crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[Farrar]

Honestly, it sounds like some of them cross the line into impersonating medical doctors and nurses, which I'm pretty sure is a crime in and of itself. Or providing false medical information. Aren't these things crimes apart from any of the abortion debate?

 

I think it's silly to say you can't regulate them. Of course you can. And, good grief, unless they have actual doctors and nurses on staff, states could absolutely pass laws saying that they must read aloud a preset disclaimer to all women. Something like, "We do not have medical personnel on staff. We are not a licensed medical facility and none of the advice we give can be considered medical advice. We are here for educational purposes only. If you need medical advice, you should see your physician."

[SparklyUnicorn]

There is one that is local to me that would have cheered you on, given you clothes, diapers, a car set, a diaper bag, and whatever else was available at the time, and helped with prenatal care.  And if you had had an ultrasound there, it would have been from a medical professional--that's all they use for ultrasounds.  

 

Like PP affiliates, they seem to vary a lot.

 

I know this is going off on a tangent somewhat, but I imagine in some cases people need a lot more than free diapers and clothes . There is a lot more to it than that.  That's not REAL help IMO.

[zoobie]

No but they might charge low prices to entice people to come to their centers.  Plus what kind of high cost care are we talking about if they mostly only check if you are pregnant, perform ultrasounds, and counsel you on all the reasons you should not have an abortion? 

 

And we might think well surely they'd be ratted out for their shifty practices except I think it's entirely possible they could get away with it for quite some time because I imagine a lot of people don't want to put themselves out there like that.  They may not want anyone to know they were seeking (or had) an abortion. 

 

They probably don't charge anything. Likely the women who are going to them are going because they cannot afford actual medical care. If the woman believes she is receiving an actual prenatal exam done by medical professionals and in fact receives nothing more than smoke and mirrors witnessing done by a religious zealot with an ultrasound machine who is serving a mission for unborn babies, that should be a crime. There could be problems revealed in the ultrasound "exam" that are not revealed to the woman either because the person performing the scan is untrained or unwilling to disclose. If these clinics are performing a religious outreach service designed to do nothing more than provide a pretty picture of your fetus like Olan Mills for the Unborn and some free diapers, that needs to be made abundantly clear. If they were "treating" any medical condition other than pregnancy, these clinics would be shut down in a red hot minute by the state for deceptive practices.

[Carol in Cal.]

I know this is going off on a tangent somewhat, but I imagine in some cases people need a lot more than free diapers and clothes . There is a lot more to it than that.  That's not REAL help IMO.

It IS real help.  It might not be all the real help needed but it's valuable to many women.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It IS real help.  It might not be all the real help needed but it's valuable to many women.

 

It is help, but I don't agree that it is real help.  Not in the sense of what is most difficult.  I mean sure if you live on the street it's better if your baby has clothing than not, but you know, it still doesn't pay your rent.  KWIM?

If I think of what it would have been like to be pregnant at say 17/18, I would have been screwed (in more ways than one...pun intended).  I had no transportation.  I lived in an area with few jobs within walking distance.  I had no real family support.  I can't imagine how I would have survived that.  It felt insanely difficult just to manage supporting myself let alone a baby.  If I went looking for help and all I got were some free clothes and diapers, that would have been pretty ridiculous. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

They probably don't charge anything. Likely the women who are going to them are going because they cannot afford actual medical care. If the woman believes she is receiving an actual prenatal exam done by medical professionals and in fact receives nothing more than smoke and mirrors witnessing done by a religious zealot with an ultrasound machine who is serving a mission for unborn babies, that should be a crime. There could be problems revealed in the ultrasound "exam" that are not revealed to the woman either because the person performing the scan is untrained or unwilling to disclose. If these clinics are performing a religious outreach service designed to do nothing more than provide a pretty picture of your fetus like Olan Mills for the Unborn and some free diapers, that needs to be made abundantly clear. If they were "treating" any medical condition other than pregnancy, these clinics would be shut down in a red hot minute by the state for deceptive practices.

 

True.  Then again none of my prenatal exams felt like much.  I often wondered if it was really necessary to go there that many times for essentially nothing.

 

Not that that was your point at all.  I don't think they should be allowed to pass any of that off as any sort of medical service. 

[Carpe]

As someone who has had more miscarriages than most people on these boards have had kids (yes, even more than some of the largest families), language matters to me. A miscarriage means I lost the baby I wanted but it doesn't change the fact that the proper medical term is embryo and then fetus. A six week pregnancy is very much in the embryonic stage and such a loss is not equivalent to a later term miscarriage ans certainly not a baby. I should have a 3 month old right now. I don't, because of an early second trimester loss. Does that sadden me? Yes. Is it the same thing as losing a newborn to death? Not for me. Between 1/5 and 1/4 of all pregnancies end by miscarriage, often before a woman is aware that she was even pregnant.

 

For those down on Planned Parenthood, that is the place where I got the information and support needed to decide NOT to have an abortion with my oldest son (we were very young and he was conceived on birth control). It's also the only place that would provide me plan B when 6 months postpartum we had a condom failure. I will always be grateful for ALL of the services I got there. From medical professionals, not unskilled volunteers.

I feel your pain on the multiple miscarriages. I've had more than my fair share as well, ranging from very early to as late as 17 weeks. It doesn't compare at all to my friend who lost a newborn to SIDS.

 

Thank you for sharing your story.

[SKL]

It is help, but I don't agree that it is real help.  Not in the sense of what is most difficult.  I mean sure if you live on the street it's better if your baby has clothing than not, but you know, it still doesn't pay your rent.  KWIM?

If I think of what it would have been like to be pregnant at say 17/18, I would have been screwed (in more ways than one...pun intended).  I had no transportation.  I lived in an area with few jobs within walking distance.  I had no real family support.  I can't imagine how I would have survived that.  It felt insanely difficult just to manage supporting myself let alone a baby.  If I went looking for help and all I got were some free clothes and diapers, that would have been pretty ridiculous. 

 

You would have qualified for welfare, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, daycare assistance, medicaid, better student aid, etc.

 

No, it wouldn't have been easy, but that's why we recommend to our daughters that they wait before taking the risk of getting pregnant.

[SparklyUnicorn]

You would have qualified for welfare, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, daycare assistance, medicaid, better student aid, etc.

 

No, it wouldn't have been easy, but that's why we recommend to our daughters that they wait before taking the risk of getting pregnant.

 

None of that would have helped enough if I can't actually GET anywhere without transportation.

 

And honestly I wouldn't have wanted to live that way.  I grew up poor, I didn't want to have a kid and bring them up poor too.  No thank you.

 

That's one thing my parents repeated to me a zillion times.  Don't marry as young and don't have kids as young.  Life was a constant battle for them.

[SKL]

I decided to look in my 2 phone books.  There is the category of abortion providers where it is clearly spelled out that they perform abortions and/or refer for abortion services.  Then there was a separate category for abortion alternatives where it was clearly spelled out that the businesses in that category do not perform abortions nor do they refer for abortion services.

 

Your link was full of hyperbole and very short on facts.  We don't know, first, whether that lady was just an actress making up stuff; if she wasn't, we don't know where she looked in the phone book or what she saw there.  The video shows a view of an ad saying "feeling pregnant?" with a phone number.  I'm guessing that wasn't even a real ad, but rather a bad joke made for the video.  But if it was real, it didn't say "come here for an abortion."

 

The fake abortion storefronts - "pranned parenthood," really?  That was clearly made up to be "funny."  Who knows how much if any of the video was for real?

 

There are people who find themselves pregnant and actually want someone to help them find a way to keep the baby.  Believe it or not.

 

As has been mentioned, many of the pro-life ones will provide assistance or references to organizations that do - including providing a place to stay for women/girls who are afraid to go to their parents / boyfriend etc.  Obviously, from the tone of the video, there are people who think that's just terrible - how awful to keep an unplanned embryo/fetus alive.  Well, there are lots of people who think that's a good thing.

 

Fraud is wrong.  Sure.  So call the cops and lawyers if you know of actual fraud.

[Carol in Cal.]

It has been clear to me for a long time that a great deal of proabortion rhetoric boils down to, "Let me reframe what I'm advocating so it doesn't sound like taking a human life, even though it clearly is."  Which is fairly indefensible, really, from a standpoint of scientific truth.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It has been clear to me for a long time that a great deal of proabortion rhetoric boils down to, "Let me reframe what I'm advocating so it doesn't sound like taking a human life, even though it clearly is."  Which is fairly indefensible, really, from a standpoint of scientific truth.

 

Whoa wait a minute here.  Not all pro choice people are PRO ABORTION.  That is not the same thing at all.  There are people who are in fact pro abortion, but I haven't met too many.  Nobody is unclear as to what is going on.  If they claim as such they are clueless. 

 

Being in favor of a woman's right to choose does not mean I do not understand what abortion is about or that I HOPE she chooses to abort.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

[zoobie]

Your link was full of hyperbole and very short on facts. We don't know, first, whether that lady was just an actress making up stuff; if she wasn't, we don't know where she looked in the phone book or what she saw there. The video shows a view of an ad saying "feeling pregnant?" with a phone number. I'm guessing that wasn't even a real ad, but rather a bad joke made for the video. But if it was real, it didn't say "come here for an abortion."

 

The fake abortion storefronts - "pranned parenthood," really? That was clearly made up to be "funny." Who knows how much if any of the video was for real?

 

There are people who find themselves pregnant and actually want someone to help them find a way to keep the baby. Believe it or not.

 

As has been mentioned, many of the pro-life ones will provide assistance or references to organizations that do - including providing a place to stay for women/girls who are afraid to go to their parents / boyfriend etc. Obviously, from the tone of the video, there are people who think that's just terrible - how awful to keep an unplanned embryo/fetus alive. Well, there are lots of people who think that's a good thing.

 

Fraud is wrong. Sure. So call the cops and lawyers if you know of actual fraud.

She listed the name of the show. It's Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, formerly of the Daily Show. It's a news satire show.

 

The whole point is that states look the other way and allow these charlatan clinics because it's a loaded religious cum political issue. They never would exist if any other medical condition were involved.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Your link was full of hyperbole and very short on facts.  We don't know, first, whether that lady was just an actress making up stuff; if she wasn't, we don't know where she looked in the phone book or what she saw there.  The video shows a view of an ad saying "feeling pregnant?" with a phone number.  I'm guessing that wasn't even a real ad, but rather a bad joke made for the video.  But if it was real, it didn't say "come here for an abortion."

 

The fake abortion storefronts - "pranned parenthood," really?  That was clearly made up to be "funny."  Who knows how much if any of the video was for real?

 

There are people who find themselves pregnant and actually want someone to help them find a way to keep the baby.  Believe it or not.

 

As has been mentioned, many of the pro-life ones will provide assistance or references to organizations that do - including providing a place to stay for women/girls who are afraid to go to their parents / boyfriend etc.  Obviously, from the tone of the video, there are people who think that's just terrible - how awful to keep an unplanned embryo/fetus alive.  Well, there are lots of people who think that's a good thing.

 

Fraud is wrong.  Sure.  So call the cops and lawyers if you know of actual fraud.

 

I don't disagree that I can't be certain what parts were fact or outright fiction.  I saw that piece on TV.  Not that that makes it more true, but this wasn't just some random spoof I dug up on some dark corner of the Internet. 

[Farrar]

This is sort of a separate issue, but I've started saying I'm pro-abortion. I think the left has ceded the moral high ground on this issue by buying into the rhetoric from the right that abortion is a "horror." I don't think removing an embryo, which is just a bundle of cells, is a horror by any stretch. And I think there are many moral reasons to be for abortion, like being for wanted babies and women having control over their bodies and against coercion of women or against poverty.

 

And... let the flames really begin in earnest.

[Carol in Cal.]

Whoa wait a minute here.  Not all pro choice people are PRO ABORTION.  That is not the same thing at all.  There are people who are in fact pro abortion, but I haven't met too many.  Nobody is unclear as to what is going on.  If they claim as such they are clueless. 

 

Being in favor of a woman's right to choose does not mean I do not understand what abortion is about or that I HOPE she chooses to abort.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

I'm aware of that, but there are also a lot of people who are proabortion now in the sense that they don't view it as a weighty decision, they are offended by the formulation 'safe, legal, and rare' because it conveys moral undesirability, and they are absolutely outraged by the idea of saying that someone is aborting a baby.  Some are starting to advocate for 'post birth abortions'--the idea that someone can kill their baby in the first three months of life with impunity.  

 

I have to say, having watched this progression, the slippery slope arguments that were so derided in the 1970s and 1980s were actually mild compared to what has really happened to public thought since then.  

 

ETA:  In general, when I write about this kind of thing, I'm writing about being against abortion.  I don't recall writing about abortion rights one way or another.  It's interesting how the two are and aren't related.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[SKL]

 They never would exist if any other medical condition were involved.

 

I don't agree with that.  There are lots of alternative health avenues available that are perfectly legal and the states are not trying to shut them down.  Well, except for medical marijuana, and that's becoming more accepted by the states.

 

[zoobie]

I'm aware of that, but there are also a lot of people who are proabortion now in the sense that they don't view it as a weighty decision, they are offended by the formulation 'safe, legal, and rare' because it conveys moral undesirability, and they are absolutely outraged by the idea of saying that someone is aborting a baby. Some are starting to advocate for 'post birth abortions'--the idea that someone can kill their baby in the first three months of life with impunity.

 

I have to say, having watched this progression, the slippery slope arguments that were so derided in the 1970s and 1980s were actually mild compared to what has really happened to public thought since then.

Who? Sources?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is sort of a separate issue, but I've started saying I'm pro-abortion. I think the left has ceded the moral high ground on this issue by buying into the rhetoric from the right that abortion is a "horror." I don't think removing an embryo, which is just a bundle of cells, is a horror by any stretch. And I think there are many moral reasons to be for abortion, like being for wanted babies and women having control over their bodies and against coercion of women or against poverty.

 

And... let the flames really begin in earnest.

 

I get where you are coming from, but for me I personally think pro-choice is still the correct descriptor.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Who? Sources?

 

This should be fun.

[zoobie]

I don't agree with that. There are lots of alternative health avenues available that are perfectly legal and the states are not trying to shut them down. Well, except for medical marijuana, and that's becoming more accepted by the states.

 

For example? What other type of clinic performs a service such as ultrasounds without being medically licensed?

[Farrar]

I get where you are coming from, but for me I personally think pro-choice is still the correct descriptor.

Yes, I agree. I wouldn't use it straight out, but when people say things - as I've seen! - saying that, oh, of course, we're all against abortion, we just think blah blah blah. I'm like, nope, I'm calling that.

[SparklyUnicorn]

This is sort of a separate issue, but I've started saying I'm pro-abortion. I think the left has ceded the moral high ground on this issue by buying into the rhetoric from the right that abortion is a "horror." I don't think removing an embryo, which is just a bundle of cells, is a horror by any stretch. And I think there are many moral reasons to be for abortion, like being for wanted babies and women having control over their bodies and against coercion of women or against poverty.

 

And... let the flames really begin in earnest.

 

I once met someone who described their self as pro abortion.  The person believed abortions should not only be allowed, but encouraged over bringing children into the world under crappy circumstances.  I wouldn't go that far.

 

I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose.  I think there are reasons for aborting that are reasons I could not object to in 100,000 years (rape, for example).  Then there are reasons I don't think are so great, but it's not my life and I don't think we can regulate which reasons are good or not.  So I accept the fact some people will have abortions for reasons I don't personally understand or agree with.  It's the nature of allowing people any rights at all.  Sometimes people abuse their freedoms (although there are actually very few reasons I'd feel that way when it came to abortions). 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yes, I agree. I wouldn't use it straight out, but when people say things - as I've seen! - saying that, oh, of course, we're all against abortion, we just think blah blah blah. I'm like, nope, I'm calling that.

 

I don't care so much what anyone calls it, but I do have a problem with someone calling it that for the sole purpose of "kindly" insinuating those in the pro choice camp are a bunch of murderous baby haters who don't understand what abortion is about.

[Carol in Cal.]

Who? Sources?

So you think I'm a liar?  Then why in the world would you want to dialogue?  Really, this is pretty insulting.  But anyway, here is one from a quick google search.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html

[SparklyUnicorn]

I find it rather ironic that on the one hand some people have said a woman is an idiot if she didn't understand what these clinics were about, but yet so vehemently object to her aborting.  If this person is allegedly too stupid to live why would you want them to bring children into the world? 

 

I mean really now...What would you expect from someone who is supposedly that dumb? 

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't care so much what anyone calls it, but I do have a problem with someone calling it that for the sole purpose of "kindly" insinuating those in the pro choice camp are a bunch of murderous baby haters who don't understand what abortion is about.

To be clear, very clear, this is not even remotely my view.

[SparklyUnicorn]

So you think I'm a liar?  Then why in the world would you want to dialogue?  Really, this is pretty insulting.  But anyway, here is one from a quick google search.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html

 

So you think the majority of pro life pro choice people would agree with this?  I don't think so and I don't think this article is proof of that.

Edited May 11, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[SKL]

For example? What other type of clinic performs a service such as ultrasounds without being medically licensed?

 

Is a medical license required to perform an ultrasound?  Do you know for a fact that this is a requirement that is being ignored at pregnancy crisis centers?  If so, what % of PCCs do this dastardly deed?

 

I generally don't take myself or my kids to an MD for health issues, and as far as I know I am breaking no laws.

 

I don't think you really want me to provide a long list of all the alternative health options that are legally available in the USA.  Well there are faith healers, herbs, ayurvedic methods etc etc etc; just doing nothing and letting time heal; self-medicating using legal drugs and so on.

 

A pregnancy test is something anyone can legally acquire and administer without the help of an MD.  Same with lots of other tests that relate to health.  Blood pressure, sugar, temperature, ....

 

Natural family planning is an alternative that doesn't require an MD.

 

You can even have a baby or give yourself an early-term abortion without involving an MD.

 

As far as I know, none of these are illegal to advertise or perform.

 

If there are some people in some PCCs crossing the line, that shouldn't be too surprising; the same is true of some abortion clinics, some dentists, some fertility doctors, etc. etc.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think it's just downright sucky to be a woman sometimes.  I think if I got pregnant now, I'd want an abortion.  I love my kids, but I do not want more kids and I do not want to take care of a baby at this point in my life.  I had 2 very rough pregnancies and deliveries (and heck I'm surprised I actually had more than one kid).  I'm not unmarried, and not poor, and I have had a tubal.  But even with a tubal it is not impossible.  So what am I supposed to do to avoid pregnancy 100%?  Stop letting my husband come near me? 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[zoobie]

So you think I'm a liar? Then why in the world would you want to dialogue? Really, this is pretty insulting. But anyway, here is one from a quick google search.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html

Where did you make that leap?

 

Anyway, that article talks about 2 people whom no one is sure whether they're actually serious or trying to push a pro-life agenda. I guess two could count as "some people," but two crazies aren't usually counted in a serious discussion. You can find two crazy people who want to do just about any outlandish, extreme thing one could imagine.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

This is sort of a separate issue, but I've started saying I'm pro-abortion. I think the left has ceded the moral high ground on this issue by buying into the rhetoric from the right that abortion is a "horror." I don't think removing an embryo, which is just a bundle of cells, is a horror by any stretch. And I think there are many moral reasons to be for abortion, like being for wanted babies and women having control over their bodies and against coercion of women or against poverty.

 

And... let the flames really begin in earnest.

 

No flames from me, at all. I'm vehemently, aggressively pro-choice. Literally, the hair on my head starts to rise when someone starts anti-choice rhetoric (which is why I'm just skimming this thread!). However, I worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic for awhile, both offering counseling and in the surgical suite. 8 weeks was as early as they would perform abortions for safety reasons. I saw what the "products of conception" were. They had to be counted and reorganized by the doctor after the procedure to make sure nothing was missed. It's definitely more than just a bundle of cells removed during a surgical abortion. Working there changed how I think about the procedure, and I don't think that's ceding the moral high ground at all. 

 

Edited to clarify: Don't get me wrong. This is one of the few political/social issues I'll go to the mat fighting for. I thought maybe that would change after I had kids, but ironically, that only made my stance on choice stronger. But we should be realistic about what's happening, about how it impacts women, and about other (legitimate, non-bogus-crisis-center) options we can offer them. 

Edited May 11, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[SparklyUnicorn]

Don't know for sure, but I imagine no license is needed to perform ultrasounds, but reading/interpreting I'd assume so.  The ultrasound tech is not supposed to tell you anything medical about your ultrasound. 

[Carol in Cal.]

So you think the majority of pro life people would agree with this?  I don't think so and I don't think this article is proof of that.

Did you mean to say something other than prolife here?  I'm not sure what your point is.

 

I posted the article as evidence of the beginning of some people considering infanticide during the first three months of life to be a defensible action morally comparable to abortion, as requested after I mentioned that earlier.  

 

FWIW, I don't think that infanticide is exactly equivalent to abortion.  That was not at all the point.  Both take a human life, but infanticide has a degree of callousness to it that goes beyond abortion, similarly to how late term abortion has a degree of callousness to it that goes beyond early term abortion.  

[chiguirre]

It has been clear to me for a long time that a great deal of proabortion rhetoric boils down to, "Let me reframe what I'm advocating so it doesn't sound like taking a human life, even though it clearly is."  Which is fairly indefensible, really, from a standpoint of scientific truth.

 

Except that it's not a life until it can live on its own. Should we force a woman to continue a pregnancy that will harm her mental or physical health? That was the result of rape? That she just doesn't want?

 

Being pregnant is hard. It can make you feel miserable between the nausea, the sciatica, the heartburn, the joint pain and those are just the lighter symptoms. What if it exacerbates a heart condition? Puts too much stress on your kidneys? What if you have other kids and you might become incapable of taking care of them? Can we force a woman to do this?

 

This is why there have always been abortions. They are not going away. They will just be illegal and dangerous.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Did you mean to say something other than prolife here?  I'm not sure what your point is.

 

I posted the article as evidence of the beginning of some people considering infanticide during the first three months of life to be a defensible action morally comparable to abortion, as requested after I mentioned that earlier.  

 

FWIW, I don't think that infanticide is exactly equivalent to abortion.  That was not at all the point.  Both take a human life, but infanticide has a degree of callousness to it that goes beyond abortion, similarly to how late term abortion has a degree of callousness to it that goes beyond early term abortion.  

 

Yes I did.

LOL

 

I'm pro life though.  Not pro life as in I'm against abortions . In the sense I'm not in favor of ending life.  I kinda like life and letting people live.  I would prefer we had more ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies over abortions.  But that is not the case. 

[SKL]

I think it's just downright sucky to be a woman sometimes.  I think if I got pregnant now, I'd want an abortion.  I love my kids, but I do not want more kids and I do not want to take care of a baby at this point in my life.  I had 2 very rough pregnancies and deliveries (and heck I'm surprised I actually had more than one kid).  I'm not unmarried, and not poor, and I have had a tubal.  But even with a tubal it is not impossible.  So what am I supposed to do to avoid pregnancy 100%?  Stop letting my husband come near me? 

 

It seems to me that if you wanted an abortion, you would go to a place that performs safe abortions and get one.  To have something that invasive done, surely you would do research to ensure you were going to a reputable abortion provider.  If you got in there and they said "well actually we don't do abortions," you would leave.

Edited May 11, 2016 by SKL

[Carol in Cal.]

Anyway, that article talks about 2 people whom no one is sure whether they're actually serious or trying to push a pro-life agenda. I guess two could count as "some people," but two crazies aren't usually counted in a serious discussion. You can find two crazy people who want to do just about any outlandish, extreme thing one could imagine.

No, it doesn't.  The author sort of wittily makes the point that the original writers' point could be used by prolife people, but doesn't view them in that light.

 

The fact is that the article is an example of something that is floating around quite a bit, especially in colleged aged circles, as a choice issue.  One of the things that I find interesting about the whole debate now is how much it has changed since Roe vs. Wade, which would now be considered as completely quaint and moralistic and unacceptably restrictive by that same crowd.  Here is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article describing that court decision of the 1970s:

 

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendmentextended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.^[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy."

 

The argument of balancing interests has been almost completely lost now.

[goldberry]

Where did you make that leap?

 

Anyway, that article talks about 2 people whom no one is sure whether they're actually serious or trying to push a pro-life agenda. I guess two could count as "some people," but two crazies aren't usually counted in a serious discussion. You can find two crazy people who want to do just about any outlandish, extreme thing one could imagine.

 

Also, it seems to be two bio-ethics professors posing a hypothetical situation to start a debate.  The specifically said they were not proposing that it should be legal.  

[Farrar]

I don't care so much what anyone calls it, but I do have a problem with someone calling it that for the sole purpose of "kindly" insinuating those in the pro choice camp are a bunch of murderous baby haters who don't understand what abortion is about.

 

But my point is that by saying, oh, I understand that abortion is truly awful and I'm very much personally against it, etc. etc., it's implying that there is a real moral problem with abortion. What I'm saying is that I have no moral issues with early term abortions whatsoever. I think there's not a medical justification for there to be a deep moral debate.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

DP

Edited May 11, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[6packofun]

Except that it's not a life until it can live on its own. 

 

Is that the scientific definition of life?

[zoobie]

No, it doesn't. The author sort of wittily makes the point that the original writers' point could be used by prolife people, but doesn't view them in that light.

 

The fact is that the article is an example of something that is floating around quite a bit, especially in colleged aged circles, as a choice issue. One of the things that I find interesting about the whole debate now is how much it has changed since Roe vs. Wade, which would now be considered as completely quaint and moralistic and unacceptably restrictive by that same crowd. Here is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article describing that court decision of the 1970s:

 

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendmentextended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.^[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy."

 

The argument of balancing interests has been almost completely lost now.

Floating around quite a bit? College circles?

 

I've never heard it from anyone outside of a pro-life extremist.

[Carol in Cal.]

Also, it seems to be two bio-ethics professors posing a hypothetical situation to start a debate.  The specifically said they were not proposing that it should be legal.  

Right, although they didn't really say that until after the (should have been predictable) controversy started.  But the whole ethic around this issue has been advancing, is my point.

[Carol in Cal.]

Except that it's not a life until it can live on its own. 

Oh, sure it's a life.  

Come on.  Own it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Right, although they didn't really say that until after the (should have been predictable) controversy started.  But the whole ethic around this issue has been advancing, is my point.

 

I think that is a difficult case to be made based on the discussion of one article by two professors.  The debate doesn't seem to be significantly different from when Singer trotted out the same idea decades ago.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that is a difficult case to be made based on the discussion of one article by two professors.  The debate doesn't seem to be significantly different from when Singer trotted out the same idea decades ago.

If you read back through my posts you will see other evidence of the progression, again considering the legal view of competing state interests in the Roe vs. Wade decision which seems so quaint now, and the increasingly strong criticism of the 'safe, legal, and rare' formulation of President Clinton.  It's really quite a shift since the 1970's.  I've been watching it the whole time.

 

 

 

ETA:  There was also the recent example of objections to the Superbowl commercial lightheartedly postulating a baby in the womb grabbing Doritos during an ultrasound, this being criticized for humanizing him in a way that could be construed as anti-abortion.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If you read back through my posts you will see other evidence of the progression, again considering the legal view of competing state interests in the Roe vs. Wade decision which seems so quaint now, and the increasingly strong criticism of the 'safe, legal, and rare' formulation of President Clinton.  It's really quite a shift since the 1970's.  I've been watching it the whole time.

 

 

 

ETA:  There was also the recent example of objections to the Superbowl commercial lightheartedly postulating a baby in the womb grabbing Doritos during an ultrasound, this being criticized for humanizing him in a way that could be construed as anti-abortion.

 

I read your posts and do not see the progression you imagine.  I do see some push back against some of the more strident attacks from the anti-abortion advocates.

[Ausmumof3]

Fetus can't be debated though as it has a specific meaning. Baby has a general meaning and whether it applies to the unborn is a matter of opinion. In a clinical setting, one would normally expect to hear the medical term.

During my entire pregnancy my obstetricians referred to my fetus as baby. In a clinical setting. During every ultrasound they described how "baby" was growing and doing. If the word fetus is used due to the setting that's ok but it's not the word commonly in use in any other situation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

During my entire pregnancy my obstetricians referred to my fetus as baby. In a clinical setting. During every ultrasound they described how "baby" was growing and doing. If the word fetus is used due to the setting that's ok but it's not the word commonly in use in any other situation.

 

There is a difference between dealing with someone who is pregnant and looking forward to the birth of a child versus dealing with someone who is at the early stage of a pregnancy who is trying to make a decision.