No need for the gruesome details here; let's focus on the doctor's important conclusion:
It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.
What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such [Waldo L. Fielding, M.D., "Repairing the Damage, Before Roe," New York Times, 2008.06.03].
Full rights for women -- that's what fighting the abortion ban is about.
Unless that woman isn't born yet. Then it's fine to cut her up and suck her out.
ReplyDeleteDRK
I don't believe in abortion, but I do believe in a women's right to choose. Who am I to sit in judgement on someone?
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I would like to ask is how many of these "Pro-lifers" are smokers??? Do they care about the person who is currently on this earth trying to breath clean air?? Do they care when they light up next to my child? Do people fight against abortion because they truely believe? Or do they just need a cause to fight for?
Something to think about..
DRK, it's biologically impossible for a woman to not be born.
ReplyDeleteJust making sure we're clear on our definitions here.
"What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens ..."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that the mere right to have an abortion makes the difference between first-class and second-class citizenship for women. There remain other problems, such as wage disparities and harassment issues.
I am also unsure as to how actually having an abortion would elevate the quality of a woman's citizenship. It seems to me like an illogical attempt to assign an effect to a cause.
What right could we take away from males exclusively, that would have the same citizenship-related effect as taking away the right of a female to have an abortion? I can't think of any examples that wouldn't be patently ridiculous.
As a male, I cannot possibly make judgments about what females may or may not do with their bodies. I have only to ask myself, "How would I like it if some woman tried to tell me what sort of male-only thing I could or couldn't do with my body?"
I regard every abortion as a tragedy of multiple dimensions. But I can do no more about such events than I can do about hurricanes, earthquakes or tsunamis.
I take the Giuliani position on this issue. I am content to remain conflicted. I am pro-choice in my mind, but pro-life in my heart. Let a woman choose life, but let it be her choice, alone or in concert with the Higher Powers of her understanding.
Erin, you say it's impossible for a woman not to be born. You believe that life does not begin until birth. I happen to believe that life begins at conception, meaning that a female unborn baby is a woman, and if aborted, that woman is not born. It all comes down to when we believe life starts. You can choose to believe your way, but I don't. The only way we will know for sure is when we get to heaven, and I still prefer to err on the side of life than not. I think "life" outweighs "choice," and I guess we will just have to wait to find out who is correct.
ReplyDeleteI viewed ultrasounds of my grandchild before he was born, and no one can tell me that he was not a living human being even though still in the womb.
Nonnie
Nonnie,
ReplyDeleteNo, I’m sorry, but biologically speaking, a fetus is not a woman or a man. It’s completely the wrong term to use. My two-year-old daughter isn’t a woman either. Developmentally, she’s a toddler, and she won’t be a woman until she reaches adulthood. If we start calling her a woman, we run into all sorts of messy things, like the fact that she would be able to consent to sex. Um, I don’t think you really want to go there.
“You believe that life does not begin until birth.” I’m pretty sure I’ve never said anything remotely similar to that in any of my comments on this blog. I really hate it when people attribute something to me that I’ve not said or when they jump to a conclusion about my beliefs, so please refrain from doing that about me or anyone else in the future. It undermines rational discourse.
“I happen to believe that life begins at conception, meaning that a female unborn baby is a woman, and if aborted, that woman is not born.” OK, so you believe that at the moment of conception, a woman or a man legally exists. Do I have that correct? If so, I have a question that I’d really appreciate having an answer to. If it’s essential to protect these men and women from being aborted, what steps do you think the government should take to do so? For instance, should all sexually active women be monitored in order to assure that any possible conceptions are protected?
Erin, I'm simply saying a fetus is either male or female, boy or girl, lad or lassie, man or woman. Woman is used simply a differentiation of the sexes.
ReplyDeleteI assumed you believed that a fetus was not alive until birth. Basically that is what the pro-choice people usually say as their reasoning for favoring abortion. If you don't and I improperly ascribed that to you, then I apologize.
As abortion stands now, it is simply used a last form of birth control. Why worry too much about failed birth control of other sorts if abortion is as easily available as it is now.
I believe that a baby is a baby and is alive with a right to live whether before birth or after. That is all I'm saying and that is why I am against abortion on demand is it currently stands. That is why I voted for the previous ban. And that is why I will vote for the present proposed ban.
I don't want the gov't monitoring all sexually active women - that is ridiculous. This is a far cry from ending legal abortion in SD.
I have a question for you, Erin. If you believe that life exists before abortion, how can you as a Christian condone killing that life? I'm not trying to argue with you, but you deny saying that life begins at birth, so you must believe that a baby is alive before birth.
Once secure in my position, the older I get the less certain I am that abortion is right.
ReplyDeleteBut my wife's question (and the question on the ballot) remains: what steps should the government take to regulate abortion? And what steps can the government take without doing damage to the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteI think it is extremely important that lawmakers and voters seek the TRUTH when creating legal definitions. They should not manipulate definitions simply because they are afraid of the legal implications of the truth.
ReplyDeleteErin, I get the sense from your questions that part of the reason you do not want a fetus to be part of the legal definition of a "person" is that you are afraid of the powers that the government might claim as a result. Is this correct? If so, I think your reasoning is very bad because you are not basing your definition on the truth. I say we support truth and keep our government in check at the same time.
To answer the question of what government should do to protect life before birth, I would say that it should regard abortion as any other homicide. Performing an abortion on oneself should be a punishable offense. Performing an abortion on another should be a punishable offense. Assisting an abortion should be a punishable offense.
Prevention in specific cases would be difficult without intruding on a woman's right to privacy. The threat of punishment, along with an emphasis in education on alternatives to abortion and the dangers of self-performed abortions, would be the only means of prevention I would propose.
I'm open to learning of better ways to minimize the abortion rate.
It is my belief, which is based on my faith and what I know about human development, that human life begins at conception, and that human life = personhood. Can we at least come to an agreement that time of birth is a completely arbritrary and outdated starting point of personhood?
Nonnie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the apology—much appreciated.
With all due respect, I think your assessment of the reason for the majority of abortions is vastly oversimplified. The reasons for having an abortion are as varied as the women who have them. Your sentiment appears to be based on what you’d like to believe about women having abortions (maybe that they’re all young, single, and promiscuous?) rather than on any facts based on the research that has been done about why women have abortions. I’m assuming something about you there though, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
“I don't want the gov't monitoring all sexually active women - that is ridiculous.” Why is it ridiculous? If a legally recognized human being is present at conception, if “a baby is alive with a right to live whether before birth or after,” then why would it be ridiculous for the state to take great steps to protecting those lives? Is there any procedure or governmental intrusion that takes precedence over that human life? The very abortion ban you intend to vote for in November states “That the State of South Dakota possesses a duty to protect the life of all human beings within the state, and it is a legitimate exercise of the state’s power to protect the life of all human beings within the state including those human beings living in utero.” (emphasis mine)Why then would monitoring sexually active women not be within the legitimate exercise of the state’s power?
In answer to your last question, yes, I do believe that a fetus is alive, just as a zygote, a sperm, and an egg are alive before birth. But as I’ve stated on this blog before, I think abortion is a necessary evil in a free society. I don’t believe that women can be considered full citizens as long as the government has the ability to indenture their bodies into the service of another. As long as a fetus is dependent on the body of its mother (and remember, Roe v. Wade only guarantees the right to abortion until the point of fetal viability excepting for things like the health and life of the mother), I don’t believe that our government can legally require any of its citizens to use their bodies in order to keep others alive.
Even if I was the last person available to give a kidney to my child who would die without it, the government still cannot physically restrain me and remove a kidney from my body. It can’t even forcefully require me to give blood. It can’t do anything with my body to keep another person alive. No matter what. If it can, we’re not free.
What about late term abortion? In that case a baby is definitely viable, is alive, can feel pain, breathe, etc. Yet it can be partially born and inhumanely killed, all in the name of pro-choice. And this is protected by Roe v Wade and activist judges, even though opposed by most people and even made illegal by amendments to state constitutions. I agree that abortion is evil, I just don't feel it is a necessary evil.
ReplyDeleteNonnie
Nonnie, what is your opinion on the reasons that late term abortions are performed? Why do you think they're done?
ReplyDeleteOh, and you still haven't answered my question about why you think monitoring all sexually active women is ridiculous.
Whatever the reason for late term abortions, the method is inhumane. If the baby is deformed, has birth defects, whatever, to kill a living human in this manner is to put it mildly inhumane, to put it honestly is torture. Even to save the life of the mother, there has to be a more humane way to do it. You wouldn't treat a puppy this way! If you did, the SPCA would be all over you.
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous in the extreme to even suggest monitoring sexually active women. It doesn't bear explaining. That has nothing to do with being against abortion however. Two completely different things.
You never really explained how you as a Christian can condone killing a life, if you believe that life begins at conception, via abortion. You got into the issue of the woman being of more value that the baby stuff, but not how you can in your heart condone murder of said baby.
I know these are tough issues, and I know that we will have to agree to disagree as they say. I just believe that abortion is morally wrong and will do what I can to limit the number of abortions (murders in my mind) that are performed and the ease of accessibilty to abortion for any and all reasons.
Nonnie
I happen to believe there is no actual life until the fetus can survive outside of the womb, without the aid of life support. Some people believe that life doesn't exist until the fetus draws it first breath. No matter the reason a woman chooses to have an abortion, it isn't anybodys business. I grew up hearing about the horrors of illegal abortions.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:37 said "I happen to believe there is no actual life until the fetus can survive outside of the womb, without the aid of life support."
ReplyDeleteOK, so is a premature baby not alive? I spent some time in and around NICU (newborn ICU) last summer, and somehow I can't fathom that those little babies weren't alive. In your way of thinking, why even have NICU's then if those babies aren't even alive?