regards our Constitution which preserves and protects citizen’s rights to choose how to live their lives provided their choices do not infringe upon the rights of other citizens. Pro-choice folks don’t presume to restrict other citizen’s choices, but, pro-lifers do. That clearly sets the Constitution on the side of pro-choice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2005 12:45 PM

David,

That is a political argument, and one that flies in the face of our Constitution which preserves and protects individual rights, not taking them away from some so others can dictate their drothers.

our Constitution which preserves and protects citizen’s rights to choose how to live their lives provided their choices do not infringe upon the rights of other citizens.

At what point does an individual have rights that the Constitution preserves and protects? In the law, the rights of an infant outside of the womb, no matter what age, is protected.

The question is, why does location, once “viability” is reached, determine the existence of rights?

The rights of the infant and “viable” fetus differ in the laws of the land. The rights of the infant are protected, the rights of the “viable” fetus are not. Should we not address that inequality?

Posted by: Michael Burns at January 15, 2005 01:00 PM

I’m with Dawn on this one. Why do men seem more concerned about abortion than women? Is it that women are more pragmatic about it and men more emotional? How’s that for a wierd turnaround?

Among my girlfriends, the discussion of abortion goes something like this: We think it’s a sad choice, none of us believe we could personally go through it however, we are glad/happy that we have it as a choice - end of discussion.

With my male cousin however, it’s very different - he hates the idea of “killing a innocent child” but cannot bring himself to tell a woman what to do with her body. However he doesn’t hate idea of the government telling a woman what to do with her body since Bush’s pro-life stand is one of the reasons he supports him.

I’ve always believed that no matter how angry and passionate people both extremes of this issue get, that there are a whole lot more moderates like me. These days however, I’m not so sure, these pro-lifers are beginning to scare me. Makes me almost want to get pregnant on purpose and have an abortion before they finally outlaw it… ;-)

Lighten up guys…

Posted by: nikita at January 15, 2005 01:18 PM

It appears that a lot of responders here are missing the points I’ve laid out, and treating this as the same old tired moral argument for banning abortions.

[A] Science has advanced sufficiently to ensure the viability of fetuses as early as 26 weeks of development.

[B] Under the decision of RvW, it is allowed that states regulate the abortion of viable fetuses.

[C] Therefore, it is my assertion that we ought to support banning abortion after 26 weeks of development.

(a) This assertion has hardly any social consequence, as most abortions are performed in the first three months.

(b) This assertion does not use any moral foundation and does not require the viewpoint that a fetus posesses inherent humanity.

(c) The fact that this assertion ‘flies in the face of society’ is hardly a reason not to seek change.

[D] Nowhere am I asserting that abortion ought to be completely illegal, nor am I suggesting what any punishments for violation of the law should be.

I know that every time I post regarding abortion, people read things into what I’m saying. This argument is based entirely upon law and constitution, as RvW leaves room for regulation. As for the supreme court’s decision to disallow fixed gestational limits, science has sufficiently advanced, in my opinion, to allow for review of this decision, and likely a new decision.

As for suggestions to “lighten up”, I do have moral motivation for wanting to see abortion regulated, this is independent of this argument. Would you suggest that someone ‘lighten up’ about the effects of the tsunami?

And Woody, yes I believe that capital punishment is immoral, and I would argue that there are legal reasons to change it.

Why are all the anti abortion advocacy groups run by men? Trying to twist mysogeny and religious zealotry into a scientific argument is deeply offensive to me.

Where is my mysogeny? Where is my religious zealotry? Am I quoting bible verses at you?

I think most of us here refuse to look at the actual issue, instead we look at classical arguments which are mysogenistic or religiously zealous because they’re easier to shoot down. So, we can continue to do that, or we can focus on reaching some sort of compromise.

Banning abortions after 26 weeks allows for plenty of time for ‘choice’, and it also respects ‘life’ within scientific reasonability. Will anyone budge on this issue? Or will everyone remain all-choice or all-life?

Posted by: AParker at January 15, 2005 02:11 PM

Michael Burns, the Constitution defines citzenship by birth or the naturalization process. Period. In utrero, does not a citizen make. Once born in the U.S. or to U.S. parents, the child becomes a citizen. The Constitution provides a legal answer to the choice, no choice issue devoid of morality and morass.

Any change should be by Constitutional Amendment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2005 03:02 PM

AParker said, “[C] Therefore, it is my assertion that we ought to support banning abortion after 26 weeks of development.”

Artificial viability? I define viability as the ability to sustain life on its own. Are you really trying to open the door with science to the Government forcing premature birth in mother’s whose carrying to full term might endanger the fetus? That is the legal door that will be opened by your logic. When something is the best it can be, don’t make it worse.

Roe v. Wade is the best solution to the abortion issue. It gives all citizen’s freedom of choice and leaves family planning to families, where it belongs. Overturning RvW ends up making all kinds of bad situations, scenarios, and circumstances to replace the termination of unwanted fetuses.

Roe v. Wade is in keeping with the Constitution and preserve’s all citizen’s choice including the choice by pro-lifer’s to bear children if they want even if raped, by incest, or threat to the mother. Any other solution will create more problems than it solves.

You use viability as a tool to support dictating to others how to live their lives. Nothing so dramatically impacts one’s life as combat, prison, and having a child. Believe it or not, there are a great many adults who are entirely ill-equipped to financially, socially, psychologically to be responsible parents. To force them to bear children they don’t want, will damage two lives, that of the parent and the newborn. Think about it. To prevent such damage to the child under such circumstances, the state must serve due process and remove the child from the parent.

Overturning RvW increases intrusiveness by the government into the personal decisions of individuals and families as outlined above. We have quite enough of that already as it is, without making government responsible for family planning decisions as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2005 03:19 PM

David,
You bring up the citizen argument every time abortion is discussed, someone provides about three examples as to why it shouldn’t apply, and then you let it drop, only to bring it up again next time. I admire your persistence.
Even if I believed that argument though, it really doesn’t apply in this case. The supreme court, the body empowered to interpret the constitution, left the door open for the states to regulate abortion in the case of viable fetuses. Viable fetuses are what we are discussing. Where is your constitutional problem? I don’t see it, unless you feel that the founding fathers were specifically trying to exclude fetuses from any protection under law by their use of the word “born,” and that RvW was wrong in even leaving the door open that much. I think that’s quite a stretch.

Posted by: brian at January 15, 2005 03:21 PM

David,

Are you really trying to open the door with science to the Government forcing premature birth in mother’s whose carrying to full term might endanger the fetus?

Making abortion of viable fetuses illegal is preventing an agressive act. Forcing premature birth is completely differerent, as it would be the government forcing a medical procedure which would not otherwise happen. That’s like saying that because murder is illegal, the government is going to force everyone to feed their children a balanced diet.

You use viability as a tool to support dictating to others how to live their lives. Nothing so dramatically impacts one’s life as combat, prison, and having a child.

Actually, we are using viability as a tool to prevent the ending of other’s lives. No one on this thread has even attempted to argue that there is any substantive difference between a mid to late-term fetus and a baby other than location.

Believe it or not, there are a great many adults who are entirely ill-equipped to financially, socially, psychologically to be responsible parents. To force them to bear children they don’t want, will damage two lives, that of the parent and the newborn.

At least the newborn would have a life. Or do you think we should go to the foster care institutions and kill everyone there for their own good? Again, if you are unable to support a child, don’t have sex. Why should the government allow the killing of viable humans just because people were selfish or irresponsible?

The consequences you describe are bad, and eliminating abortion would have negative consequences. The compromise outlined by Andrew would eliminate many of them. Most of the others are the result of a person’s own choices. However, if viable fetuses actually are human, an assertion which is supported by biology, then using taxpayer dollars to support abortion is state-funded murder on a vast scale.

Posted by: brian at January 15, 2005 03:53 PM

Brian, If you read my pieces, I directed the “invectives” which I simply call “plainspeak” at those that wish to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sometimes arguments made here assume the appearance of cerebral disconnection from the true basis of bigotry. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, you shouldn’t take it personnaly. The thrust of my posts were that Science does not settle this issue.

Again why you choose to say that not implanting a zygote or IUD is less moral that an abortion, I do not get from your “scientific argument”. These are simply your moral choices. Science has nothing to do with it.

I’m glad you have sympathy for the poor and less independent than you. You have not and most anti-abortionist do not, however, make realistic proposals at dealing with these issues. In a dream world, no unwanted children would ever be concieved. By supporting anti abortion movements, in the real world you ARE subjecting women and children to abuse.

I applaud your ability to finess the issue in more pragmatic terms. Do you think your pragmatism is more significant the actual mother who makes the choice to abort? Why do you feel you have the right to make this choice for her? Are you more moral than her?

It is easy to decry the immorallity of abortion. It is much harder to deal with it in a humane way and with realistic answers to the long term consequences of an essentially idealogic position rooted in persons of questionable motives.

Late term abortions ARE regulated. Why are you making this phony argument? What is your motive?

Posted by: Greg at January 15, 2005 04:22 PM

Honestly, I don’t think it is legal anywhere in the United States to abort a fetus that is viable just because you don’t want to be pregnant. I think universally everyone agrees that that is anethema.

The reason that you cannot use science to set an exact date for when a fetus is viable is because each pregnancy is unique. Some (very rare) 23 week olds already have fully formed lungs. Some (very rare) 40 week olds do not have lungs at all. The majority of children born before 30 weeks are going to require machines to be kept alive.

Fetuses at the earliest stage of viability cannot be born vaginally, because the vaginal muscles will crush them to death during birth. (a far worse way to die than D&E). The only way they can be born viable is via C-section, and even then, they will go through horrific pain with no certainty of a positive outcome, and a high chance of severe disability.

You need legal lattitude to decide whether or not it is moral to use machines to keep someone alive, whether they are an 80 year old or a 23 week old.

Women with preeclampsia at the edge of viability face hard decisions. C-sections are dangerous. The likelihood of a child being able to survive is tenous. Even if the child lives, there is a high likelyhood of serious disability, and a great deal of pain for the child.

A blanket law describing exactly what decision is best for a woman to make is inconsistent with science. It is also cruel. For some women it is better to have their baby die in their arms, for others, it is better for them to have their baby die in their womb.

Is it criminal for someone to kill a viable human because they do not feel like dealing with it? Yes. Does that probably happen because of the grayness of the law? Yes. Is it prosecutable anyway? Yes. (And people have been prosecuted, and sent to jail).

The law works as it stands now.

Julia

Posted by: Julia at January 15, 2005 04:51 PM

David -

I define viability as the ability to sustain life on its own.

Are you arguing that it should be legal to kill prematurely born babies who still require technological assistance to live? Lets take it further, how about persons requiring dialysis? A pacemaker? These persons are not ‘viable’ by your definition, do you mind killing them?

Are you really trying to open the door with science to the Government forcing premature birth in mother’s whose carrying to full term might endanger the fetus?

This is a non-point, as the RvW requires that any regulations imposed must allow for abortion in the case that the mother’s life is in danger.

Roe v. Wade is the best solution to the abortion issue.

Don’t try to pass off your opinion as fact.

Overturning RvW ends up making all kinds of bad situations, scenarios, and circumstances to replace the termination of unwanted fetuses.

I think I’ve made it repeatedly clear how my proposal works with the RvW decision, not against it.

You use viability as a tool to support dictating to others how to live their lives.

This proposal only ‘dictates’ that abortions be performed before the 26th week, hardly an inconvenience, and hardly dictatorial.

Believe it or not, there are a great many adults who are entirely ill-equipped to financially, socially, psychologically to be responsible parents. To force them to bear children they don’t want, will damage two lives, that of the parent and the newborn.

Again, you are arguing against a point which I’m not making. This plan does not force anyone to bear children they don’t want, rather it requires them to decide to terminate the pregnancy before the fetus has recognizable viability.

So I request that you re-read my proposal, this time without telling me that I advocate overturning Roe v Wade.

Posted by: AParker at January 15, 2005 05:00 PM

Julia -

Your points about the dangers of premature births are well taken. However, this proposal does not advocate the enforcement of premature birth on a woman. Instead, it is arguing from the 95% survival rate of 26 week fetuses that they are indeed viable, and therefore under RvW, aborting them can (and should) be regulated. If a woman is attempting to carry a fetus to full term, and it dies, that is unfortunate, but in no way illegal. This proposal is in no way a ‘blanket law’, nor does it dictate what choice is best for a woman. She may choose to terminate her pregnancy within the first 5 months. After 5 months, she is free to make any medical decision she wants, as long as it is not an abortion. If the child is in danger, and she wants to attempt to carry it to full term, that decision is not regulated now, nor would it be under this proposal. If the mother wanted to induce labor early, she may make that decision as well.

Posted by: AParker at January 15, 2005 05:13 PM

Greg,

I directed the “invectives” which I simply call “plainspeak” at those that wish to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sometimes arguments made here assume the appearance of cerebral disconnection from the true basis of bigotry. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, you shouldn’t take it personnaly.

I took it as meant. I am angry that those who are against abortion are demonized and characterized as mysogenistic religious zealots. It’s easy to dismiss the arguments of someone who has been characterized that way, without listening to what they have to say. All of those characterizations were made without Andrew or anyone posting in his favor mentioning religion or anything that would have warranted them.

Again why you choose to say that not implanting a zygote or IUD is less moral that an abortion, I do not get from your “scientific argument”. These are simply your moral choices. Science has nothing to do with it.

I chose not to argue the point of whether a zygote should be considered human because I don’t have any evidence suggesting whether it is or not. I personally believe it probably is, but I don’t really have a scientific basis for that belief. Arguing against IUDs actually would have been arguing my moral choices, which is what you say I am doing with this whole argument. I think that as an actual standard, self-awareness should be the defining characteristic of being human, but since that’s not measurable, things like responding to pain, brain activity, and viability are strongly suggestive of definable humanity. The post is about science, and science deals with measurable things.

You have not and most anti-abortionist do not, however, make realistic proposals at dealing with these issues.

This forum was not about realistic proposals to deal with the consequences of criminalizing abortion, so I didn’t really discuss it. I also don’t really have a good solution. I think that providing increased support for single mothers may help. I think that if it was considered important, it could be figured out. How about a small tax only on men to support the women who are unable to pay for children they would otherwise have aborted? I know that’s probably a stupid example, but I think anyone who opposed something like that would be a hypocrite. I believe that there are solutions out there. I know they won’t be perfect, but they have to be better than the status quo.

By supporting anti abortion movements, in the real world you ARE subjecting women and children to abuse.

I am not responsible for whatever actions someone else may take. However, if I am funding abortions through my tax dollars, I am responsible for the death of, at the very least, viable humans. That’s kind of harsh, and I temper it by trying to help out wherever I can, being supportive of social services for single women, promoting adoption whenever possible, etc. Also, is there any evidence that abuse has decreased since RvW? I honestly don’t know.

I applaud your ability to finess the issue in more pragmatic terms. Do you think your pragmatism is more significant the actual mother who makes the choice to abort? Why do you feel you have the right to make this choice for her? Are you more moral than her?

I don’t know why my being reasonable is considering finessing the issue, but I’ll let it go. I mostly feel sorry for women who abort. I know it’s a horrible decision, and very hard. I know that I have no idea what her circumstances could be or what degree of desperation she may have. I have no idea of whatever guilt she may feel or the reasons for her decisions. I’m not sure I even want abortions criminalized, at least not without some stringent circumstances being in place first.

I think I’m just trying to speak for the baby, who has no voice and no say in what happens.

It is easy to decry the immorallity of abortion. It is much harder to deal with it in a humane way and with realistic answers to the long term consequences of an essentially idealogic position rooted in persons of questionable motives.

I’ve always been supportive of dealing with abortion in a humane and reasonable way. However, I reject the idea that abortion is a fundamental human right, that there is nothing we can do about it and that we shouldn’t even try to solve the problem. I insist that abortions are a major problem that should be solved.

Questionable motives? I have never heard anyone on the pro-life side express anything other than concern for the baby as a motive. I think that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers really think that fetuses are alive and should be protected. I don’t see how that is questionable.

How we are seen by the other side is a very different story, as you have shown with your “realspeak”, but which is almost entirely an imposed view, and doesn’t come close to our real motives.

In terms of your last question, my motive here has been to do what I can to save some children. I am trying to do that mainly by presenting arguments that a fetus is more than just a parasitic ball of cells, with the hope that some people may actually consider the idea that the fetus may be important in the equation. I think that the current policy with regards to abortion encourages irresponsibility and a sense of vulgarity and entitlement about sex and children, and I’d like that attitude to change. I know that I don’t actually have any power to accomplish these objectives, or even much ability towards persuasion, but I’m doing what I can. I’d like to be able to have a discussion without being demonized and having my motives, or the motives of those who are with me, impugned, and I’d like to work towards a compromise that both sides can live with.

Posted by: brian at January 15, 2005 05:44 PM

AParker,

First of all, it is nearly impossible to require the majority of women to be able to pinpoint the exact day that they became pregnant, and therefore, nearly impossible to know the exact gestational age of a baby.

True, many babies are viable at the gestational age of 26 weeks (pregnancy age of 28 weeks according to the traditional way of calendaring), but the best way to know if a baby is viable is not by what gestational day you are at, but via an ultrasound.

In addition, the ultrasound will reveal what the likelihood of a good outcome for giving birth to the child will be:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/2/351

Unfortunately, the likelihood of viability is often contingent upon the excellence of the hospitals neo-natal unit, a factor which has to be taken into consideration when bearing the child.

At the end of the day, many processes are in place at all hospitals, to decide whether it is best to try to aggressively pursue the life of the child or not, and each case is determined on an individual basis.

Remember, abortion of a stillborn in the third trimester is still called an abortion, and goes into the statistics.

If you look at the number of 3rd trimester abortions and compare them to the number of viable third trimester births, and then compare that number to the third trimester births that resulted in a viable child in the 1940’s, you’ll see that the numbers indicate that the majority of third trimester abortions are likely to be in the case of a child who would not survive.

The reason that women make the decision to have the child die in their womb, than outside of their bodies is because there is a high likelihood of the infant being in extreme pain for the amount of time it is out of the womb. In fact, because of the immaturity of the infants lungs (at 26 weeks of gestation), it’s first breath causes massive damage, essentially stripping the insides of its lungs raw. The application of a surfacant to the lung does not get rid of this pain.

http://www.neonet.ch/Infants_born_at_the_limit_of_viability_-_english_final.pdf#search=’viability%2026%20weeks’

http://www.cansite.org/HTML_Files/Main/Policies/viability.html

The law, as it stands now, does not allow for the abortion of viable infants. But viability cannot be determined by a date of gestation. It can only be determined by taking into consideration the excellence of the neo-natal unit, the ultrasound which reveals the maturity of the lungs, and the statistical outcomes of infants that have the same profile as the infant in question (don’t forget about ancephely, Potter’s syndrome, etc.).

A blanket statement of any fetus that is 26 weeks is viable is incorrect. A woman who has a child with Potter’s syndrome (no kidneys) would be required to vaginally deliver (or deliver by cesearan) a child who has no chance of life. Why should we tell her what the best way to deliver that child is? That decision should be left in the hands of the people it effects.

Julia

Posted by: Julia at January 15, 2005 06:09 PM

Julia -

Your arguments about the difficult choices a woman potentially faces are understood. Yes, it is painful for a child to be born prematurely. I would that no infant suffer premature birth; however, their survival rate speaks to their viability. Sure, some fetuses are not viable at 26 weeks, but their survival rate indicates that this is a distinct minority. Certainly if a fetus is stillborn, the mother should be allowed whatever means she chooses for delivery/removal of the fetus, and this should not be grouped with the abortions which we are currently discussing.

Posted by: AParker at January 15, 2005 06:43 PM

Also, the statistics I see say that 28 week gestation (30 week from LMP) is when viability reaches 95%. This is the third trimester. I think it is explicit in all states that abortions cannot be performed at this stage unless the health of the mother is at stake. (correct me if I’m wrong)

Julia

Posted by: Julia at January 15, 2005 06:45 PM

Andrew,

I didn’t realize at first that you wanted to uphold Roe vs. Wade. I hate to just throw labels around, but that really makes you “pro-choice”. In a lot of eyes, you are in league with the “baby killers”.

I am still not, clear, however, exactly what your position is. Are you against abortion after five months even if the mother’s life (or, take it a step further, health) is in danger? If so, then you are deciding that a fetus is not only “viable”, but that the law should favor it over its mother . If you are willing to make allowances for the mother, on the other hand, then you are basically against late term abortion for convenience, which is a widely accepted position.

But enough putting words in your mouth. Please lay it out for us.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 15, 2005 07:20 PM

AParker,

26 weekers actually have a 88% survival rate.

Viability is not determined by gestational age. Viability has to do with maturity of the lungs, the presence of all major organs, weight,etc.

You are stating that the 12% of non-viable fetuses at 26 weeks should be required to be delivered vaginally or by C-section. That the opinions of the doctors and of the mother and father of the child should be superseded by the law because the statistics indicate that the majority of births are viable. Statistics indicating that other fetuses are viable does not change the fact that 12% are not.

You said you want to use science. Science is availabe through ultrasounds, and other tests that are availabe that can determine viability. Why do you require a date?

You would require a woman who discovers that her hcild has Potter’s Syndrome to deliver her baby vaginally or via C-section at 26 weeks gestation, even though medical knowledge clearly states that the baby is not viable.

Why can’t she and her doctor decide what they should do in this scenario?

56,000 very low birth weight infants were born in 2002. Probably 50,000 of those died. Around 16,000 abortions (post 20 weeks) occured in 2002. The fact that the number of late-term abortions is so much lower than the number of VLBW infants is a strong indicator that severe fetal abnormality, maternal health, and non-viability of the fetus are the majority of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

Since I believe this to be true, I believe that requiring women to deliver a child after 26 weeks will primarily result in forcing women to bear children with fetal abnormalities that are inconsistent with life.

The Roe V Wade requirement of viability is superior to the arbitrary guideline of 26 week gestation.

Julia

Posted by: Julia at January 15, 2005 07:32 PM

I think Julia has made the point that abortion is regulated and the info you provide is false. the consideration for a mother’s health is the choice made by her and her doctor and is the on;y reason for abortion in the third trimester. Misinformation is the sign post of dogma.

Brian and A Parker choose to take no responsibility for the consequencs his position results in. I think that speaks volumes for their position. It is neither thought out nor humane.

If you do not care to be characterized as someone supporting misogyny, religous dogma and wishing to return us to back alley abortions for the poor and teenagers then don’t support those positions.

Posted by: Greg at January 15, 2005 07:44 PM

Greg,

Well stated!

Posted by: Tom at January 15, 2005 09:21 PM

Julia,
According to the link he provided, Andrew’s numbers are correct. Where do you get your data from? Thank you for arguing the merits of what we are talking about.

If you look at the number of 3rd trimester abortions and compare them to the number of viable third trimester births, and then compare that number to the third trimester births that resulted in a viable child in the 1940’s, you’ll see that the numbers indicate that the majority of third trimester abortions are likely to be in the case of a child who would not survive.

I guess I’m not follwing your reasoning, but since each of these groups is independent, you can’t infer anything about the makeup of one group from another. Can you explain your 1940’s comparison a little better? I don’t see what that population has to do with today.

56,000 very low birth weight infants were born in 2002. Probably 50,000 of those died. Around 16,000 abortions (post 20 weeks) occured in 2002. The fact that the number of late-term abortions is so much lower than the number of VLBW infants is a strong indicator that severe fetal abnormality, maternal health, and non-viability of the fetus are the majority of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

Your numbers do not actually bear out the conclusions you draw from them. Just because fewer abortions occurred than VLBW infants says nothing about the health of the population that was aborted. It probably just means that not that many people choose to abort late. You still may be right, but those data do not support your conclusion, at least as currently presented. Also, your assertion that probably 50000 out of 56000 died means that you are certainly not using the 95% survival age that we have been discussing.

My point throughout has been that there should be some point at which a fetus is considered human, protected by law, and that since 26 week infants are generally viable, this would make a good cutoff. I would actually prefer an earlier one, like where 51% are viable, but for the sake of argument and compromise I’ve been going with the 26 week point. Neither Andrew nor I have ever said that demonstrably unviable infants must be carried to term, rather, that there is no scientific reason for assigning personhood status only after birth.

My argument througout has been that fetuses, especially in mid to late pregnancy, are not just parasitic balls of cells. Assignment of an admittedly somewhat arbitrary but science based cutoff at which point fetal protection is granted and the burden becomes proving non-viability in order to abort is a compromise.

Since the whole point of Andrew’s article concerned viable fetuses, why would you assume that non-viable fetuses would be included in any hypothetical ban on abortion? I think fetuses which will never be viable are cases similar to removing someone from life support. Just as removal of someone from life support is not murder, abortion of a non-viable fetus does not fall into what we are discussing.

Greg,
First, I think you are celebrating your victory a little too soon. Did you go to the link provided by Andrew? How can you accuse us of intentionally providing false information? Although third-trimester fetuses are somewhat protected, they are still not considered human, and the protection does not cover the earlier stages where viability is probable.

Second, are you trying to bait me? I care a lot about this topic and have been completely sincere. It really upsets me when people use forums like these to try to play with people. Maybe I’m just naive to think that people may actually consider arguments instead of falling back on prejudices. Using Julia’s evidence to repeat your earlier assertions about my character and the character of those who really care about the lives of fetuses is unjustified. I would think your gloating response was a lot more valuable if YOU had actually adressed ANY of the many arguments or statements that we made, instead of jumping on at the end to borrow Julia’s arguments to attack us.

Brian and A Parker choose to take no responsibility for the consequencs his position results in. I think that speaks volumes for their position. It is neither thought out nor humane.

If you will reread my posts, I think you will find that you are mistaken. Please do so.

Posted by: brian at January 15, 2005 10:01 PM

When I first came to WB I used to argue the abortion issue all the time, but since it comes up every other week, I no longer bother.
This is because I can always count on the fact that David R. Remer will cover the constitutional aspects of a women’s right to choose with his customary eloquence. And Julia usually ends up coming along with her amazing amount of knowledge about this issue in her admirable and direct no-nonsense way. Well done you two.

The tiresome frequency with which this subject keeps appearing makes me stand with Dawn and Nikita. Why don’t all you men with nary a uterus among you give this subject about a month (if not more) of rest?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2005 10:31 PM

Bravo Adrienne … I will go one step further -

Since the decision to have an abortion or not is primarily up to women … maybe women should vote on the issue alone.

I realize that men are involved to begin with but they are not the ones who have to follow through with an abortion or with a pregnancy and childbirth that they may not have wholeheartedly wanted.

I’ve said this before - if married or in a committed relationship both should be involved in the decision.
Even so, if a woman has a child or an abortion, either way, after being influenced by her partner, she is still the one who actually wrestles with the decision for the rest of her life.

Healthy women make healthy choices. The choice made has to be hers and hers alone. The people around her need to give their support whichever she decides.

Posted by: dawn at January 15, 2005 11:14 PM

Beware the incrementalists !!! Brian and AParker set out arguments that would move the goal posts of Roe v. Wade. They ask that respondents limit their focus and debate to the narrowly defined premises of their argument. I don’t know whether it is intentional or not, but, by asking everyone to focus on their narrow argument to justify moving the legal and illegal legal distinction regarding abortion in favor of restricting abortion, the effect is a slight of hand.

If Roe v Wade is modified, clarified, or redefined so as to limit abortions based on gestational period or viability statndards, what is to stop the next round of pro-life advocates from coming along and arguing that “Hey, we restricted, modified, redefined Roe V. Wade already to limit abortions and choice, therefore, there is legal precedent for doing so and now we want to restrict it some more based on the same arguments as before but this time, let’s make it 20 weeks since science has improved, or let’s make it 1st trimester only since the fetus is a human and we already granted citizenship protections to the fetus previously as precedent.

This is the incremental approach to taking down the barriers between church and state, between government and individual freedom and choice, etc. It is an effective approach if permitted. Hence, beware. If you believe abortion is a private family decision, one must not allow specious arguments of a narrow focus to be used to marginalize that personal freedom and choice. Eliminating abortion as legal altogther is as simple as a one small step at a time, illegalizing a bit more choice and freedom each time, until one day, there is no choice or freedom on this issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2005 12:00 AM

see paragraph 3 on viability for 26 weekers:

http://www.cansite.org/HTML_Files/Main/Policies/viability.html

Also note that cerebal palsy impacts roughly 40% of surviving fetuses at 26 weeks. I see your link differs with mine, however, according to the white papers the 88% figure appears to be more accurate.

I used incorrect morbidity information for the VLBW (I was looking at the statistics for under 500 gram babies, not under 1500 grams). Mea Culpa. On the other hand, I think it’s necesarry to look at mortality and disability of low birth weight infants over a period of two years past birth to get a real idea of the ramifications.

I looked up fetal mortality in 2000 and it was approx 28,000 fetal deaths for a ratio of .007 percent. The ratio for 21+ week abortions is .004 . That’s according to the CDC on the first part, and Guttmacher on the second.

As an example, Anencephaly effects .001 of fetuses. In Texas 43% of fetuses diagnosed with anencephaly were aborted at 21+ weeks.

If that held true nationally, then fetuses with anencephaly represent more than 10% of terminations at 21+ weeks. (4000 fetuses are anencephalatic).

http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/tbdmd/Preg_outcome_files/Pregnancy%20outcome%20report.pdf

Anyway, I think Brian and AParker are right to challenge. Everyone throws around numbers, and invariably we get it wrong. In fact, when I rush through my answers, and don’t bother to pull my source material, and carefully work my calculator, I often goof up.

So I include my references now so you can fact check.

Also, check out fetal mortality at CDC, and 21+ abortions at http://www.agi-usa.org

Really, I see that the point that brian and Aparker are trying to drive home to me is that if 21+week abortions are so rare, then why not create a stronger legal barrier to prevent them? What would it matter?

I agree with the guttmacher article on this:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib13.html

Please read

“The Concept of Viability As Further Elaborated”

In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976), the Court declared, “The time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician.” The Court rejected as unconstitutional fixed gestational limits, saying that “it is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which is essentially a medical concept, at a specific point in the gestation period.”

In Colautti v. Franklin (1979), a challenge to a Pennsylvania law, the Court reaffirmed the principles established in Roe and Danforth and elaborated on its views concerning viability: “Because this point [viability] may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability—be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor—as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.”

The Court thus upheld the lower court in saying that it is the professional responsibility of the physician to determine whether the fetus has the capacity for “meaningful life, not merely temporary survival.”

Anyway, I am impressed by how much the courts have thought the issue through, and I agree with their analysis. And also, I really believe that 21+week abortion is so rare (.004 percent), that it is also rare that people abuse the procedure.

However, let no one claim that there is accurate information out there on why 21+ week abortions are performed. Nobody has that information for the U.S. as far as I can ascertain. I am trying to work backword from fetal abnormalities to determine what percentage of 21+ week abortions they are.

If I get motivated, I’ll see if there are international statistics for it.

Julia

Posted by: Julia at January 16, 2005 12:42 AM

David -

This is the incremental approach to taking down the barriers between church and state, between government and individual freedom and choice, etc.

This is exactly the type of thinking that discourages free discussion and inhibits compromise. I agree that there is no legal way to ban all abortions, and would further venture that there’s no legal way to ban abortions prior to the 5th month. Why will you not believe that this is a genuine attempt at a compromise, founded scientifically, rather than an attempt to start America on some path to banning abortions?

No one here (besides yourself) is talking about offering citizenship rights to pre-born fetuses. We’re merely talking about banning one specific action after a certain gestational period.

Your entire argument is pure scare tactic, designed to deceive those who might see the logic in our argument by saying that we will not stop at banning late-term abortion. You do not put forward that the Supreme Court would hardly uphold further legislation of abortion. Many legislators have tried to push for an end to all abortion, and it will not be accepted, nor should it. You better watch it with that type of argument, Bush might want you for his cabinet.

Julia -

Thank you for your efforts in research. You make a valid point, and I will consider your new information. As for the supreme court’s decision on gestational limits being invalid, I’m certain that the advances we’ve since seen in science could offer a strong challenge to that decision. But regardless of any legislation limiting abortions, it cannot apply if the fetus is deemed to be non-viable, even perhaps extended to anecephalic fetuses, etc, due to the prevailing decision of RvW.

Woody -

As per RvW, we cannot let the fetus take precedence over the mother. Would you see my argument differently if it were in the green column? Perhaps I should switch.

Julia - earlier post

Okay, lets change the proposition and ban abortions after the 28th week. My link said 95% after 26 weeks, yours 28th, so lets err on the safe side.

And this:

You are stating that the 12% of non-viable fetuses at 26 weeks should be required to be delivered vaginally or by C-section.

I’m not. Non-viable fetuses are covered under RvW and mothers are entitled to an abortion.

brian -

Thanks for your volumes of support. Some people will try to suck you in and try to get you to argue this issue on the same tired moral grounds. They will assault your character, your motives, etc, but pay no mind. It all adds up to scare tactics trying to intimidate you out of your own valid opinion. If you ignore it, it usually tends to go away.

Posted by: AParker at January 16, 2005 01:46 AM

AParker said: “No one here (besides yourself) is talking about offering citizenship rights to pre-born fetuses. We’re merely talking about banning one specific action after a certain gestational period.”

You are trying to apply an assembly line law to human circumstance that can have infinitely possible variables introduced into the situation and decision making process. Not all abortion circumstances will be unique, but, enough will have extenuating circumstances, that to apply an assembly line law to such a personal human situation, will inevitably result in injustice.

Compromise of principle is precisely how principles are lost. Family planning is, and should be a family decision in consultation with a Dr., not a government decision to be coldly and unjustly applied without regard for personal, unique or extenuating circumstances. And please don’t respond with “Well appeal to the courts can accomodate special circumstances”. Fact is, the courts cannot. We no longer have a judicial system capable of responding in a timely manner to time sensitive and time limited issues like abortion.

AParker said: “Your entire argument is pure scare tactic, designed to deceive those who might see the logic in our argument by saying that we will not stop at banning late-term abortion.”

YOU may stop there, but, the hosts of pro-life movement advocates will not. They will use your compromise as a platform for another incremental retraction of Roe v. Wade, and that is indisputable. We have already seen every possible argument launched here to justify overturning RvW. The Pro-life advocates will not stop with partial compromises. Hence, the warning against incremental cessation of rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. One successful step becomes the platform and justification for the next. Our legislative history is full of examples of such incremental approaches to law change that could not be made in an all or none up or down vote.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2005 02:53 AM

I wish those against a woman’s choice over abortion would get over their feelings that it is a black and white issue. (I won’t label them conservatives, because I know there is a true conservative division of opinion regarding this issue.) There really is a conflict between the woman’s right to control her own body and the potential human life represented by the fetus. No amount of citing of scientific data changes this fundamental conflict. As others have pointed our in this blog, there is a continuous shifting of legal status of a developing human from the blastocyte to a 21-year-old that recognizes the progression from a lump of cells to a fully functioning person with full rights and responsibilities. Those opposing a woman’s right to choose in most situations (and most of us pro-choice people recognize the change in status through the various trimesters) would be more impressed with those claiming to be “pro-life” if they were as concerned about the actually born as they seem to be with the “pre-born” (as they so slyly put it). The enormous hypocrisy of hoping to expend the might and majesty of the government to dictate to pregnant women that they must maintain that state at the same time denying the use of that same awesome power to ensure the survival and thriving of children already born only debilitates their moral arguments. Until such time as their advocacy is more balanced, they will be ineffective in advancing their agenda. What seems to come through in their actions (for most of them) is that they are really focusing on the pregnant woman and hope to hold her accountable for her “shameful failure” to prevent her pregnancy and to punish her by forcing her to bear her fertilized egg to term, at which point they don’t give a rip anymore. The sanctimoniousness of this attitude is what turns most Americans off, and this is why they support the right to choose, even thought they support some restrictions in the later stages of pregnancy.

Until there is a recognition of this dynamic, I expect little progress in the reconciliation of the extremes. However, the middle road will always be available to those with clear enough thinking to perceive its wisdom.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 16, 2005 03:16 AM

I think there are other items that need discussion in the abortion matter. These are more from the perspective of human and also male, not moral or scientific, just facts.

If a couple want a baby and the woman becomes pregnant they don?t refer to the baby as a fetus, they start thinking of their baby. This makes the decision of abortion more of a ?if I want it or not? rather than is it actually a human. If left to develop, most of the time it will be a human.

In terms of the matter of having an abortion. The father?s opinion of having the baby is given zero weight in the law, yet he can be made to pay for the baby for the next 18 years of his life. If women truly want it to be their choice of having a baby then allow the male involved to have the choice to support the baby or not. Don?t add to this statement all the things like being responsible or moral or whatever. If you want to argue this point make it merely is it fair or not fair for the man to be excluded from the decision. It takes two to tango it should take two to abort. If the woman wants it and the man don?t, let her raise the baby. If the man wants it and the woman don?t let him pay. As for the argument of it is her body and she has to deliver the baby, suck it up, that is a burden Women have to carry as being female.

As for the viability argument of outside the womb. If you take a baby just born and put it in the middle of a field, it will die. The baby still requires help from it?s parent or parents. Whether it is a machine or a parent is a moot point.

The child or choice matter. Individuals that argue from a pro-life point of view. I wish the pro-abortion group would give them credit for actually having a position of believing that life is important. Who can argue that taking a position of PRO-LIFE is bad, they are discounted for taking a position that will inconvenience the woman who was responsible enough to have sex but not responsible enough to accept the consequences. A demonstration of this point is when the pro-abortion group refers to the pro-life group as anti-choice, this totally disregards their position of life.

Abortion is not about weather a fetus is viable or not. Abortion is not about choice or not. Abortion is not about religion or not. It is about a tiny human that almost always will be born. They are the most helpless of us all, if they do not deserve consideration and thought then who or what does.

For all of you that will make arguments that do not address the points I make I?ll give you the following information. NO, I have not been involved in an abortion, I have not been made to pay child support. I am not married or have kids. I am just an American that sees all the scientific and moral arguments made when they are all irrelevant. It is about being human and what is right and what is wrong. Do I believe abortion should be legal, YES. However I do think it should be restricted and not made a form of birth control.

Posted by: Mark at January 16, 2005 10:17 AM

Guys, this argument is so tiresome.
Let’s just make it, one zygote, one vote, and have done with it.
That way it would cover females AND males.

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2005 11:55 AM

I believe it unproductive to look at abortion through a scientific lens. This is a moral and philosophical issue, at its heart. There is little dispute about the third trimester, except in extreme and rare situations, So, we look at the first and second trimesters.

I think it depends most not on your notion of viability, but rather on your notion of how life develops. Is the child separate from the mother? As much as science has enabled us to save children born early, it has also told us that the mother is not the passive receptacle for the unborn child once thought. This is what makes cloning so difficult, with such a potential for defects and problems.

How intimate is the connection between mother and child in these early days? Very intimate, it turns out. The point of distinction here is whether one believes the child’s life part of the mother’s and subject to her discretion thereby, or a separate live deep in her care.

The distinction is a matter of semantics, but in philosophy and religion semantics are and should be important. This is the never ending discussion. Those who have abortions don’t typically believe they’re killing babies, or killing some parasitic growth, as certain sensationalist would have it. They typically believe they are dealing with a product of a reproductive process that has yet to develop its humanity. Those who oppose it typically view the child as being human from the start, despite it’s undeveloped form.

Scientific and philosophical arguments can be made either way. Science tends to just stand there and provide the props and backdrop from the drama. Science typically tells us what things are about, not what to do about it.

This is a point where we’ll just have to make up our own damn minds, really.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2005 01:20 PM

Brian, the attempt to make this about whether a viable fetus is human, frankly misses the issue of abortion entirely, and is to many a specious argument.

That is the point I have made from the beginning. I’m sorry if you feel I attacked your character. I have not. I have attacked what I consider to be rhetoric from a movement that I feel is corrupt at it’s very core. That you believe in the cause is, I believe, your misplaced empathy for the unborn.

As David has pointed out this incrementalism. As Julia pointed out late term abortions are regulated and performed only when the mother and doctor have determined a risk to the mother’s health merits this. Roe v. Wade stopped the intrusion into this deeply personal and private decision by those with demogogic motives.

Again, I understand your concern over the loss of potential Human life. I don’t agree with your moral conclusions nor do the majority of Americans. I feel you look at this issue through a rather narrow lens, unwilling to weigh the long term consequences.

I feel you need to braoden your perspective and look at this issue longer, Brian.

Posted by: Greg at January 16, 2005 02:04 PM

David,
Nothing in our Constitution gives the right to kill the inocent. Babies are as inocent as you can get.
Even if the constitution did give that right it is still aginst God’s law and his law overrides the Constitution.
Of coarse the prochoise people deny the exitance of God in order to justify the point of view.
That is your constitutional right. Not the killing of inocent babies.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 16, 2005 03:35 PM

Aparker,
Thanks. I liked the article.

Julia,
Thanks for putting information out there, and making good arguments.

David, I agree that some would want to take everything farther, but that shouldn’t keep us from discussing real issues to find out the truth. Absolutism on controversial issues just precludes compromise. I think there’s a lot of room to make things better for both sides in the abortion debate, but I guess I’m in the minority.

Mental,
I agree. Both sides need to give up some things if this is ever going to get better. i’m glad you don’t label those against abortion as conservatives, because I’m politically liberal, except on this issue. Just as those on the pro-life side need to realize that it’s not a black and white issue, so do those on the pro-choice side. I think it’s easy for a lot of people to resort to vitriol and attack stereotypes instead of actually discussing the issue.

Stephen,
Although decisions about law and morals need to be made by legislatures and philosophers, if they aren’t based on science, they don’t represent reality (a very common problem in government). I know people are very unlikely to change their minds in either direction, but hey, it’s worth a few minutes to write something and hope.

greg,
Your arguments have consistently shown the kind of mindset I’ve been arguing against the whole time. Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by: brian at January 16, 2005 03:36 PM

“Even if the constitution did give that right it is still aginst God’s law and his law overrides the Constitution.”

All due respect sir that’s a crock. God didn’t write the laws of this country.

Abortion may not be legal in heaven but it sure is here.
Get over it or change the law.

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2005 04:11 PM

Again Aparker,

If you look at the case law in reference to RoeVWade as already outlined, it allows for your concerns, but insures flexibility for mothers and fathers along with their doctors to respond to unique situations, please read this whole article:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib13.html

The Court also noted that “some of Roe’s factual assumptions” had been overtaken by time, pointing out that “advances in maternal health care allow for abortions safe to the mother later in pregnancy than was true in 1973…and advances in neonatal care have advanced viability to a point somewhat earlier.”

But, the Court continued, these advances had “no bearing on the validity of Roe’s central holding” that viability marks the point when the state’s interest in the fetus becomes compelling. And, it added, “the soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was usual at the time of Roe, at 23 or 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at some moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal respiratory capacity may be somehow enhanced in the future. Whenever it may occur, the attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical fact.”

Thus, the Supreme Court made it clear that the determination of viability, which depends on a variety of individual factors, must be left to the professional judgment of the individual physician. Provisions that establish a specific age—usually 20 or 24 weeks—after which abortion is prohibited (and, presumably, the fetus is considered de facto viable) are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Why do you prefer to set a gestational limit over the wording of the law as it stands now?

Julia

Posted by: Julia at January 16, 2005 05:27 PM

David -

YOU may stop there, but, the hosts of pro-life movement advocates will not. They will use your compromise as a platform for another incremental retraction of Roe v. Wade, and that is indisputable.

It is indisputable that people will always pursue an end to all abortion, but your slippery slope argument ignores all reason. By making legislation that works with RvW, we enforce the decision, and therefore, with RvW in place, there is no more room for legislation of abortion. In sum total, your argument addresses none of the logic, and amounts to a weak slippery slope.

Mental Wimp -

Agreed, this cannot be addressed as black and white. Neither extreme will ever be proven, and thusly the law must reflect both sides. Hence the need for compromise.

Ron Brown -

You may not scientifically argue that abortion kills babies. Period. They’re not babies yet, and your opponents will not agree to considering them babies. You think they are, but that is based on your moral judgment, and you may not enforce your personal morals on society at large.

Julia -

I will read that article and get back for you. I’m pressed for time at the moment.

Posted by: AParker at January 16, 2005 06:59 PM

I proved that science decides the issue? Interesting conclusion. Twisted, but interesting.

I’m so glad you are willing to listen to other points of view.

Posted by: Greg at January 16, 2005 07:25 PM

Brian,
If you wish to discuss what makes us Human that is a very different argument. Are you aware that chimpanzees share some 98 percent of our DNA and are considered to be “self aware”. They can develop vocabularies equivalent to a three year old. They are capable of empathy.

Science has not defined “human” except in terms of DNA and morphology. What exactly thought is in substance, is a very complex and difficult issue.

Artificial Intelligence is in the stages of making computers that can learn and make choices “simulating” thought.

Philosphy, Physics and Metaphysics are disciplines that approach these subjects, but to my knowledge have hardly settled the issue.

Are you of the belief that dogs do not feel pain?

I applaud your attempt to think through these ideas. I don’t applaud your attempt, whether intended or not, to cloud the issue of abortion. I don’t at all believe you have made any foward argument there.

Some argue that we are only self decieved in our ability to make independent thought. Physics tells us we may only percieve a small part of what is actually happening around us. Perhaps we are no more than a complex biochemical reaction boiling and reacting to our environs. When someone touches you, your bodies do not actually touch, the electrons only repel one another. You can go deeper into field theories about the wave and particles theories of matter itself. You can further go into discussions of our perception of time and other dimensions. do we live in a 9 dimension Universe? How do you explain the effect that if you chage the spin on an electron on one side of a room it effects the spin of an electron on the other side without any physical connection between them?

These are some of the problems that arise when you attempt to use science to answer what actually is a moral choice. I often find that people who make these arguments are only tangentially aware of the scientific discourse on these subjects and at times misinterpret the actual knowledge available.

Posted by: Greg at January 16, 2005 09:14 PM

Greg,
I didn’t know you had it in ya, fella.

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2005 09:31 PM

Julia -

Thanks for that article, it was definitely an interesting read. A few things, one is that it seems as though there are no valid regulations on abortions anywhere, so I’m unclear on what you mean by letting the law stand as it is.

I was clear, when writing this, that gestational limits had already been struck down, but upon reading that article, I can see that despite advances in science, and an increase in the survival percentage, gestational limits will likely not have a chance.

Therefore, the only avenue left seems to be a ban on abortions where the doctor deems the fetus to be viable. I guess there is an alternative, which might in fact be preferable, to go through the AMA and convince them to take a stand against the abortion of viable fetuses. I was unclear, in the article you linked, on where the AMA currently stands on this issue. What methods did the AMA’s study find to be ‘good medical practice’? Is this perhaps your reference to ‘letting the law stand’?

I must commend you on the excellent manner in which you have presented your case, and the respectfulness with which you have conducted your discourse. I would that every disagreement go so amicably. I really appreciate it.

Posted by: AParker at January 16, 2005 10:52 PM

greg,
The general scientific definition of a member of a species is that it has the potential to produce fertile offspring with other members of that species. Chimpanzee-human matings don’t produce fertile offspring, so by the best working definition of a species, they aren’t humans. Neither do robots, or dogs. Although humans are “only” differentiated from chimpanzees by 2% of DNA and physiology, both the DNA differences and the physiological differences are very well established, significant, and consistent. I think everyone can conclude that human offspring are human, so I probably should have said “person” more, rather than “human”, but I think my intent was pretty clear.

I am well aware of the inability of science to produce definitive answers to a variety of questions, especially in drawing classifications which are by nature artificial. As I have stated, I am a scientist, and deal with these issues on a daily basis. Science doesn’t work by looking at a problem, bringing up all currently unanswerable quandries, and throwing up our hands. We make observations, generate and test hypotheses, and do our best to make sense of the problem at hand. Usually, if we do our work right and make the right conclusions, they fit into a larger picture that helps answer the larger questions.

I have throughout asked one very simple question-given that medically and physiologically mid-to late term fetuses are indistinguishable from babies except in their location, why are they not considered persons?

It’s ironic that you are accusing me of trying to cloud the issue, while you are trying to discredit all scientific knowledge. Bringing in irrelevant wonderings about physics and the nature of the universe seeks to cloud the issue by declaring that since we don’t know everything, we can’t know anything. It’s a kind of epistemological nihilism that I find completely unworkable.

You maintain throughout that science has no place in this discussion, however you have yet to answer the simple question that was the foundation of the article. I think that you would probably support the use of science influencing morality and policy in the realms of gay rights, environmental protection, stem cell research, and the death penalty, but consider it somehow misplaced in a discussion of abortion.

Posted by: brian at January 16, 2005 11:31 PM

Brian,
Why is it that when the Right wing is challenged, all they seem to be able to do is be insulting.
Is there some way that science can account for that?
How would you like “Science” to define life?
A protozoa is alive.
Is that your definition of life?

Science, as we know it cannot answer politcal or moral questions.
Since with “Science” you have black or white, it either is or it isn’t, how do you answer that moraly, or politicaly, and how are you going to get a politician to answer a question like that in black or white?

So, at what point, Mr. Scientist, does “Science” say life begins?

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2005 12:30 AM

My questions were not irrelevant. A dog in very old arguments did not feel pain. That was the differentiation that many made. That is not the case today.

You still have not made a scientific argument of any kind to differentiate between a zygote and a late term fetus. You stated that self awareness is the standard. Then Chimps are babies by that definiton.

My Point is that the issue is much more complex than you seem to be willing to admit. YOU know what you mean, others don’t agree with YOU.

You arguments are convoluted. You have decided by more or less fiat that a 26 week old fetus is a baby. As Julia and others pointed out viability is much more slippery than you let on.

Disregarding for the moment that Roe v. Wde HAS addressed these issues, and ignoring the fact that all abortions ARE regulated, you continue to argue these points.

Declaring a fetus a baby by rather loose science to conveniently fit your argument that Roe v. Wade needs to be amended frankly makes no sense and ignores or belittles the laws that exist.

This is the old “Magic Hat” argument that I have never made, and is just being rehashed here. I don’t argue that a fetus or a zygote isn’t Human. Neither does Roe v. Wade.

I have NEVER discredited science only your rather narrow interpretation of what I have yet to hear you define. I guess since you KNOW it to be fact and claim to be a scientist, we must all bow to your superior intellect.

If this is your view of science, then i think, frankly, your science is quite sloppy.

Why not 25 weeks? why not 14 weeks? Science advances daily. Growing a fetus external to the womb? It’s a possibility. Shouldn’t it be tried to save a life? What are your reasons for your rather arbitrary definitions?

My argument is that this is a fruitless argument. Abortion is a pragmatic choice by imperfect Humans. It is often a moral choice in the real world of consequences. Late term abortions are neither common nor casual and give the appearance to your position of gradualism.

Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2005 01:15 AM

At the federal level that law states that a ban can be made against abortions once a fetus is viable, with the exception that the health of the mother must come first. The federal court decisions say that it is not the responsibility (and should NOT be the responsibility) of the courts to determine viability, but this should be in the hands of the doctors to determine.

Doctors are bound by their oaths, and also by insurance rules, state law, among a host of other issues, in doing their utmost to prevent the abortion of a fetus that is viable. In fact, I challenge you to find me a clinic or doctor in the United States that says that they will perform an abortion after viability just because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore. (If you can do that, I’ll shut my trap)

In fact, I do know that planned parenthood does not abort past viability (except in cases of health to the mother), and they are trained to counsel her that it is too late, and to offer psychological services.

I just think that the late-term abortion issue is actually a non-issue (except to individuals who are against it because they believe unviable fetuses should be delivered whole to die in a “humane” manner, rather than die as the result of an “inhumane” abortion. In my opinion, sometimes it is more humane to have a quick death in the womb, than a slow and painful death outside of the womb.)

Incidentally, newly borns are scientifically called Nenoates (not babies).

On a less analytical level, (and diverging from your points) I do think that the issue of forcing girls that “play” to “pay” for having sex, is an argument that is fraught with problems.

I know many girls (being from Mississippi) that got pregnant at 16. I don’t disagree that many of these girls embody the stereotypical girl that is looked at with such vitriol by the pro-life movement. Drug-addicted, un-educated, poor, with boyfriends of dubious distinction.

So we say that if they are responsible enought to have sex, then they must have a baby. Yet these women are not going to become good mothers because they are forced to have a baby. In fact, they are going to be bad mothers. So it is not the women that are “taught a lesson”. It’s the newborns that suffer. And then they grow up and repeat the same cycle (One branch of my family has been doing this for generations. 6 out of the 10 in generation 5 are in jail).

If you are a person who gets pregnant and wants an abortion, should you be required to have the baby but be forced to give it up for adoption to a “responsible” person?

I understand that the concern of spiritual people remains that spirits have a right to live, and even though they would essentially be forcing new spirits into horrible families, we shouldn’t “murder” them because their future life looks bleak.

But if the essential issue is that human life is sanctified, and new life is especially precious, then the most effective way to reduce abortions, and increase the amount of happy childhoods, is to mandate free birth control and birth control education, and health services to pregnant women, and health services to infants to the age of 5.

Birth control, and health services have the greatest impact on abortions in developing and developed countries. It has the greatest impact on both legal and illegal abortions.

If you outlaw abortions, then illegal abortions will take place. People will get rid of their unwanted pregnancies. The best way to stop that from happening is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. International statistics prove birth control is the single most effective way to stop that from happening.

So why argue about legal semantics? Instead, lobby congress for free birth control.

If it’s about solving the problem, then we should focus on what has been proven to be most effective at combating the problem.

Incidentally, I also am influenced by the fact that a 16-year-old friend of mine seduced her 70 year-old English teacher and subsequently got pregnant and had an abortion at 5 weeks.
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage14.html

I agree with Gregg that we make pragmatic moral decisions all the time. For instance, we cannot be certain that animals don’t have souls, yet we eat them. However, many vegans (and buddhists) believe animals have souls (and some contain human souls). Should we be bound by their morality and outlaw the eating and murder of cows?

Julia

Posted by: Julia at January 17, 2005 02:38 AM

Brian, you must agree that science can bring facts and data and theories and hypotheses to the table, but, that science also rewrites its own facts, data, theories, and hypotheses as better research uncovers more knowledge. Hence, Science has little to bring to the table regarding when a fetus becomes a human being, for a zygote may belong to the homo sapien species and identified as such, but, the the term ‘human being’ has not scientific definition and cannot have a scientific definition. What co