Planned Parenthood-is this common?

[msjones]

Yes, but all they did was make prolifers look like extremists. No one wanted to align themselvesu with that viewpoint given their tactics and rhetoric. Honestly I think they helped push more students to a pro-choice view or a stronger pro-choice view with their hijinks. I was coming from a pro-life, religious home and I was more turned off than anything by that approach.

I had the opposite reaction.

 

I'd been taught (in school) that abortion was a sort of neutral option that one would prefer to avoid but may not be able to.  

 

Then I saw those images.  Changed my perspective for sure.

[Moxie]

Respectfully, I disagree. I have been pregnant and have seen heartbeats on the monitor. I have no issues with terminating a pregnancy, and cannot compare it with infanticide simply because a fetus is, by definition, not an infant. It is, biologically speaking, "just tissue," but then, so are we all. If you want to impose the idea of a "soul" or "spirit" into the conversation, the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence of such a thing, as we know it is not a thing found in nature. Therefore, all we have left is tissue, mostly living (dead skin cells and blood cells notwithstanding). So there has to be more to the conversation than the organic matter. I suggest a spiritual or religious component is not helpful simply because this is an issue that must be taken on faith, and everyone does not share that faith, so this appeal will be fruitless. At the very least, both parties at the table need to use the same vocabulary. Philosophical and practical issues are probably the best ways to proceed in this kind of discussion. To suggest a woman who has been pregnant, felt the movement of a fetus, or lost a pregnancy she looked forward to continuing would have a tough time arguing for terminating pregnancy, is to miss what she is actually arguing for, and assume she lacks empathy. I find that not only inaccurate, but, well, not nice.

 

For the record, I have been pregnant four times (all on purpose), and have given birth three (one pregnancy ended in a miscarriage). I have felt the movement of my children when they were still in my body. I can still recall the emotional pains of loosing something I dearly looked forward to. If I were to get pregnant today, I would not continue the pregnancy. If my daughter were to get pregnant, I would have no issue with her terminating the pregnancy.

So, in your opinion, is abortion ever wrong? Would it be wrong at 39 weeks?

[kiwik]

That comment is inflammatory and unworthy of you.

[Moxie]

You are being ridiculous.

Me??? I'm honestly curious.

[Moxie]

That comment is inflammatory and unworthy of you.

Wait, are you still talking to me?? I'm sincerely curious if there is a point between "just tissue" and "baby" and what that point might be. No snark.

[Guest inoubliable]

Wait, are you still talking to me?? I'm sincerely curious if there is a point between "just tissue" and "baby" and what that point might be. No snark.

 

Mostly, that's personal I think. Of course there is a medical definition of viability. What's the confusion? 

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I call shenanigans. I'm Catholic. My Church is 100% against birth control and is 100% pro-life. But 98% of Catholics use birth control. Where are these "many" people who are opposed to birth control??

Just look at all of the resistance to having health insurance companies providing free birth control for women which IMHO anyone who is pro-life should support. Or the resistance to selling Plan B birth control over the counter. Or the resistance to appropriate sex education. Or the resistance to funding Planned Parenthood which is often the only available place in many areas for effective birth control.

[albeto.]

So, in your opinion, is abortion ever wrong? Would it be wrong at 39 weeks?

 

If it were performed against the will of the mother, I think it would be very wrong. 

[albeto.]

Wait, are you still talking to me?? I'm sincerely curious if there is a point between "just tissue" and "baby" and what that point might be. No snark.

 

Humans are made of flesh and bone. These are tissue. To say a baby is "just tissue" is to say a baby is "just flesh and bone." There isn't a scale or spectrum between "point tissue" and "point baby," kwim?

[Moxie]

If it were performed against the will of the mother, I think it would be very wrong.

Can I assume that you think abortion is okay at any point as long as it is what the mother wishes?

[kiwik]

Me??? I'm honestly curious.

Maybe but I think you would find it hard finding anyone who would abort a technically full term (anything after 37 weeks here but may vary) baby so it is a moot point. Here a baby lost after 32 weeks requires a legal death certificate so I suspect that it would be murder if you deliberately killed it (as opposed to beating your pregnant girlfriend up).

 

Also aborting at 39 weeks would have no benefit to anybody. Aborting a 8 weeks obviously has some benefit (whether they outweigh the problems is a personal and circumstantial thing).

 

It is not a black and white thing and it is a choice i have been lucky enough not too make.

[albeto.]

Can I assume that you think abortion is okay at any point as long as it is what the mother wishes?

 

Okay in what respect, though? I don't mean to be vague, I have a feeling you are referring to some kind of spectrum or moral parameters or some consideration I'm not aware of. Can you help me out here? 

 

ack - forum posted before I was done...

 

rest of my thoughts:

 

I do think terminating a pregnancy is a morally neutral behavior, like all behaviors. I do think circumstances, including intent, will provide a better idea of the moral implication of that behavior. I do not think there is any support for the idea of "objective morality," although I do think we can look at behaviors and events on a moral scale (with things like human trafficking on one side, and providing safe and legal abortions on the other). I think there can be compelling arguments for supporting one's choice to terminate her pregnancy, and there can be arguments that are not compelling, but I don't see abortion in and of itself as occupying an objective spot on an objective moral scale. Does that make sense? 

[regentrude]

My mother worked at a youth home for troubled girls during the time when abortion was illegal.  No, they aren't scare tactics.  They are talking about things that actually happened when girls felt desperate and did what they could, sometimes damaging themselves for life.

 

Or dying in the process.

 

[Moxie]

Okay in what respect, though? I don't mean to be vague, I have a feeling you are referring to some kind of spectrum or moral parameters or some consideration I'm not aware of. Can you help me out here?

I realize we have two very different worldviews. Surely, there are some things you consider 'wrong', correct?? In your view, is there ever a point at which an abortion would be 'wrong' even if it were the wish of the mother? When does that tissue earn the right to be a respected person?

[Elfknitter.#]

I realize we have two very different worldviews. Surely, there are some things you consider 'wrong', correct?? In your view, is there ever a point at which an abortion would be 'wrong' even if it were the wish of the mother? When does that tissue earn the right to be a respected person?

 

How is this even remotely related to the OP?

[Moxie]

How is this even remotely related to the OP?

Like most conversations, we've taken a turn. Not related to the OP at all I guess.

[Guest inoubliable]

How is this even remotely related to the OP?

 

It's not. And to ask someone if they "surely" consider some things to be wrong is rude. Pro-choice doesn't mean no-morals. Good grief. 

[Moxie]

It's not. And to ask someone if they "surely" consider some things to be wrong is rude. Pro-choice doesn't mean no-morals. Good grief.

I don't think I'm being rude. We have different definitions of right and wrong. I'm curious of her opinion. I am under no illusion that I'm changing her mind about anything. I just want to pick her brain for a bit.

[La Condessa]

Except that it's not defined as infanticide by law, because infanticide can only be committed on a "wholly born" child.

 

From the Free Legal Dictionary:

 

NFANTICIDE, med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.)

2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433.

3. When this crime is to be proved from circumstances, it is proper to consider whether the child had attained that size and maturity by which it would have been enabled to maintain an independent existence; whether it was born alive; and, if born alive, by what means it came to its death. 1 Beck's Med. Jur. 331 to 428, where these several questions are learnedly considered. See also 1 Briand, Med Leg. prem. part. c. 8 Cooper's Med. Jur. h.t. Vide Ryan's Med. Jur. 137; Med. Jur. 145, 194; Dr. Cummin's Proof of Infanticide considered Lecieux, Considerations Medico-legales sur l'Infanticide; Duvergie, Medicine Legale, art. Infanticide.

 

Now, this is not to say that every voter has the right to organize, to petition, to lobby to change the law on the state or federal level. If that happens, then you can rightfully change the definition.

After my husband's first day of law school, he came home and told me about the lecture one professor gave on the nature of legal terminology and legal definitions. The gist was to research and know legal definitions, because they are not neccesarily either logical or the same as regular English usage definitions. The example used was a case where a restaurant could legally advertise "fresh vegetables" because they offered frozen french fries, which met the legal definition.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

After my husband's first day of law school, he came home and told me about the lecture one professor gave on the nature of legal terminology and legal definitions. The gist was to research and know legal definitions, because they are not neccesarily either logical or the same as regular English usage definitions. The example used was a case where a restaurant could legally advertise "fresh vegetables" because they offered frozen french fries, which met the legal definition.

 

Must be why English is a popular pre-law undergrad track.

[albeto.]

I realize we have two very different worldviews. Surely, there are some things you consider 'wrong', correct?? In your view, is there ever a point at which an abortion would be 'wrong' even if it were the wish of the mother? When does that tissue earn the right to be a respected person?

 

Just to let you know, the forum posted my reply before I was finished. Perhaps what I wrote after the part you quoted will help? If not, I'll try to answer here. I think when we're talking about something like abortion, we have to be careful with the words we use. We have to make sure we're thinking about the same thing when we read the same word. When you say "moral," you are, I am assuming, invoking a religious component into this word. I assume this because I was once Catholic myself, and the word certainly came with specific connotations. For one thing, the connotation that "moral" and "sin" were related in some way. This is problematic for me now because I don't want to be talking about "moral" if you're thinking "moral/not sinful." I don't know if it makes a difference, but my knee-jerk reaction is to think it does. Does that make sense? 

 

So to answer your question, I don't know. I haven't heard a compelling argument for forcing a woman to abdicate a part of her body for the use of another. We don't accept this with other organs, so requiring this of the uterus appears to be a double standard to me. Further, the woman is also "just tissue," right? because she is also made of flesh and bones. But she is self-aware, she is sentient, she is conscious of her self in the world and the world around her, and she is aware of the burden of incubating a fetus against her will. To compel her to give up the right to choose how and when to use her uterus - while it is still located in her body!- for the sake of a fetus that has not yet been born and does not have that sense of consciousness, again seems to me to be a double standard. Now I think we're no longer talking about a fetus' right to be born, but a woman's "duty" to reproduce. Whether this "duty" is understood to be an honor, or rejecting it is understood to be a sin, it's still an external obligation forced upon her. I don't think forcing a person to do something with their bodies against their will is ethically justified in this case.

 

Crud, Moxie, I forgot you are pregnant. Please, do understand I don't mean any of this as some hidden message to you or about you. Honestly, I just now remembered after I wrote this out. I hope (and trust) that if you find my words or ideas hurtful, you'll let me know or stop reading. I answered because your question is a valid one, and I get the impression you're genuinely curious. I wanted to honor that curiosity with an honest answer. Nothing more. 

[Moxie]

I actually had a miscarriage last week. I probably should have made a announcement after I made such a stink when I found out I was pregnant but I never could come up with the right time.

 

And, no worries, I did not read anything into your post. I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts. When you left the Church, you didn't do it half way!!

 

ETA: Thank you for your answer! I do appreciate the conversation

[Mergath]

I actually had a miscarriage last week. I probably should have made a announcement after I made such a stink when I found out I was pregnant but I never could come up with the right time.

 

And, no worries, I did not read anything into your post. I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts. When you left the Church, you didn't do it half way!!

 

ETA: Thank you for your answer! I do appreciate the conversation

 

 

I'm sorry. :(

[Amy in NH]

To my knowledge, I'm the only person who has actually worked at PP on this thread, and I specifically said that "abortion is infanticide." Anyone who has ever been pregnant, and saw/heard a heartbeat at 5w on ultrasound would have a tough time arguing "it's just tissue" (especially given that abortions aren't even generally conducted until at least 6w). 

 

But, to quibble with the "dark and horrific" characterization or deny the historical accuracy of what women suffered, this I cannot understand. 

 

I'd just like to point out that there is a world of difference between a 5w embryo and an infant.

 

And a miscarriage that is no-one's fault is considered a "spontaneous abortion".  Who are you gonna blame for those?

[albeto.]

I actually had a miscarriage last week. I probably should have made a announcement after I made such a stink when I found out I was pregnant but I never could come up with the right time.

 

And, no worries, I did not read anything into your post. I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts. When you left the Church, you didn't do it half way!!

 

ETA: Thank you for your answer! I do appreciate the conversation

 

I'm sorry to hear that, Moxie. 

 

:(

 

And yeah, as they say, "I didn't leave my faith, I threw it the **** away!" But it was NOT instantaneous. I identified as very conservative for a quite a while there. Slowly I accepted more and more liberal interpretations, until eventually none of it was compelling, not even the symbolism or allegories. After, there were too many things I really adored about my experiences in the church to allow me to comfortably look into any information that wasn't favorable. But now? All bets are off.  ;)

[Moxie]

Thank you both for the kind thought but I'm okay. Sadly, I've been here long enough that I know to not get too emotionally attached until the 12 week mark.

 

Back to the discussion. Yes, for me, moral/not moral is very tied up with sin. I recognize that you see things differently; that is what I'm trying to understand. I understand what you mean about the uterus being the only organ one can be "forced" to use, in a sense. I'm still curious about how you define "person" and when a person has the right to not be harmed.

[LucyStoner]

Wait, are you still talking to me?? I'm sincerely curious if there is a point between "just tissue" and "baby" and what that point might be. No snark.

 

I live in a state where abortion rights are protected by state law, and in a very, very liberal area.  You would be hard pressed to find a provider for any elective abortion post 19 weeks here, though technically it is legal in the first and second trimester.  All of the late abortions I have known about have been non-elective and quite tragic for the parents (realizing that the fetus had no brain stem or was not viable or something along those lines).  Planned Parenthood in my area only offers first trimester procedures (as far as I know, it could have changed). To get an elective abortion past that here, you need to see a doctor who will do it at the hospital or you need to go to the one non-PP affiliated clinic here.  

 

The vast majority of abortions are performed prior to 12 weeks.  Less than 2% are performed past 21.  This data is for all abortions, not just elective ones.  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

 

 

My personal belief is that elective abortions need to be performed as soon as possible.  Apparently, most are.  

[unsinkable]

So if 1 million abortions are performed a year, 15,000 of them are performed on human beings of more than 21 weeks gestation.

 

To me that is tragic and not at all rare.

[Sisyphus]

But there is no reason given, just statistics.

 

As Mrs Mumgo said, the military health system is barred from performing abortions, even on a hydrocephalic, brain dead fetus. When it was discovered at the first ultrasound, around 18 weeks, my very good friend had to raise the thousands of dollars to travel to another state where she could have procedure performed. She also had to arrange care for her twin toddlers, as their father was deployed. She fits your sad statistic- it was close to 26 weeks when she had it, and infinitely more dangerous for her as the weeks passed.

 

Health care decisions should be left to the owner of the body, and the doctor performing the procedure. As my friends case illustrates, legislating health procedures means unnecessary suffering.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

How is this even remotely related to the OP?

What's more, the OP, while noting her pro-life stance, also thought something is wrong when PP has to deploy stringent security measures. All in all, it was an even-handed open to the thread.

[Mrs Mungo]

So if 1 million abortions are performed a year, 15,000 of them are performed on human beings of more than 21 weeks gestation.

 

To me that is tragic and not at all rare.

And there is no way of tracking how many of those 15,000 fetuses were completely dead before the abortion was performed.

 

My friend was pregnant with triplets. One of them died. She had to leave the emergency room at the military hospital and find a place she could pay out of pocket for a *medically necessary* abortion of a dead fetus to protect herself and her other two babies. Legally and medically it was an abortion, even though the baby was dead and two other babies could have (would have) died, had she not taken action. I have personally seen how bad blanket policies have devastating personal consequences for women.

[unsinkable]

If the only way to have a valid point here is to tell our personal stories, I'm out.

[Mrs Mungo]

If the only way to have a valid point here is to tell our personal stories, I'm out.

The point is not to tell a personal story. The point is that the legal and medical terms for abortion are different than the manner in which others are using the term. Infanticide certainly doesn't apply to removing a dead baby. The statistics don't tell why the abortions were performed, and the term applies to all sorts of non-viable pregnancies.

[LucyStoner]

If the only way to have a valid point here is to tell our personal stories, I'm out.

 

Can you furnish any accurate, non-partisan data indicating how many of 22+ week procedures are elective?  No, you can not.  Because such data does not exist.  I agree that late term abortions are tragic.  So do, I suspect, most of the people having them.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If the only way to have a valid point here is to tell our personal stories, I'm out.

So what valid point do you believe you are making?

[kiana]

I don't know what I'd do if I were in an advanced state of pregnancy and found that the baby wouldn't be able to survive regardless of what I did. And I pray I never have to find out.

[goldberry]

I know that I was originally horrified at the whole concept of "late-term abortions".  Afterward I learned that a large majority of those cases fall into categories as described by Mrs. Mungo and Sisyphus.  Many of those cases only reach the "late-term" stage because the parents were frantically trying to do everything possible to give their baby a chance.

 

I cannot conceive the grief of going through that and then having all the additional complications on top of it.

[LucyStoner]

As for the idea that unsafe abortions are either a myth or in the past, the news isn't good.  Worldwide the number of unsafe abortion procedures has not dropped.  

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Abortion-Worldwide.pdf

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't know what I'd do if I were in an advanced state of pregnancy and found that the baby wouldn't be able to survive regardless of what I did. And I pray I never have to find out.

I know if I had a case was like my friend's-removing a baby whose heart had stopped and unquestionably would not survive versus doing nothing and endangering the other two babies? That choice would be an easy one for me, as heart-wrenching as it might be. But, it still is an abortion from a legal and medical standpoint. That's why so many people are pro-choice who would never have an abortion under normal circumstances. There are a LOT of not normal circumstances that women face. They shouldn't need to face a bunch of insane legal hoops in addition to their already tragic circumstances.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

As for the idea that unsafe abortions are either a myth or in the past, the news isn't good. Worldwide the number of unsafe abortion procedures has not dropped.

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Abortion-Worldwide.pdf

Drat, Stoner! You beat me to the stats this time, so I'll just have to piggy back this NY Times quote:

 

 

Many restrictive abortion laws in Africa date back to colonial codes, and the bigotry of the law has trickled through society. Mali's law is based on the Napoleonic Code from 1810, which forbade abortion. Nigeria's, one of the world's most restrictive, dates back to a British provision from 1861.

[Joanne]

It's a ridiculous, ineffective scare tactic.  It doesn't do anything at all to educate or support.  If these people truly want to reduce abortions, instead of showing graphic pictures of rare third trimester abortions, they'd be much better off holding up signs that give information for pregnant and scared teens.

 

 

Or, even before that.

 

Let's work on stopping the male "locker room" mentality that reinforces the stereotype that men should "get some" and high five each other after it.

 

Let's work on bolstering the confidence and self esteem of both sexes.

Let's teach from early, early ages that "no means no" in ALL its forms - including kissing grandma goodbye, hugging Uncle Bill, and when you are drunk at prom.

 

Let's teach **realistically and holistically** that teens will think about, consider, play with, and desire sex. And let's tell them it's ok to feel that way - they were made that way.

 

Let's value BORN babies at risk. 

 

Let's buy diapers, clothes, blankets and formula and donate them to women's shelters. 

 

Let's give unrestricted, confidential, easy access to birth control, birth control education.

 

Let's pay child care workers more.

 

Let's increase the minimum wage to where a person working 40 hours on it can support at least themselves.

 

Let's not encourage a woman to have the baby and then, 12 months after the birth look at her with disdain as she uses Food Stamps to buy a birthday cake.

 

Let's change the evil sex culture we have: hyperfocused on sex while elevating "purity" to a bizarre level.

 

Let's call each and every slut shaming what it IS: bullying and corroding.

[albeto.]

 

 

Back to the discussion. Yes, for me, moral/not moral is very tied up with sin. I recognize that you see things differently; that is what I'm trying to understand. I understand what you mean about the uterus being the only organ one can be "forced" to use, in a sense. I'm still curious about how you define "person" and when a person has the right to not be harmed.

 

I understand a person to be the one living outside the womb. Inside the womb, it's still in development. The actual person should have rights to her own body, the potential person should not. 

[LucyStoner]

Drat, Stoner! You beat me to the stats this time, so I'll just have to piggy back this NY Times quote:

 

  The highlight of my day!  Well, no.  Not really.  Thanks goodness.  ;)

[kiana]

I know if I had a case was like my friend's-removing a baby whose heart had stopped and unquestionably would not survive versus doing nothing and endangering the other two babies? That choice would be an easy one for me, as heart-wrenching as it might be. But, it still is an abortion from a legal and medical standpoint. That's why so many people are pro-choice who would never have an abortion under normal circumstances. There are a LOT of not normal circumstances that women face. They shouldn't need to face a bunch of insane legal hoops in addition to their already tragic circumstances.

 

Right, if it were already dead and were endangering the other two that would be a no-brainer although still gut-wrenching to pull the plug.

 

I'm thinking more of cases where the baby has serious abnormalities which will likely prove fatal shortly after birth.

 

Personally, yeah. I agree with you. I do vote pro-choice even though I do not believe I would, for myself, consider an abortion for anything other than my own life or a dead baby (severely and possibly fatally ill would be a very hard choice that I pray I need never make).

 

But I also think that people who are saying "Well, of course I would have the baby" frequently have no idea what they'd do in a similar situation, because they have never been in this situation.

[Cammie]

I think, perhaps, that if there was less judgment and moral aspersions cast on women who decide to have abortions we would all be shocked by how many of our friends, coworkers and family members have actually had one.

 

Living in India it has been astonishing to listen to women discussing having an abortion.  I don't think I have ever been with any group of friends in which that was ever discussed.  Here, abortion is not seen as shameful or disgraceful or something to go to your deathbed keeping as a secret.  Here it is seen as a choice, made by a woman, about her body.  End of story.

 

 

[Aelwydd]

I actually had a miscarriage last week. I probably should have made a announcement after I made such a stink when I found out I was pregnant but I never could come up with the right time.

 

And, no worries, I did not read anything into your post. I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts. When you left the Church, you didn't do it half way!!

 

ETA: Thank you for your answer! I do appreciate the conversation

Moxie, I'm sorry for your loss!

[unsinkable]

If anyone wants to read an interview with a doctor who performs 3rd trimester abortions, you can search for "Dr. Susan Robinson" and the blog "the hairpin."

 

I will not link it.

 

I give a HUGE WARNING for anyone who has dealt with pregnancy loss or child loss.

 

To the best of my reading comprehension, the doctor does not talk about performing these abortions for intrauterine death that has already occured with the abortion needed because of that.

[albeto.]

n/m 

 

[Mergath]

If anyone wants to read an interview with a doctor who performs 3rd trimester abortions, you can search for "Dr. Susan Robinson" and the blog "the hairpin."

 

I will not link it.

 

I give a HUGE WARNING for anyone who has dealt with pregnancy loss or child loss.

 

To the best of my reading comprehension, the doctor does not talk about performing these abortions for intrauterine death that has already occured with the abortion needed because of that.

 

No, but she does talk about things like fetal abnormalities and pregnant girls that were victims of incest.  It sounds like a good portion of her cases are severe fetal abnormalities.

[LucyStoner]

From the interview referenced:


"I really hope that they'll understand that these late abortion decisions are carefully made by these women. They have been thought out, wrestled with, agonized over. They are never casual. And the need for late-term abortions will never go away."

I hardly get the impression that Dr. Susan Robinson is performing what most consider elective procedures as a matter of course. She talks about honoring the births and deaths for grieving parents in addition to memorializing the loss and praying. Fetal abnormalities and fetal indicators (code for not viable or dead) are mentioned multiple times. Her former colleague, Dr. George Tiller was well known for his work with many high risk, medically necessary cases. For that, he was murdered in 2009.

I am not afraid to link. It's an interesting interview.

http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/susan-robinson