Anon-

Thanks for the link. These anecdotes from actual doctors and patients help expose the hypocrisy of some of the foes of abortion and a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body.

Everyone, check out the link in Anonymous’ comment.

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

It’s quite chilling, actually.

Thanks for writing such a thoughtful blog.

Bernie Keating

This link is mesmerizing for anyone interested in this issue.

Bernie

I am pro choice and I do not believe having an abortion is murder. I personally wouldn’t have an abortion, that is my choice, but I’m fortunate enough to be among the middle class where I could raise a child on my own. But a baby born into a world where it wont be loved and is abused and resented is just as creul. I know there is always adoption, but I couldnt imagine actually giving birth to a child and then giving it up.

I also don’t believe that under 4 months that a fetus can really be considered a person. It is not like you are killing someone with a life of memories or knows what the world is like or can see, and even breathe on its own etc.

Michael said: “I’m pro-choice to a point. The woman has a choice to not have sex. She has the choice to use protection. If she chooses to not do either of those, or if they fail, she (IMHO) has run out of choices because now another human being is involved.”

Ottman said: “Many woman (sic) choose to have sex because their judgments are overridden by desire. If they get pregnant they decide on a life that helped create due to their desire and must take responsibility for that life.”

To Ottman I want to say that your claim about the “inalienable” rights of a fetus fails to account for the fact that an unborn person cannot be a citizen of the United States. Most people gain their citizenship here by being born on U.S. soil. If your argument is that Constitutional rights extend to absolutely every person under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, then you stand in stark disagreement with the Bush Administration and the Supreme Court. The federal government currently denies due process to foreign “enemy combatants” under the theory that they are not citizens and not on U.S. soil. Yet, the United States government exercises jurisdiction over them. The same goes for certain illegal aliens presently inside the United States. If the right to life, liberty, and property is inalienable, as you say, and applies absolutely across the board, then you need to account for those people too.

Ken, thanks for your response to my comments. I do want to say that I slightly disagree with you about what you say regarding birth control. We agree that education is key, and everyone should know all the options. Assuming that people act rationally (which assumption often proves fallacious), abortion would be a rare way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. It is the most difficult, expensive, and psychologically taxing option. However, I do not think that the law should impose that structure on women, simply because I strongly believe that a woman should theoretically have absolute control over her own body.

DiogenesFreed: to me, the question of whether the fetus is a person is to me a moot point. Many feminists, including myself, argue that abortion is killing, but this is a unique case where a woman’s rights trump her unborn child’s. It just has to be that way in order to maintain equity and individual sovereignty. As George Carlin says, if you think that a fetus is more important than a woman, try getting a fetus to wash the shit stains out of your underwear.

First, I congratulate everyone for maintaining a mostly civil discussion on a topic that garners strong opinions from every angle.
Thanks for keeping this blog an interesting place.

M+, you’re religious beliefs are important to you, and that is good, for you. And yet you realize that they are your beliefs and may not be others. You truly get the message when it comes to legislating individual morality. You recognize the need for personal choice, while rejecting the choices that don’t work for you. If only more people were like you…

Spenwah- Of course I wouldn’t legislate the dietary habits of Americans, but when I finally come around to talking health care, you can be sure I have some thoughts on that issue too.

Your assessment of the need for legislation on this issue(abortion) does have merit, but only to the point where we make the determination that an embryo is no longer just a fetus, and has indeed moved into the realm of personhood. And, if for no other reason than to seek middle ground over this obviously divisive issue, we must make that determination, as a legal benchmark based on the best scientific evidence available. Though I advocate exactly the kind of freedom you say I do, I also recognize the rare occurrence when an issue is so intertwined with social stability, that the only way to try to get beyond it is to create a standard that all can at least grudgingly accept. This is one of those issues.

Diogenes-Here, here. Nice summation. Windspike was right- I did step in it this time, but as he also says, I knew what I was doing. Reasonable discussions about the issues are welcome though, and for the most part, this has been a reasonable discussion. Thanks for jumping in.

It seems to me that we make compromises and value judgments in the law all the time. One particularly relevant one is the decision to prosecute for murder when a fetus is killed after a certain point in the pregnancy. Even that is under attack by the pro-choice movement (I believe) for its inherit danger of giving personhood to a fetus.

IMO, the assertion that a fetus is never a person is as untenable as the assertion that it is from conception. And more important, that debate is endless. You seem to be advocating what I think is the right path – to draw a line (arbitrary or not) and live with it.

I did think it interesting that readers took issue with your simple statement that no one likes abortion (from both sides, I might add). Of course no one likes it. And anyone who advocates it as a reasonable form of birth control is unhinged. Asserting that it must be abolished because we don’t like it is specious at best. Surely it is reasonable to acknowledge that it is necessary and at the same time undesirable.We as a people do many things that are not what we would wish, but which are necessary.

I agree with you – it should be something that is a last resort. More emphasis should be placed on preventing unwanted pregnancy and providing options to those faced with the decision. Regardless, there are still compelling reasons for it and those won’t go away no matter how much we want them to.

Ken:
The rising level of obesity in America is harming society. (medical costs, lost productivity, etc.) Do you also advocate state intervention in that area? Your position has always seemed to be that one can only directly harm other individuals; society is only harmed to the extent that it is comprised partly of the individuals who were harmed. If our assumption is that the fetus being considered for abortion is not a person, how would that abortion harm any individual besides the mother (who owns her body and may voluntarily harm it any way she pleases)? I still do not understand your justification for government regulation of abortion, given that we assume the fetus is not a person.

I only mentioned briefly my position on abortion in this discussion, in my first comment. I do not know at what point in the human’s development it becomes a person (I would guess it occurs sometime after birth). For this reason, it is important to err on the side of caution to eliminate the possibility of committing mass murder. Abortion should be limited to the first trimester. Beyond this, I see no compelling arguments for regulation of any other kind. The simple economic facts that using a condom is both much cheaper and much less painful than undergoing an abortion will discourage most women from using abortion as a form of birth control. And because of the strong personal convictions most Americans have regarding abortion, they should never be funded or subsidized by taxpayers.

I liked it so much, I blogrolled it. So, no worries about people putting you on the do not view list. No one is stopping folks from not clicking onto their blogs either. I, myself, have “do not blogged” several of the reichwingers because of their tedency to spew venom and vitrol rather than quality writing.

My two cents on the issue: 1) Remember what life was like before Roe V. Wade? The mortality rates for women who sought illegal procedures was horrific.

2) The decision is between a woman and her own god. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

As to when life begins, that, as can been seen in the comments, is debatable.