My friend was pregnant with a very wanted child. During labor she experienced complications, nearly died, had a stroke. A year later she has gotten very little of her function or speech back and is unlikely to in future. Another friend's childbirth left her incontinent and with separated abdominal muscles. Another lost her job because daycares don't take infants until they're 6 weeks old, and my friend only had 2 weeks of vacation.
Stop treating pregnancy like a no-risk condition. Women lose jobs, they lose their health, and sometimes they lose their lives. It is a choice we should be able to make for ourselves. We are not incubators, and men should have NO say over an unwanted pregnancy.
98
The states passing the anti abortion laws are also hi-poverty states with failing education systems, safety nets and over-crowded prisons supporting the death penalty. The zeal for life does not extend past birth. The US seems ok with massive childhood poverty, food insecurity and the world's highest percentage of prisoners. Where is the concern and love for all children?
98
@E: unfortunately, the examples you cite are the exception rather than the rule. Look at how hard many of those "pro-life" individuals are working to strip 25 million Americans away from their health care that's only available to them through the ACA. Or their obsession with gutting (the current Federal "Secretary" of Education is a good example) the education systems which will be responsible for schooling these children. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of pro-lifers have no interest in the well-being of any of those precious fetuses after they've been born. And that isn't going to change.
25
Forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is the same thing as forcing a woman to have sexual relations against her will.
Both are damaging, hurtful, despicable acts that are life changing for the woman involved.
32
Well put.
3
Many years ago an older woman (who has since died) told me this story. In the 1950’s she and her children were at the shore. She was pregnant with a wanted child. One morning she awoke bleeding and went to a local doctor who refused to see her because he was afraid that she may have induced an abortion ( she had not). To get needed help she had to drive back to Philadelphia with her two young children. That was the past and now it’s the future.
Theresa special place in hell for the enforcers of such cruelty. They don’t own G-d any more than the rest of us.
15
Maybe the best way to resolve this is to leave the lawmaking regarding abortion to women. It’s akin to the story about the difference between being involved and being committed. When it comes to ham and eggs the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. Seems to me the same is true of pregnancy. Men are involved but women are committed. Let’s make a policy that all abortion legislation should be made by women. Men should not have a vote unless they are willing to pay up for all expenses including food, shelter, and education through college. Then we will see where all of these righteous individuals stand.
9
In 1988 the Canadian Government decided that the woman’s right to decide what was happening within her own body rests solely on her. In 2019 Americans still can’t allow women that right. In 2016 Americans had no opinion about electing a misogynist as president. What’s with the religious right?
5
This is tearing us apart in a time when we are already at our whits end. I cannot talk to my born again minister brother in law because his glee over taking women's rights away is disgusting to me. Our only hope is to vote and revolt against this religious doctrine. I hope pro choice people will be taking to the streets to express their dismay over what is happening.
14
The pro-choice position will not allow any restrictions on abortion. It is clearly out of touch with mainstream Americans, who support abortions with restrictions, but they will never admit it. They are impossible to reason with, so people have stopped trying.
3
I was 30 when I had an abortion. The father was 35 but dying slowly of the effects of diabetes. His vascular system was shutting down. He did pass away about a year later.
I suspected I'd had a miscarriage a few years before because of a late period, followed by horrendous heavy bleeding.
This time, I didn't suspect I was pregnant until about the second month I'd missed my period. It was off to Planned Parenthood.
It was official: I was about 3 months pregnant.
There was no way I could have this baby. I would have been alone and never could have afforded the costs. Never mind I was never a "kid" person, didn't even want them when I was married.
I was in a lot of pain during that time. I kept hoping I'd "have my period," but what it would have been was a miscarriage. I was Rh negative; the father was Rh positive. My body was trying to get rid of this "invader." To this day I don't think that I could've carried that baby to term.
Part of me has regrets, but mostly I know I made the right decision. The only solace I have is that, yes, I probably would have miscarried. It probably wouldn't have been too much longer.
Also, a few of my friends were single mothers. I saw how they struggled financially, witnessed the cruelty of the fathers of their babies to these women. I was there to protect them from beatings and harassment.
My views on abortion are this, 3 words: IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS.
This is between a woman & her doctor - period!
16
I am pro-choice, but there is an anti-abortion law I would be comfortable with:
Keep abortion legal. If someone has an abortion, do paternity testing and fine the man.
It'll end unwanted pregnancies in a snap while preserving choice.
6
"Cruelty is the only word for it"
Why is the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applicable in only death penalty cases?
Especially in cases of incest and other forms of rape and sexual assault, the pregnant girl/woman is not even a criminal, yet is subjected to cruel and unusual punishment -- for being the victim of a heinous crime.
If the courts let these new laws stand, we'll have to switch to teaching the young ones around us that our country, ''tis of thee, is NOT a land of liberty, with freedom and justice for all.
10
I've done all three. I had an abortion in my early 20s when my boyfriend freaked out, then a few years later I had a miscarriage, and then I found myself pregnant again and almost lost my baby who was delivered by emergency C-section. The father of my daughter took off when I was seven months along 20 years ago. If legislators truly want to reduce abortion and especially late term abortion then they would focus on free access to sex education, reliable contraception, full reproductive care for women and infants, childcare, and insisting men be responsible when their lover tells him the test is positive. It's not so hard to see where this is working. Otherwise all they want to do is marginalize and shame women. It takes two to make a baby.
14
Unfortunately that’s just too hard because it’s too much work and you just know how many will take advantage of support and keep making babies. Just make people criminals and put them in jail because that creates jobs with real innovative potential. It’s ok to let the people that can afford it go out of state because at least Alabama’s aren’t doing it. You really want to spend all that money to make it easier to have children? It’s not worth the harm that will come to the country if they do all this to support a baby who might even be black. It’s only a baby. What do they contribute to society.
My worry is that we still call these people pro-life and call ourselves pro choice. We have go to attack those false terms. Are you pro mother? I am. Attack these people who misquote the Bible and misrepresent themselves as religious. Fight Bible with Bible not atheism. Fight for mothers that are and mothers that want to be. The fifth commandment is honor thy father and mother so you may live long on this land. Not honor the fetus.
One might say that the number of abortions is the reflection of the civil nature of society. Perhaps so but not when incarcerations go up. If you believe that elect Democrats for President because abortions have always gone down during Democratic administrations since Roe.
1
I think many on the pro-choice side overly simplify this issue.
I find this issue to be extremely difficult. On the one hand, I sympathize with a woman who becomes unintentionally pregnant. Having a child is the most defining point of a person's life - it changes everything. If someone wasn't trying for this outcome, it can be devastating.
On the other hand, at some point the fetus is a person. At what point? I don't know. And that is what makes it difficult. I think that everyone would agree that, once the child is born, it's life is (and should be) protected by law - even though it cannot care for itself and even if the umbilical cord is still attached. What about the moment before birth? The day before? The month before? The trimester before? It's complicated.
Framing this purely as a question of whether women should have control over their bodies is - in my view - misleading.
Until the above questions are answered - perhaps by science or broad societal agreement - can't we all work to try to reduce the number of women seeking abortions? Who opposed that?
25
@Citizen The above questions were answered by Roe vs. Wade.
37
@Kiki
Not really. The trimester framework was based on the state of knowledge in the late 1960s. We have had tremendous medical advances since then - to the point where the trimester system seems a bit arbitrary.
3
@Citizen The question was answered long ago. The answer is 24 weeks, when the fetus can survive on its own outside of the mother's body. Abortions after 24 weeks are generally not legal to perform unless there are extreme, devastating circumstances involving the lives of either the mother or child.
Before that, the fetus is still part of the mother's body and she should have full discretion over whether or not she will allow her body to be used to sustain life. That choice is part of the principle of human autonomy. Everyone exercises that right when they choose whether or not to donate their organs after death, even though organ donation also saves lives. No one can compel you to offer yourself to another without your explicit consent. And that's AFTER you're already dead.
Why should living women have any less autonomy over their own bodies than corpses?
87
(Disclaimer - I'm a physician, though my practice has nothing to do with abortion, gynecology, or obstetrics).
Much of opposition to abortion is based on either misconception or deliberate mischaracterization. While anyone is free to hold a religious belief that a fertilized ovum is a person from the moment of conception, such a position is scientifically ludicrous. Nearly all abortions are done early in pregnancy. Strictly from a public health standpoint, I would like to see all women in the U.S. have unfettered access to the full range of women's reproductive health services, including education, contraception, abortion, and prenatal care.
Also - I have little doubt that restrictions on abortion would never have arisen if men were the ones getting pregnant and potentially being forced to complete an unwanted pregnancy.
93
@David Bruce I would like to see all women in the U.S. have unfettered access to the full range of women's reproductive health services, including education, contraception, abortion, and prenatal care.
Here another couple of suggestions: 12 months' paid maternity leave (to be split with the father if preferred). And maybe financial help with child care or day care for those going to work afterwards.
15
Would your colleagues who are embryologists agree with you that the zygote,or embryo is not human and alive? Maybe you should stay in your own lane.
1
@David Bruce if men were getting pregnant, abortion would be free in all red states.
18
If the Alabama law had been in force during my second pregnancy I would be long dead, my husband would have been a widower before he turned thirty, my older child would have been left motherless as a toddler, and my younger child would never have been born.
As it was, my "right to life" physicians delayed that essential abortion so long I almost bled out on the operating table.
That will not be the fate of most women under the Alabama law. But for some women, like me, whose pregnancies go terribly, terribly wrong, this "Right to Life" law will be a death sentence.
159
@Eleanor enough Irish women died in the manner that almost took your life that the population rose up and passed a referendum that overturned the Irish anti-abortion laws.
24
@Eleanor apparently you do not understand the law as it is written. You would have been treated the exact same now as then,
I'm noticing that the reactions here supporting the Alabama law seem to be coming from men, which is no surprise. Is there no limit to some men's desire to control women's bodies?
204
@ADB Yes, I still don't think a lot of men are able to put themselves in women's shoes and fully grasp the ramifications of this. Either way, I don't think they should be able to decide these issues that primarily impact women's lives.
That being said, I give a lot of men credit for understanding this is a women's issue and speaking out against these laws.
39
@ADB 47% of women in Alabama support this law, introduced by a woman legislator and signed into law by a woman governor.
The desire to turn this debate into a man vs. woman thing only does a disrespect to the 47% of men in Alabama who support a woman's right to choose and men across the country who feel the same way.
9
@ADB Totally noticed that too.
6
i've heard anti-abortion folk argue that that is a life and is precious and should not be ended because, for example, the mother was raped.
Ya know, I can almost -- almost -- see that argument. Just once, however, I'd love to hear the person making it follow up with:
"And of course, because of the trauma of the rape, we are also demanding funding for the full medical treatment for the woman, pre-natal and delivery, post-partum followup and also including for life-long PTSD, full adoption costs and all future expenses of the child, up to higher education.
"That mother's life is just as precious as that child's and she should in no way be further victimized by our desire to protect the life we are forcing her to carry."
The second I hear an anti-abortion person -- or a Legislature passing anti-abortion law -- say this I will at least give them a respectful audience. I have yet to hear it anywhere.
247
@Charles Trentelman I see your point, but still cannot go along with the argument that if someone is raped, they cannot get an abortion because the life of the embryo or fetus is precious. The woman had no responsibility for the pregnancy so should not bear the undue burden of carrying that baby to term. It is a very cruel and unfair idea because it could ruin her life. It is also saying the life of the mother is not worth as much as the embryo.
I suppose the argument that the embryo or fetus is a person can be used to try to ban abortion in any case so this is the argument that must be rebuked. Also, a woman has the right to privacy and to make her own health decisions regardless.
This seems to come down to religious beliefs of some people impacting all women.
67
Preach, brother!
7
@Charles Trentelman. If the State is requiring that rape victims carry fetuses to term, they should also provide for a DNA test to help bring the perpetrator to justice.
25
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I will do whatever it takes to find a doctor to sterilize me. I am not property - not of the state, not of a man. My uterus does not dictate my life, and I would sooner die on an operating table during a hysterectomy than be forced into motherhood.
I did two tours in Afghanistan. I have seen where this leads. Sharia law is sharia law, whether done in the name of Allah or Jesus Christ. Kay Ivey has failed in the worst way a woman possibly could: she seeks to turn her own gender into chattel.
324
@Alexandra
Best of luck. What people don't understand is that women are denied that option by doctors in some cases. Depending on your age, many won't tie tubes, let alone give you a hysterectomy. In my early 30's I had high blood pressure and my (male) doctor refused to provide me birth control pills, or any other alternative beyond condoms, spermicide etc. I went to planned parenthood, who would not provide a copper IUD to someone who had not yet given birth (the risks are higher). I finally found an OBGYN who would do the copper IUD, but initially refused because my insurer did not pay enough per their contract to cover her costs.
So, thank you for your service. I hope that you are easily able to take care of your birth control needs, and that you can come home to a place that has resecured the rights of women to choose what to do with their own bodies.
44
@MC the VA does the procedure and so will the military for active duty and TRICARE will pay for it for retired persons (both tubal ligation and vasectomies).
4
@Alexandra,
Thank you, for the sacrifices you've made in more ways than one. I wish this country was worthy of those like you willing to defend it.
9
To ZAW, whose wife had a hard time getting pregnant, and who finds abortion “unconscionable” - I was never able to get pregnant, and my two adult children were adopted. I am forever grateful to the two young women who relinquished their babies for adoption. However, I would never, ever force any woman to have to make this choice by forbidding abortion. No one is “pro-abortion”. It is always a sad and difficult choice. But sometimes it is absolutely necessary.
34
I am exactly in those shoes. I am grateful beyond belief. For myself and wife. It’s hard enough living my own life. I would never judge another and try to live theirs, particularly if they were not fortunate to have the means to raise them. I think anyone who judges another should first be willing to pay that price and set as an example that they have handled what life gave them; and share those resources. If, you believe, after all it’s a life.
3
If the fetus is not a human being, why is the decision to abort sad?
What prevents an abortion? Birth control. The same people who are "pro-life," in my experience, are also anti-birth control. They are in my family (through marriage). They picket Planned Parenthood clinics. They say birth control is "against God's will." Whose God? Not the God I believe in. So why should THEIR God supersede MY God?
As far as so-called "late-term abortions are concerned: In 1979, my sister lost her baby at 8 months gestation. The baby died in utero. Because of abortion laws in her state, her physicians were unable to induce labor. She was forced to carry a dead baby in utero until "natural labor" began. That was 5 weeks later. Imagine if that were your daughter or sister. When I told that to my "pro-life" in-laws, they said, "How did you know that the baby was REALLY dead? If they had forced labor, they might have discovered that the baby wasn't dead at all." No, the baby was REALLY dead, and my sister was nothing but a vessel, because doctors were restricted by antiquated abortion laws. My daughter has had two miscarriages. In Alabama, she would be questioned by law enforcement to see if she had any role in the miscarriage, and face felony charges!
Where is the responsibility for the men who are impregnating women in all this? Women don't become pregnant in a vacuum. If a man abandons a pregnant woman, where are the "right-to-lifers" then? Do they care about that baby when it passes down the birth canal? Or does that stop once the baby leaves the uterus?
16
On season 8 of Call the Midwife, it's 1964. The UK passed its Abortion Act in 1967.
Last Sunday's episode (like a number of previous ones over the years) showed what women do when abortion is illegal.
I wish the relevant scenes had been shown on a large screen during the debates in Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri and all voting members forced to watch and discuss it.
8
The more I think about this debate, the more I think the vehemently held opinions of men on this subject are a deep reflection of their insecurity and feelings of uselessness. While they are necessary at the inception of creation, their role in bringing life into this world is negligible (and their sacrifice is nonexistent - see how often child support judgments are successfully collected... shockingly low) compared to women's power and responsibility in this area. I think some men are truly jealous and restrictions on abortion are a manifestation of that jealousy as punishment. Sick to the bone...
7
As long as the embryo/foetus/whatever-you-want-to-call-it cannot survive outside of the womb, then it only has as much value as the woman carrying it decides to give it, and only the woman gets to decide if she wants to keep it or abort it.
If, someday in the distant future, we have the technology to remove the embryo/foetus/whatever-you-want-to-call-it at any stage in development and place it in an artificial womb or in some other agreeable person, then we can revisit the issue.
Until then, you believe whatever you want and feel whatever you want about the embryo/foetus/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. But don't tell me what I have to believe or feel. Because I guarantee you that we do not have the same beliefs or feelings.
In short: Don't like abortion? Don't have one. No one is forcing you to. But don't you try to tell me what to do.
7
Why have we allowed those who are so rigidly against women having control over their own bodies to anoint themselves as pro-life when they are usually nothing of the kind. Do they want to provide adequate health care to these children? How about nourishing food? Decent housing? Child care so the women forced to bear a child can afford to work to provide these things herself? Good schools so that when the child grows up it can find a job at a living wage? How do they feel about ripping children from their parents arms and locking them up in cages? Call them what they are – anti-choice.
5
You said it all but they are anti- mother
1
When the Republican side does not actually care about reaching compromise or consensus there is nothing to talk about, which is why all the legislation passed by the House is sitting on the desks of the Republican Senate because Mitch McConnell will not bring it to the floor to be considered for a vote. But American media and newspapers don’t report that.
Just as McConnell is more interested in changing the balance in the American Judiciary than he is in passing law, what we are seeing is the establishment of an American oligarchy and the ultimate disempowerment of individual people of color, of women, of minorities of all kinds. While the voters are busy on Facebook and googling their “conservative” legislators are returning the philosophy of kingship to these shores. They will not “love it” when this revolution is complete.
4
it is unclear to me how much the legislation is supported by the pull Jason is the red states, yet it is a question of him human rights, and the whole country has a duty to intervene. Where are the thousands of demonstrator? where are the Handmade's Tale costums? Why is your country so alien to the concept of demonstration and think civil disobedience?
Half of all miscarriages occur when the fetus gets the wrong number of chromosomes, and miscarriages end about half of all pregnancies. In that case nature / God has chosen to abort one in every four pregnancies to avoid creating a child with a birth defect. Is this not evidence that abortion by choice of the mother, either because the child would be impaired, or because the circumstances are wrong to raise the child is in alignment with nature / God's own methods?
4
I hate these bans, but Georgia, apparently, is going to make men shoulder a heavy economic burden for years to come.
https://qz.com/1618977/how-georgias-heartbeat-abortion-bill-will-impact-mens-lives/
It's telling that only women have been showing up to protest outside the statehouse over this, while men communicate their displeasure in the commenting section, knocking women for not voting and religious freedom while essentially skirting the drudgery of actually protesting in person and making a difference.
Perhaps Georgia's punitive taking a pound of flesh from fathers will cause more of them to become more than armchair warriors.
We can only hope.
4
Here is an interesting article that addresses many of these concerns:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-abortion-law-rape_n_5cdc3627e4b09d94af53f471?ncid=newsltushpmgnews__Politics__051719
(This young woman was raped, and because she had irregular menstruation, didn't find out until she was 8 months pregnant that she was pregnant. )
1
And of course, most of the objections posted here are from men.
Deaf ears to the women that are having their rights being taken away.
2
Don’t believe in abortion?Then don’t have one. Male opinions on why abortion is “bad” is really irrelevant. Same with the women who wear the I regret my abortion tee shirts. Well that is really too bad but I don’t regret mine.
8
@E.G.
Don't like Alabama's laws? Don't go there.
What common ground is there with adults who would make a child carry her father’s child?
It is the pinnacle of religious fanaticism devoid of common sense or compassion. They need to be publicly questioned by women.
Would any one of these mostly men require their sons to accommodate a molester for months? This is state-sponsored abuse.
9
Not all bad news. Granted the Evangelicals and the Good 'Ol Boy contingent in the South managed to manipulated the abortion issue to the front and center of the Deep Red States political agenda; but by doing so also risk uniting the Democratic Party just at a time when the Democrats have traditionally begun their ritualistic Harakiri , just prior to election season.
So, with 67% of the voting public supporting Roe v. Wade perhaps the overreach by the Far Right on the abortion issue just might be enough to convince the all important Middle American that the GOP can not be trusted to not lead the Americans back to the dark days of the back ally abortionist and will begin to (once again) consider voting Democratic.
2
@Birddog Right on! We can only hope.
Well, here we go again. Another round in the endless abortion wars.
And every time this issue comes to a boil over the last half century, I want to say the same thing, to wit.
This is not about abortion at all. The zealots who wish to ban abortion don't care about the "unborn babies" one whit.
No, this is about unbridled female sexuality. This is about the primal fear that men have that the women they know might enjoy sex - even casual sex - as much as men do.
This is about the eternal Double Standard. Men are expected to "sew their wild oats" while women are expected to be the exclusive sexual property of one man.
Many men simply can't cope with the reality that women have the same "agency" to choose their sexual partners with the same level of freedom that men do.
And thus the last line of defense for such men is to make forced pregnancy the Damoclesian sword to hold over women - to ensure that "loose women" are "punished" for their sexual "sins".
That's all it is folks. All the rest of that "sanctity of life" rhetoric is just so much window dressing to cover up the male terror that women enjoy sex and have the power to choose their sexual partners.
In some primitive cultures, women who "stray" are stoned to death. In America, our male Taliban instincts (fear of female sexuality) manifest themselves as striving to legislate "forced pregnancy" on women who "color outside the lines" of patriarchal mores.
No "Right-to-Lifer" will admit this. But they know it's true.
10
Great points. Would love to see someone say that on a debate. It would take more than courage. It would take conviction.
2
The 'other side' has no interest in talking to *you*. They have the power, they're using it, end of story.
Remember when the Democrats rammed 'Obamacare' through with zero GOP inclusion? The anti-socialism people felt then as you do now.
You can chalk it up to the lack of, or even the dismissal of any sense of empathy.
1
There is no way to talk to a person who believes that a fertilized egg in a petrie dish or a uterus is a 'baby'.
They are against killing BABIES, get it?
And if the baby is the product of incest or rape, well, it's not the baby's fault, is it? So one can't kill it.
The fact that most people don't consider a fertilized egg a baby doesn't have much sway with people who believe they are right, and who will fall back on 'potential' for an argument.
Oh, and that's the same argument that the Catholic Church has been making against contraception for years.
Get ready for Phase ll.
4
All of the men cheering these draconian laws are despicable. I don't know if they're uneducated, lack women friends, or enjoy seeing women suffer - I just know they're loathsome. I weep for the girls and women living among such troglodytes.
9
If women should face up to 99 years in prison for having an abortion, or for mismanaging their pregnancies, then rapists should automatically get the death penalty. Fair enough?
3
As my very Republican (voted for Barry Goldwater) and active-in -our church father always told me, “if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”
2
God bless him. He could think for himself. Come to think of it that seems to be why the Bible was written. Not to be misquoted. The certainty of the self righteous violates biblical principles on practically every page.
Thank you for that quote
1
I`m waiting for the supreme court to rule that it violates a person's liberty to be made to deliver a wedding cake, but not a deliver a rapist's baby.
5
Try this.
Dear mr/mrs Antiabortion activist.
I won’t bother talking your about a woman’s right to decode what happens to her body. You do not care. We know this.
Since you don’t care about the woman, I’ll try to talk to core republican values.
Now, let’s look at post Roe Alabama as a case study.
In 2017 6000 abortions took place. In 2015, 59,000 live births took place. We are told that it costs $175,000 to raise a child through age 18. So, Arithmetic tells us that we are looking at $1b of costs to raise these kids. Each year another $1b liability will get generated. 6,000 times 17 years gets us to 102,000 additional Alabamans in the education system through HS. By the way, Alabama has a 30% child poverty rate already.
What is your plan to house, educated, feed, and provide healthcare for this additional bit of population? No doubt you are front and center pounding the table demanding tax increases to pay for this population bump. Aren’t you? No?
10
Send this to the Dem nominee to use in the debate
1
I haven't seen any mention of the following:
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi and Missouri are just the latest to pass some of the most restrictive laws about abortion because the state legislatures are very concerned and of course, all life is precious. Well I propose that all of those state legislators, both female and male, start wearing the scarlet H for hypocrite. None of them are writing legislation or even contemplating it to get rid of the DEATH PENALTY in their states. Yup Christians, the death penalty is alive and well in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi and Missouri as it is in 24 additional states.
Obviously ALL life is not precious to those who profess to be pro life. Just the ones YOU pick.
Your stance won't hold water at the pearly gates. Saint Peter is neither stupid nor gullible. BTW, you don't get to see your maker if you don't pass the keeper of the keys to the kingdom.
3
I’ve noticed something after reading many posts on the topic of abortion. Almost all of the anti-choice posts are written by men.
6
How to talk with the "other side" about this? It's like trying to discuss complex neurosurgery to a Tyrannosaurus. In fact, at the top level of discourse at this moment in history, it IS a Tyrannosaurus with an over-coiffed toupé at the other end of the line.
3
Let's create an underground railroad, as it were, for women to use to get out of Alabama.
I mean it. We need to create a pool of resources to help women relocate. No morally decent or mentally healthy woman--of childbearing age or not--should continue to live in that barbaric state.
6
Let us not forget that Judge Vitter was confirmed yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/05/16/us/politics/ap-us-trump-judicial-nominee.html
She promotes lies about the dangers of contraception as well.
5
Surely I'm not the only man in this country who believes that men having any say whatsoever in this matter is ludicrous.
Talk about your male privilege!
Why any woman in this country would cast a vote for a Republican is beyond me. Self-loathe much?
5
Who really is "pro-life?" As far as I'm concerned, it's not Republicans, whose policies harm beloved born lives.
1) No one likes abortions
2) The Republicans manipulate good people into thinking that there were no abortions before Roe v. Wade, yet there have been abortions throughout history
3) Roe v Wade started as a pro-life movement, to allow doctors to keep terrified young women from dying without fear of prosecution. Read this, for example:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1809150
4) Republicans don't really care for the unborn, as evidenced by:
---Republican Congressman who was running anti-abortion ads while telling his mistress to get an abortion
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/25/a-republican-theme-on-abortions-its-ok-for-me-evil-for-thee
---lack of Republican concern for born children, from blocking affordable health insurance for families, cutting food stamps, cutting funding for education, allowing born children be killed by unsecured guns and guns in the wrong hands, sending beloved born children to wars rather than try patient diplomacy first, allowing the air and water of born children to be poisoned, ripping beloved born children from their parents arms.......
What a coincidence that the judges Republicans appoint claiming they choose them for their anti-abortion stance turn out to support cutting back on voting rights, allowing unlimited secret money to influence campaigns, believe "money is speech" and "corporations are people".
4
If you do not have personal autonomy over your own body under any government in this infantile nation, you do not have any other right or power your believe reserved by you that is not enumerated in the Constitution.
5
If only Republicans took Biblical exhortations to be kind to others and help your fellow man as seriously......of course that would mean actually taking the basic tenants of religion seriously instead of using it to dupe people into voting for tax cuts for billionaires
3
They can't ban abortion. They can only ban safe abortion.
7
To conservatives, illegal abortion ending bad is a good punishment.
1
Anyone care to defend forcing a girl who was raped by her father to have the baby?
The monstrosity of Alabama's legislature should have us all in tears.
6
‘Pro-lifers like me aren’t supporting “Christian Shariah law.”’
Yes, Pete and Andrew, you are. And you are also misogynists who think you have dominion over women.
8
Even Alabama Christians can’t stop abortion pills coming through the mail...
2
Life is precious until you're born. Then, baby, you're on your own. Poor and annoying, get food stamps.
Heathcare? Welfare brat. Thug.
Will be good to grow up and serve in a war which us Christians approve of. And die for nothing. Yes. Life is precious. If you're rich, white and male.
5
Republicans, not only in the South, seem to specialize in cruelty. They've taken on the role pretty much occupied by Democrats post-Civil War up to the Sixties. Except Republicans are hell-bent on being cruel to everyone who isn't a conservative, Christian, white Republican. The good news is that their numbers shrink every year and soon they'll be the minority. Heaven help them when payback comes...and it will. It always does.
4
Talk to young women and you'll find your answers. They are tired of sexism; they are tired of fighting to be viewed as equals. They are tired of boys and men sending them pictures of their penises as a way to ask them out. They are tired of being groped. They are tired of getting paid less. They are tired of their mothers, sisters, aunties, neighbors and friends being victims of domestic violence and they worry that next it will be them. They are tired of narrow definitions of beauty being foisted upon them. They are sick of the Kardashians with their giant hair, giant breasts, giant showcased rear ends being held up as some sort of national standard. They are tired of mixed messages and of doing most of the chores at home while their brothers play video games. They are tired of porn and what boys and men ask them to do because the boys who like them think they ought to behave like porn stars. And most of all, as they have been telling me over and over and over in these last weeks since all these cases have made the news, they are really tired of men, all men, white men in power, black men, asian men, latino men, all telling them what they can and must and should do with their bodies, before, and after conception. And they are also sick and tired of those same men walking away when there is a baby to be taken care of.
9
I wonder how many of these men supporting the new laws have refrained from sex before marriage or outside of marriage? Men want sex; the consequences be damned. They think they are entitled to it. I sincerely doubt any of them are willing to support an unwanted child.
5
I haven't read this law in detail but the pattern I've seen in other 'pro life' states is that they also do not encourage birth control. It is not readily available and high school students are not informed of the ways to avoid becoming pregnant. I heard a 'christian' legislator say that making birth control readily available will encourage pre marital sex.
Pre marital sex happens because our biological reproductive cycles are still based on a shorter life span in which people married younger. All young people did not go to college. Barely a generation ago people married and began families at the age of 18 or 20, even younger. Obviously our biological programming needs to catch up.
Planned parenthood is demonized, it's funding constantly threatened despite the fact that at most 10% of their budget goes to actual abortions. A lot does go to pre natal care and to help people have sex and also avoid pregnancy. I heard another conservative defend this confusion, saying 'the same facilities are used'. Yes, the same front door, the same hallway, the same telephone. Give us a break !
What we have is your basic self fulfilling prophesy.
If not, please enlighten me; I would like to know if consultation and birth control are readily available in states with such strict abortion laws.
4
I hardly feel qualified to comment except that I had an illegal abortion pre Roe v. Wade. I was a college student at the time with a dear boyfriend. My parents sacrificed everything to send me to school as did his. We could not have a child and lose everything our par parents worked for.
I was met in a bowling parking lot, blind-folded and told I would be fine driven around the city. After 20 minutes or so I was led blind-folded into the back door of a clinic. The blind-fold was removed until I was led until an examining room. The blind fold came back and a very kind nurse held me hand and told me that I was in very good hands. My fear was that I I would never have a child. That I would be damaged.
Fortunately, due to the fortitude of the doctors involved, I was fine. I now have three beautiful children and grandchildren.
If you want to punish someone for abortion, punish me, not the kind doctors who took care of me when I was so frightened that I shook from head to toe under a blindfold. When I feared for my life. To this day it is the most traumatic experience ever. Punish me, if you will. Not the doctor who defied the law to help me.
12
Beautifully put. Your pain and sincerity and humility come through.
1
My daughter in law suffered the loss of a baby which was judged to be nonviable (no heartbeat) in the third month of gestation. She had to remain pregnant for another month as it wasn't entirely clear whether a D&C would be permitted. This is just cruelty.
9
"I think therefore I am." The human embryo at 12 weeks has far less self-awareness than animals we routinely slaughter for food or, in the case of dogs, just because we don't want to be bothered by them. I am inundated by dysfunctional families with children they cannot support, and the Right-to-Life armada opposes adequate funding for health care, education (except for private religious schools), and even effective sex education that might encourage contraception. But there's no shortage of prisons, where my patients are deprived of treatment for mental illness and substance abuse and forced deeper into poverty. Public schools are deprived of funds and prisoners, almost all dropouts, get no education to prepare them for a better life away from crime. America has the largest prison population in the world, more than India or China. The Right to Life crowd needs to provide life, not just birth.
28
We should call the "Right to Life" people what they really are, anti woman misogynists. I am old enough to remember what happened to women when abortion was illegal. During my student-nurse days I saw women who were maimed and ill after illegal abortions or attempting to self abort. I also saw women punished by doctors who refused adequate anesthesia for these women when they had painful procedures to treat them.
16
Both positions are based on belief. The pro-life position has more scientific credibility because of embryology. But the pro-choice position, that human life does not begin at conception and humanity is somehow conferred at 24 weeks is also a belief. What is the scientific evidence that supports that belief? Pro abortion people are always claiming religious belief is being forced on them, but their secular beliefs are being forced on the rest of us.
3
@Cold Eye
“Secular beliefs” is an oxymoron. Those of us who are pro-choice do not believe, but know and understand the medical fact that most babies cannot survive outside the womb, i.e. as a separate life independent of the mother, before 24 weeks.
11
@Cold Eye
"Both positions are based on belief."
The anti-abortion crowd bases their position on their religious faith. The folks in Alabama made that very clear. Pregnancy due to tape and incest is, as they put it, are one of their god's little miracles. Their motivation had nothing to do with anything scientific at all. And they said nothing of the kind. The pro-woman and pro-Constitution crowd bases their position on (a) the notion that women are full human beings who have all of the rights of men, and (b) the separation of church and state which is fundamental to our system of democracy. The anti-abortion crowd is free to follow their own faith and not have abortions. Nobody is forcing them to get abortions. On the other hand, the anti-abortion crowd wants to stop everybody from having abortions. That is a violation of the rights of women, and a violation of the separation of church and state.
10
@Cold Eye
1) NO ONE is “Pro abortion”. Pro-choice Americans are for women’s rights to control their own bodies.
2) Fetuses have no rights.
3) Anti-choice Americans have lots of “beliefs” that the majority of Americans do not share with them.
3
One thing I've never heard mentioned in right to life is this: if a pregnant woman aborts herself, and dies, do we say she deserved it?
The woman's right to life is at least equal to a fetus' right to life. It's funny, really, the laws are passed by men, the men are the ones who impregnate, with or without permission, but the pregnant woman, on her own, is the only one who carries the consequence.
13
The Alabama law has an exception for the “serious” medical condition of the mother
What both sides don't seem to get is that the other side has valid, meaningful, and moral positions.
If both sides could recognize this fact, then they would be more humble and yell their "truth" less frequently.....and maybe softer.
Some things in life aren't straightforward. Abortion is the poster child for this fact.
7
@Dan Remember the asymmetry. Right to life must impose its will on all women. Right to choose permits, but does not mandate, and option on all women.
5
Nope. A woman must have agency over her body, just like any man has over his. The fact that only women get pregnant doesn't change this. A right to abort is this an issue of equal protection, in addition to a right to private management of oneself. Your moral views are irrelevant.
4
I have said, for decades, that if you want to protect Roe v Wade, take the money out of the picture. Defund planned parenthood. PP can be funded by charitable giving. The fact that it is considered a “non-profit” but receives 1/2 billion tax payer monies per year keeps the abortion argument alive.
Also, the argument that pregnancy and abortion is a part of “women’s health” is preposterous. Pregnancy is not an illness. Women definitely have the right to determine what happens to their bodies but not to another body. A baby is another body. When the legality of abortion was pushed to the due date, a fire storm of outrage erupted, forcing the pendulum to swing radically the opposite way. Backlash is the consequence of going too far. There should be choice but with restrictions. What those restrictions will ultimately become will be determined by courts of law. Too bad we haven’t been intelligent enough to determine
reasonable and humane restrictions for ourselves.
2
@Mary Ann the "half billion" is for Medicaid coverage of healthcare for women. It does not fund abortion no matter what the lying pro-foetus/anti-life crowd claims. Take away that funding and a substantial number of women lose their opportunity to receive healthcare, plus some men. PP clinics are often the only ones around for many miles.
21
@Mary Ann
Fetuses are not babies!
3
@DaveObama Care took care of that
"...I believe the right to an abortion is about women’s freedom and rights. It’s about the right to control what happens to your own body. Pro-lifers believe that having an abortion is the moral equivalent of going into a maternity ward and stabbing babies. We’re not even having the same conversation. I don’t know how to bridge that gap."
Start with the obvious! Roe v. Wade has two parts: Who makes the decision and what the decision is. The text of the SC ruling is very clear: only the pregnant person can decide, and the decision is the (justifiable) homicide of the child. Roe is not now, nor has EVER been "...about the right to control what happens to your own body. " EVER. The SC ruling itself--and every ruling on the matter since--has been about weighing the rights of the child with the rights of the mother. The SC rulings are clear. The harm to the mother from bearing a child of incest, rape, or one that will harm or kill her, outweighs the child's right to life--every single time. If the child is viable and not harmful, the rights of the child outweigh those of the mother. It is only when the child is not yet viable that the state can set conditions on when terminating the child will be permissible. THIS IS THE LAW. If you start from there--and YOU must--you can then debate the only remaining question: when does the increasing viability of the child tip the decision in its favor? Reproductive rights are a non-starter. Justifiable homicide is the debate.
3
The number of embryos lost to abortion is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of natural miscarriages. These right-to-life zealots are obsessed with what in reality is only a small subset of the pregnancies that don't make it to term.
Miscarriage is a big part of human reproduction. Many, possibly even the majority, of conceptions never turn into people. That's how it is in nature. Are we supposed to feel bad about that?
15
I would say to the "other side", if you want to decrease the number of abortions, make every child a wanted child. How do we do that? All evidence points to one solution: vote for Democrats, because their policies actually result in far, far fewer unwanted pregnancies, and thus, fewer abortions. Comprehensive sex education in schools; easily accessible and affordable long-term birth control; low-cost prenatal care; social services/safety net that supports mothers and children. According to actual data and evidence, these are the things that reduce abortions. Republicans also oppose every single one of them, and the abortion rates in red states are generally much higher than in blue states. If you want to regulate pregnancy and control women, vote for Republicans. If you want to support women and children, and decrease abortion rates, vote for Democrats. Every election, every office. Period.
43
@AMinNC
So true. And what is the GOP cutting?
"Comprehensive sex education in schools; easily accessible and affordable long-term birth control; low-cost prenatal care; social services/safety net that supports mothers and children."
And they think sex education is "Abstinence only," which leads to STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
17
Amen!!!
Also does it surprise anyone that Alabama ranks 50th in terms of education and 46th for healthcare or 49th for overall quality of life (US News)? Maybe the lawmakers should focus on those issues before forcing women to carry a pregnancy they are not prepared or able to care for.
2
I have never liked Roe in the 1st place. It legislates and categorizes women, Over 50% of the population is constantly being pushed around, even "punched in the stomach" by "well-meaning" people. They even claim America is a "christian nation" which means I am not part of the hypothetical country they preach about. Perhaps there are women who still practice witchcraft and should be put to death! I think medieval thinking is part of our heritage, so why not embrace ALL of it? There is so much sin amongst us to be dealt with, and so little time! Many years ago women were required to give birth to a large family, because several children simply were too fragile or sick to survive.
By minimizing infant mortality, today's mothers have a much better chance of PLANNING WHEN TO HAVE CHILDREN AND HOW MANY THEY (AND HOPEFULLY) THEIR SPOUSES WANT.
But along comes the century-old rules about right and wrong and who must obey. God bless the Catholic Church for setting down what Jesus demanded we do. Jesus (in the meanwhile) looked kindly at a prostitute and felt she deserved to live in spite of her "unforgivable" behavior. He didn't condemn Judas either, or the Romans. He put cruelty out of his thoughts and actions.
"It's not the right way to deal with harshness and bitterness in life that confronts and tries to control us all the time." Or something along those lines. Well I agree- reduce abortions through education and prevention. But sometimes it becomes necessary, so leave it be!
3
There will never be unanimity on this issue, but so long as level-headed law is crafted to define the right to make a choice, a few qualifying caveats aside, it needs to be respected by each of the 50 states...period. The primary problem is the wrong and emotionally-driven side has had an open canvas on which to paint their skewed version of what "Pro Choice" means, "Pro Abortion", which is not true. We need to mount a successful defense for a woman's right to choose by combating the emotionally-driven side bent on depriving women their choice. The discussion needs to be reframed, Pro Choice could also mean Pro Life, but the choice is up to the woman...period.
7
If Roe v Wade is overturned, mark my words, easily available contraception itself will soon be endangered. They’ll start by limiting access to it by teenagers, but that won’t satisfy the forces that want to suppress sexual activity by the unmarried, or for that matter, protected sex among married persons.
28
@hmgbird
Access for teens under 18 has long been limited. They are unable to enter into contracts or sign the necessary paperwork, and most states require parents to be informed, and some for them to consent to the procedure.
@hmgbird Red states that enact laws prohibiting modern life will become economic backwaters, if they aren't already taker states, because corporations that want to attract talent will not locate in those states.
3
@hmgbird
They'll certainly try--but THAT, electorally, would get them kicked out of office. The vast majority of Catholics hear the Church's teaching on birth control -- and then do what their own conscience dictates. They, and everyone else, are certainly not going to permit POLITICIANS to legislate those matters.
1
I can’t help but wonder how this fresh hell is meant to distract us from something even more horrifying. It’s almost like living in an era of constant PTSD, and living in the dread for when the next shoe is going to drop.
58
If a baby was something made by two women, not a man and a woman, male legislators would say: "that's a women's issue" and abortion would seem as out of their purview as tampons (eww!). But since a man made the fetus, they view abortion as a woman's ability to destroy a man's property--and this power and control is simply unacceptable to them, and they will not just stand by and be helpless! (Like a woman smashing his TV and just getting away with it.) If a man planted the seed, the legislators believe it should be cultivated and that society is obliged to do all it can to allow that man's actions come to fruition. If a baby was the decision of a pair of women, the fetus may not seem as valuable to them.
22
The problem is idolatrous Bible-worshiping militant nationalistic Christianity wrapped in red, white, and blue.
Nobody is forcing anybody to have an abortion.
But the GOP is using race, religion, and militant nationality to get votes. And when they get the votes - they do well for the 0.1% - cutting their taxes while increasing military spending to obscene levels.
Which is what the GOP ALWAYS DOES - oh, and eliminate regulations and destroy the environment.
Thanks Christians!
35
It is all about punishment. As has been pointed out a number of times, most pro-lifers loose all interest in ensuring a child's quality of life once it is born.
Maybe Alabama should have a law requiring people to adopt unwanted babies if they don't believe in abortion?
24
@chairmanj
Make no mistake. Anti-abortionists would LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE to ban sex outside of marriage. Failing that, they want the moral hazard of having to birth and raise the child you conceived in sin to weigh down upon you -- then maybe you'd keep your pants on like you are supposed to!
5
The United States is a democracy. A quick read of the Federalist papers explains why we don’t have a national religion and indeed how while we have religious freedom religion is not a part of our government. Every time I hear any argument for a law, regulation, restriction, or prohibition framed in a religious context I want the sponsor sent over to Iran for 2 years to give living under a theocracy a whirl. I suspect they would return and personally add a few more bricks to that wall between church and state.
These laws make my blood run cold. The only person involved in a decision to terminate a pregnancy is a woman and her doctor - and if she believes in one - a higher power. That is it. The Alabama law essentially enslaves women as baby machines. My father, who is now deceased, lost his mother after she died of infection from a back-alley abortion. She had 7 kids, was widowed, and broke. She couldn’t afford another kid - plain and simple. And she died for it courtesy of some laws that the Catholic Church has a hand in getting passed in good ol’ New York.
In my own case, back in the 1970s I drove more than one desperate friend from CT to NYC where the Margaret Sanger Clinic was a beacon of sanity. Now that I think of it, once again the so called “good Christian” states of the South will foist their problems on the progressive states in he North. NY is awash in gay southern kids whose parents tossed them out. I see the same thing playing out with abortion.
60
None of these comments raises the issue of the rights of the fathers? Is the mother the sole decider?
5
@Mon Ray
In this context why would the father have any rights?
1
@Mon Ray Since it's the woman's body, yes, she is the sole decider. Women need reproductive sovereignty.
3
@Mon Ray
Men have no rights UNLESS the woman gives the man a say in her decision.
Men can keep their pants on.
3
Why were quotes from men included here? I don't get that.
9
@Myrtle Markle Because they are the ones writing and voting for these laws and because their opinion is the ultimate determinant of what happens with our bodies. See the comment directly above yours for an example... The AL Governor is a woman but the legislature responsible for the new law is entirely male.
5
@Myrtle Markle
Some men are in favor of freedom of choice (even if we don't like the choice others make). It makes for a more vibrant and free democracy when all (wo)wen are created equal.
These draconian laws might have been drafted and voted on overwhelmingly by men, but not every man agrees with them.
2
Let us be clear: These states are not "Pro-Life"; they are "Pro-Fetus".
A state that cuts funding for children's medical care, for funding of education pre-K through 12 grade, for funding food and nutrition programs, for childcare while parents work, can not be considered "Pro-Life".
42
@Paul R - I don't think "pro fetus" is even an appropriate term. It implies an interest in a healthy pregnancy that is outside the scope of the abortion debate. I think "pro-criminalization" is the only term that really communicates the very narrow focus of this movement that wants to have the state deny women access to their own bodies.
25
@Paul R
They are anti-promiscuity. Pregnancy is the moral hazard of sex. They want that moral hazard in place to discourage promiscuity. That's really what it is all about.
@Paul R
I think Pro-Birth is more accurate, myself. But yes!
1
Here's what I would ask: Why now? The rate of abortion in the U.S. has been falling/plummeting for years...as of 2017, it's at the lowest rates in the past 40 years. At the same time, 80% of women who do need to terminate a pregnancy do so in the first trimester...those who end the pregnancy after that usually have terrible circumstances that they are dealing with.
So why are these conservative states now falling over themselves to out-cruel the states next door?
51
@Southern Hope Two words: Brett Kavanaugh. Now that right wing conservatives cheated their way into a Supreme Court majority, they are going for broke with laws regulating women's bodies, and deregulating corporate behavior. Freedom to pollute, and to be rid of pesky class action suits? You got it! Freedom of women to have bodily autonomy? A bridge too far, sir, definitely a bridge too far.
5
I respect, and agree with my friends and others who believe that life begins at conception. However, I also believe that the issue of abortion means that an individual has a right and a responsibility, to make that decision. Otherwise, restrictive, often faith based beliefs are being imposed on people who do not share in those beliefs. Abortion is not an easy decision for most women. As a psychotherapist, I have seen the agony, shame, guilt that is part of that decision. Our laws are there to protect the decision, and to insure that the procedure is safe. If we take away this protection, we risk taking away a person's right to decide as well as increasing unsafe procedures. Where does it end? We are supposed to be a democracy, not a theocracy.
31
@Mary Ann Starkes
As soon as a fetus asks me not to abort it I’ll be sure and ask the woman whether she wants me to postpone the abortion procedure.
@Mary Ann Starkes how much of the "agony, shame, guilt" is because of the so-called pro-lifers working to shame any woman who makes the serious, personal decision to terminate her pregnancy?
3
The best statement I’ve heard on this debate came from a conservative female politician in Alabama. She told the interviewer, calmly, that a woman can be anti-abortion when it comes to her own body and ethics, and pro-choice for women in general. With all of the feminist rage (I am feeling that myself, lately) and sensationalist, right-wing rhetoric being thrown around (dead babies ripped from the womb, grisly late-term abortions ad infinitum), too many people forget that this is about a woman’s right to control her own body and health care. The right to an abortion before the fetus can survive outside the womb means that a woman has the right to choose what medical procedures will be performed on her own tissue. This is about health care. Period, full stop, end of discussion.
44
@Passion for Peaches You do know how the big lie theory of propaganda works don't you?
Fascism has arrived in america
@Passion for Peaches
"The right to an abortion before the fetus can survive outside the womb means that a woman has the right to choose..." when and if she will kill her child for reasons she finds necessary.
That's the choice. And it is a sad and terrible choice when it has to be made. And sometimes it DOES have to be made. And only the pregnant person can make that choice. This is about the limits to justifiable homicide. Period, full stop, end of discussion.
Until everyone gets on THIS page, the debate will rage on inconclusively, because life and death trump autonomy and personal control.
@Passion for Peaches - the problem for you is, scientifically, it's not her own tissue. It's another human being with its own brain activity, heartbeat, and DNA developing in the womb inside of the mother. Identical in every way to the being that emerges from the birth canal during childbirth, aside from a few months in age and a change in location.
You can coat abortion with euphemisms about health care and body tissue, but everyone knows exactly what the debate is about: what entitles a human being to legal personhood (viability? ability? economic productivity? consciousness? wantedness by their parents? democratic vote? the inalienable equal rights and dignity of every human being?) and should we safeguard a person's right to life and protection against lethal discrimination and violence?
1
I no longer bother discussing the choice issue with such people.
Look beyond that issue to the ways that right-wing, Republicans and conservatives view women, especially those in the south. Such people have consistently fought against measures guaranteeing equal pay, freedom from sexual harassment and domestic abuse and ready access to birth control. They do not see women as real persons, but as flawed vessels that need to be controlled.
The women in that group are the worst of all.
46
As a man, I can't get away from the idea that I simply have no business telling a woman what she must do in what must be one of the most painful and personal decisions she could ever be faced with. Whatever personal beliefs I might have over the issue in abstract simply have to take a back seat, because it's really none of my business.
And for those who push these Draconian laws in the name of Christianity, I'd like to point out that the Holy Bible doesn't have one thing to say about terminating pregnancies.
38
One of the big problems is that those who are pro choice see the potential problems if abortion is made illegal, while the pro lifers to a large extent welcome the consequences. In the pro life mindset, if a woman is forced to give birth to a child, it is the 'wages of sin' that will force them to go back to being 'chaste' (and not surprisingly, 90% of pro lifers also support abstinence only sex ed, big surprise, and want birth control made a lot less accessible). Likewise, pro choice people see the cost of unwanted pregnancies, they see what it would mean to give birth by rape, to have to have a child who has severe issues, to see what happens to a kid born whose parent(s) don't want him, and worry about that, the irony being that pro choice people support the social safety net that could help a child born like this, while the pro life people want to get rid of social programs and basically "your on your own" to the mother and kid.
And most of those blindness is from the pro lifers, to be honest. Pro choice people have reached out and said part of the solution is to make abortion legal, but rare, by having good sexual education, access to birth control, you name it, and the pro life people generally say "no, that encourages fornication, we can't have that, sex in marriage to make babies, that is it". It doesn't dawn on the pro life people that if a million abortions a year is horrible, a hundred thousand or 10,000 is a lot less horible, they don't care.
17
There's a simple thought experiment called "The Fire in the Lab". Everyone should know it. There's a fire in a lab and you can save either a baby or a beaker containing 100 fetuses. Which would you save - if a fetus is a person, wouldn't morality require saving the 100 in a beaker and leaving the baby to burn?
26
@Peter Quince This is a completely nonsensical thought experiment. Besides the fact that that would never happen, just try replacing "baby" and "beaker of fetuses" (okaaaaay) with "child" and "children," and it's obvious that there is no morally acceptable answer. A person would try to save all the children. It would never be "there's a fire and you have to pick."
If our laws can dictate that women CAN"T get abortions; it means someday that could dictate women (or some women) MUST have abortions. Either we control our bodies or we do not.
24
I would like to see the babies resulting from every pregnancy where the woman was forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term to be delivered to Andrew Zhang, Tenafly, NJ. I'm sure he'll be very happy to see to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I will pay the postage.
24
I can't take credit for this argument, but here's one I like:
A pro-life person surely agrees that a human life is conferred citizenship, and therefore no pregnant person who crosses the border can be deported because within the womb lies a future citizen of the United States. Right?
13
@Law Feminist - I would love to see this! Would be a great legislative compromise to see experimented with - outlaw abortion and increase social supports for women and children, abolish ICE, end mass deportations, etc.
My beliefs in the rights of the unborn are the same as my beliefs in the rights of migrants. They should have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
4
@Law Feminist
I don't think that's correct (after several seconds of deep thought). A child born to the pregnant immigrant only becomes a citizen upon birth.
But if a non-pregnant woman enters the US and then becomes pregnant, the embryo is a US citizen (it was in the US at conception) and neither it nor the mother can be deported.
I think I've got this straight.
1
@Law Feminist
Specious argument based on a speculative premise. The 14th Amendement is also subject to repeal, at least theoretically. Citizenship, like life, begins at birth. Ever see a fetus in a passport photo?
Stop trying to debate when life begins. No human should be required to share their organs with another human. No human should be required to sacrifice their life for another human. Women happen to be humans, despite what Republicans think.
Abortion is not about when life begins, it's about a human having the right and the agency to their own body, period.
26
To me it is immoral to have a child when you aren't prepared to take care of the child. It is immoral to have a child when you don't want a child. It is immoral to bring a child into a situation you think is a bad situation for a child. That is my idea of morality surrounding this issue.
Do I get to impose it on others? No, I do not. If you want to have a child you don't really want and can't care for, that is your business, even if I think it is wrong and immoral. You have the right to choose.
25
In the interest of fairness, of holding the male to some level of accountability in unwanted pregnancies, I'd modestly propose that the law be expanded by requiring any man who has fathered one or more children he is not supporting, be legally vasectomized. Seems only fair, doesn't it?
28
@PKN I would take this further and suggest that they are all given vasectomies at age 13, that they can have reversed when they can prove that they’ll make good, responsible fathers.
3
The pretense that the human condition is black and white is so inextricably tied to fundamentalism that one would think by 2020 people would see it for ignorance it is and reject it.
That the men who impregnate (by consent or assault) each and every female in an unwanted pregnancy suffers no consequence is the key to understanding this fevered fundamentalism. It is not the man these fundamentalists wish to control and punish.
Every woman of privilege will obtain a medical abortion procedure in safety. Every vulnerable woman will obtain an abortion on the black market and the carnage that ensues will reinforce the fundamentalists' lust for punishing women.
19
@Monroe I also think that the next step in the red states will be to criminalize women who have a miscarriage.
3
In the case of an accidental pregnancy (ie. the condom broke) if the woman wants to have the child, but the man doesn’t, and the woman makes the decision to have the child unilaterally, should the man then be forced to pay paternity?
There is nothing tricky about this. The Alabama Evangelical Religious groups are trying to jam their religious beliefs down your throat. It is not enough for them to enact their strange religious dogma on themselves, they want to force everyone else to do as they say. You want religious liberty, come to Massachusetts. We have done our best to help Alabama, shifting millions of dollars from our pockets to them so they can catch up with the rest of the country, but they want to go back 50 years instead. I think that is their right and their option. However, forcing the rest of us to follow their appalling religious dogma has been against the principals of this country for years. Perhaps we can offer them new homes in Venezuela or Poland or Hungary or Syria or Saudi Arabia.
20
I've used this simple analogy before with people who have never heard the words blastocyst or zygote. Granted, it's a bird, not a mammal, example; but it's done the trick once or twice, especially with ovo-lacto vegetarians. If you crack a farm fresh egg into a pan and notice a tiny red spot, you know that you'll be scrambling a fertilized hen's egg for breakfast. While it may be a potential chicken, it is certainly not a chicken. I'd say that, yes, a fertilized hen's egg is "chicken life" but, no, it is not a chicken.
13
But it is a “human life?”
The AL law is deliberately written to be conclusively rejected by every court in the land until it rises to the SCOTUS. The sponsors and the AL governor know that it will be immediately contested and stayed before it can take effect. That’s why it’s so draconian.
This is a political act to force what the right hopes is a comprehensive review of the standards for abortion in the US. So it contains provisions that would never have been included, even in AL, had it been intended to actually be implemented.
Pro-life groups understand that. I suspect that pro-choice activists who actually understand the political tactics being employed understand that as well, but I fully expect (and respect) their seizing on this point to rally their base.
I think the likelihood of the existing rules and interpretation of abortion rights being substantively overturned is as close to zero as makes no difference. However, it’s possible that the legal and factual bases on which those rules and interpretations were grounded may change.
The majority of Americans support abortion rights, but a majority also support some restrictions, particularly after “quickening”. Neither the extreme left or the extreme right are likely to be happy with the sort of compromise legislation that is likely to be acceptable to the ambivalent middle majority.
Hence the bloviating on both extremes about extreme scenarios that are also extremely unlikely.
9
Can't have a discussion with an intransigent zealot. Doesn't matter how sincerely you try. Zealots don't reason, its just them against the World.
There are so many valid positive programs, protection devices, strategies and medical advise that will specifically reduce the number of performed abortions; yet the zealots choose to fight.
A reasonable person would attempt to persuade those that have different views; to generate legislation, and pass laws that help women navigate difficult personal intimate issues. Rather than attacking every aspect of the opposition; and insisting God chose them for this "fight".
And as with so much of the right-wings fantasy, they have created cute names for themselves, such as "pro-life". But their hypocrisy turns their self identities into just an ironic plot twist.
Are they "pro-life"? I think not.
Pro-birth maybe, and anti-birth-control on top of that. Zealots to the core.
26
@Fred Armstrong: It is just another filthy to the core political extortion racket in a country swimming in psychopaths.
2
No one is forced to get an abortion. so why do anti-abortion people want to ram their beliefs on everyone else?
Most of this is religious based and the constitution specifically prohibits any law supporting a religion.
Also I do not know of any right for people to impose their will on those not in agreement.
14
This whole 'personhood' thing is not rational or sane. The state has no interest in a "child" until it draws breath: it doesn't pay taxes or receive benefits, it neither adds to nor subtracts from society. We won't count the fetus in a census for the purposes of apportioning representation. There is no way that the founders (or any sane person before or since) could envision that any scientific understanding of pregnancy and prenatal development would change the philosophical understanding of who is a person in the eyes of the law. I cannot be convinced on scientific grounds that we should see a fetus as a member of society, with attendant rights.
What complicates this tremendously is that while all the above is true for me, it is also true for me that our child died when my wife suffered through a miscarriage during an unplanned (but very much welcomed) pregnancy at 4 months. We will always think of that fetus as our baby, yet I am grateful that once the fetus no longer had a heartbeat that the pregnancy could be ended.
I agree with Barbara Bush that the act of drawing a first breath makes this baby a person. For me, that means that I can mourn our baby who died in utero while still believing that the state has no interests in that fetus and no business interfering with my wife's choices regarding it.
27
It's a sad fact that a bunch of men are deciding women's reproductive rights. That would be like telling men that every male child on their 12th birthday goes to the doctors office and receives a vasectomy. Once they marry, they may have the procedure reversed. Get divorced the man has 30 days to get a vasectomy. This would equally allow the state / government to control both male and female reproductive rights.
15
@Glenda I a man like the logic maybe not the procedure, but it is fair.
2
"every female of childbearing age was born after Roe v. Wade became law"
I hadn't realized that. It has been 46 years, since Roe v Wade, 1973.
No American woman who could have a child today has ever lived under any other law on it. The changes have been on the edges, and about outrage over it, but not the law itself.
My kids will give me a puzzled look when I mention the Vietnam War. To them it is ancient history. I listened to the carillon in the Bell Tower play on campus when the Paris Accords were signed. We felt it as an emotion. I can't communicate that to them. It is the same time period, the same year near enough.
10
This is not a problem that requires a complex resolution
Any and all religious concerns and cares should be ignored and those trying to push that agenda should be charged for the violation of the first amend
23
@shrinking food yes, and the churches they belong to should have their tax-free status revoked immediately. To say these are not political machines is a lie.
12
@shrinking food: The tax preferences given to people who claim to know what God thinks are an insult to all thinking people who don't project themselves onto others and the whole universe.
3
This line, from William in Alabama, comparing it to his situation with his young child, jumped out at me:
"Being a responsible member of society means we can’t always do whatever we want with ourselves. Being pregnant is no different."
Except it is, William, and it's more than a little concerning that so many other men (and it predominantly is men) don't seem to get why.
116
@Zach: Yes. And how many men step up and act like a responsible member of society and--voluntarily agree to provide half of the financial support and half of the childcare--when they contribute to an unwanted pregnancy? It's always women who are expected to bear the burden of the pregnancy, the childbirth, and the emotional, physical and financial care for the child's lifetime. They they're shamed for being single moms.
33
I had an abortion. It wasn't a difficult decision at all. I was so happy when it was over and I wasn't going to have to have a baby that I wanted to give the doctor and nurses a big hug. That was 25 years ago and I have not had one moment of regret.
96
@ROK
Well said. The notion that an abortion is always or invariably a tragedy is just wrong. Sometimes--most of the time, actually--it is the best thing that could have happened. When Democrats have said they would like abortions to be rare, their aims have been misconstrued. They were offering a compromise. They were not saying that abortions are a tragedy, or that women should not be able to get an abortion whenever they want one. Such compromises have accomplished nothing. The anti-woman evangelicals are zealots and radical extremists. After all, Roe v. Wade itself was a significant compromise which, in my view, did not adequately protect the rights of women. According to Roe v. Wade, the government may interfere in the pregnancy during the second and third trimesters.
ROK wrote:
"I had an abortion. It wasn't a difficult decision at all. I was so happy when it was over and I wasn't going to have to have a baby that I wanted to give the doctor and nurses a big hug. That was 25 years ago and I have not had one moment of regret."
6
Abortion has been a fact of life since time immemorial. No amount of legislation will change that. Whether it's surgical, pharmaceutical, herbal, etc., abortion will always be with us.
People of means will always have access to abortion services. So the net effect of laws like those just passed in Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, etc. is that poor women will have no legal options close to home and will end up putting themselves at risk trying to procure procedures illegally, in substandard conditions.
Additionally, anti-abortion laws with no exceptions for women who become pregnant through rape or incest reach a new level of inhumanity. Women who become pregnant as a result of crimes committed against them don't need the state to victimize them again by forcing them to deliver their assailants' children.
32
I am a man, so my "skin in the game" so to speak is more for my daughter and the other women in my life. The decision to have an abortion is the woman's alone. Certainly, she can consult her family, friends, the father of the child, but in the end, it's her body and her choice. Either you have control of your body, or you do not.
To value the possible rights of what is, in essence, a largely undifferentiated clump of cells, higher than the actual rights of an actual human being who is actually alive and viable, is ridiculous. Even more so when many base their reasoning on the folk wisdom of a wandering desert tribe written down millennia ago.
I hope neither my daughter nor any of the women I know ever have to make the agonizing choice to terminate a pregnancy, but I will fight tooth and nail to ensure they have the right to do so.
66
@Ek Thank you.
1
Thank you.
1
Throughout human history, women have been devalued, stigmatized, brutalized, exploited, made responsible for The Fall and for all the ills that have plagued humankind. This, despite the fact that every single human being was born of woman, that women are lovers, companions, wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and helpmeets to all.
This consistent, irrational repression seemed to lift with The Enlightenment and with the advent of egalitarian human rights, slowly and imperfectly accorded to all citizens of liberal societies.
What we are seeing--with the amazing compliance of some among women themselves, but largely as a continued exertion of male power, privilege, and fear/suspicion of women--is a giant step back from the advance that really began three centuries ago. That it is happening in the United States, a literate and quite advanced culture, is sad and deeply alarming--and I feel that it portends a return to an irrational and illiberal state of mind, sanctioned by government, in the states whose temporary political majorities are adopting these repressive measures.
34
@Robert - You might be interested in O.M. Bakke's book "When Children Became People" - interestingly enough, the progressive revolution that reversed the ancient human traditions of infanticide and the property-or-sex-slave status of women and children was....early Christianity nearly two thousand years ago. Abortion rights supporters are actually the traditionalists, taking us back to antiquity when the strong ruled over the weak.
no matter how this law is considered it makes women second class citizens. Is the embryo a baby with rights? What rights? the right to full health care? The right to now have it's mother smoke, drink or do something that might cause a miscarriage? This law greases the slope that leads to full control of a woman's body. This is the Handmaid's Tale. Women who are forced to carry an embryo to term are nothing more than feeding machines. The law does not give them any benefits, set them upon any pedestal. It is punitive. But what about the dead baby you ask? What about it? What is the state going to do to give that baby and its mother more than the chance to breathe? Good schools? IN Alabama? No. Free college? No. A great house to live in while growing up? No. Great nutrition? No. This is madness. No one wants to have an abortion. But these laws don't go any further than saying No.
62
What a surprise, each of the anti-choice comments was made by a man
84
Not just a male but as we saw with Chambliss and Becker- total frauds. A criminal level of ignorance.
1
Whenever I find myself engaged in a conversation on this issue, I always like to pose a question to those who consider themselves "pro-life". The question is something along the line of "Are you really willing to use the coercive power of government to compel a woman to bear a child against her will." I have some respect for those who immediately answer "yes". I don't necessarily agree with their view, but at least they aren't trying to have their cake and eat it too. But the more common response is a lot of stammering an prevarication as they struggle to avoid saying that "yes". Seems they aren't really willing -- in fact they struggle really hard to avoid -- thinking through the actual consequences of their position.
21
@curious - thank you for this! I actually think that pro-lifers do shy away from speaking about the consequences of outlawed abortion. Life is hard. Pregnancy is hard. It is a huge sacrifice for women to carry children...which is part of why motherhood is so revered and respected.
We need restoration in our culture, especially in the realm of supporting women before and after the birth of their children with care and social services, and in holding men accountable to higher standards.
Truthfully though, I don't see any of this as "compelling a woman to bear a child against her will" - are you talking about rape or coercive insemination by the government? I do not know anyone who advocates for that. Except for traumatic edge cases (which are not undone or mitigated by killing), the unwanted child is the proper moral responsibility of the man and woman who created it.
I am concerned with protecting unborn children from unjust lethal violence, not coercing women. That doesn't end when they are born.
1
@James: sure it's coercive. I'm pregnant. How I got pregnant is irrelevant. For whatever reason, I don't wish to carry the pregnancy to term. But you (meaning the pro-life movement) seek to prevent the necessary abortion. Ultimately -- and seeing as I'm determined to end the pregnancy -- the only way you can accomplish this is by applying criminal sanctions to either me or to the health care professional who provides the service. If that's not coercive, then what is?
29
@James But motherhood is NOT "revered and respected," except in Hallmark cards. No mandated paid leave for new mothers; no help with child care; no help with gargantuan medical bills; vicious slanders of women of color who have too many children to support without public assistance; and no concern for undocumented mothers torn away from their children. Think about protecting women from "unjust lethal violence," for a change.
16
What has happened to the concept of freedom of religion? These anti-abortion laws are religious views that should not be imposed upon people who do not hold the same religious beliefs.
40
@Todd Li - there are many secular pro-life organizations. Many believe in the inalienable civil rights of human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without any religious belief. While Catholic women make up a plurality of the pro-life movement, for example, there are also pro-life feminists, atheists, Muslims, you name it.
2
@James
What liberty and pursuit of happiness is a fetus capable of? I'm not asking what it is potentially capable of once given enough of a woman's time and blood and bodily effort. I'm asking what liberty and pursuit of happiness a fetus has. And if your answer is indistinguishable from the liberty and happiness of any creature, from a cockroach to a whale, my next question will be how much weight we should be giving to protecting each one of those as well.
Also, while there may be such secular pro-life activists, they still have no right to force their beliefs on others, nor do they seem to be the main actors behind these recent laws.
12
@Todd Li Christians think it means the freedom to be Christian.
1
Surely we can all agree that women don't get pregnant on their own. Where are all the rules restricting the behavior of men? Where are their 99 year prison sentences?
I don't see how anyone can look at this stage of affairs and NOT see it as an attack on women.
71
Christian conservatives may have won a recent battle in Alabama, but they'll lose the war - and much sooner than they imagine.
Millennials are already leaving Christianity in record numbers because they associate that religion with political conservatism, and in particular, hostility to the LGBTQ community, which represents, say, 10% of the population.
How are Millennials likely to react to an attack on reproductive rights, which will affect nearly 100% of that age group?
37
@Scott I guess we're about to find out.
@Scott
Millennials may be leaving Christianity but they are not shunning the pro-life position. Could it be that they know something their elders don't? They grew up seeing exactly what's involved in an abortion, a tribute to the pro-life effort to increase awareness
This is a good thing. If millennials understand the cost of abortion, physically and emotionally, they will take greater care to avoid pregnancy. A win-win.
They do not feel "under attack". This is the view of an older generation, who are angry at men and fixate on the horrors of hangers. Millennials know about abortifacients, and they don't hate men. Again, a good thing.
1
I was always pro-choice––pretty vocally so. But lately I've found myself rethinking the issue. I still disagree with Alabama's draconian law, but the fact that I'm wavering at all is significant. I ask myself what's changed, and honestly, I think that the pro-choice side went from defending a woman's right to have an abortion to canonizing her for it. There was just a little too much pride and jubilation associated with terminating a life, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it. (The "clump of cells" argument doesn't hold up so well when you look at an ultrasound.) Then factor in Kathy Tran's unfortunate interview that translated as infanticide, Cuomo lighting up the skylight in pink, and it all became too much for too many.
5
@Anonymous - I was also pro-choice through my college years. I started studying embryology and evaluating the philosophical and legal arguments for personhood and the intrinsic dignity of human beings in my 20s. I read Du Bois and others and saw far too many parallels between the legacy of slavery and the abortion rights movement. Most of my friends and colleagues are pro-choice. I have nothing but love and compassion for them. I imagine this is almost how divided people felt about slavery in the 19th century. You have to dehumanize the unborn completely to kill, or you have to face the humanity of the unborn and act to protect them; we have the wolf by the ear and no path forward will be easy.
2
@Anonymous The celebration is for the full personhood of pregnant persons. The celebration is in overcoming the notion that abortion is about being careless with life rather than a personal decision to be made with one's doctor, most often by women who are already mothers (which should tell you something). The celebration is for those women whose wanted pregnancies became no longer viable, and allowing those women to be free of the reminder that they won't be having that wanted baby without stigma. How can anyone not be aghast at the thought of having to carry a fetus that cannot live on its own to term because of someone else's beliefs? James's comment about slavery seems to confuse whose life is being taken for granted in these scenarios.
@James you use the word "dehumanize" and "kill" to describe what's done to an embryo but not to the condition that can kill a woman, as the rising maternal death rates in the US sadly reflect.
16
@Law Feminist - I want to humanize both! The pro-life movement is full of people who are passionate about improving prenatal care, maternal health, expanding social services for children and all low-income families, etc. Count me in for all of that.
A large part of this is I think the historically Catholic backbone of the American pro-life movement which has advocated for and provided tremendous amounts of social services, advocating not only for an end to abortion but also an end to unjust war and the death penalty, etc.
You might like to check out Rehumanize International - just one example of a non-sectarian pro-life organization that shares this Consistent Life Ethic.
3
Too many pro-choicers have little to no understanding of the pro-life position. Either they're willfully obtuse or truly limited in their capability to comprehend another position. The biggest indication of this ignorance is the belief that, "It's not about life it's about [fill-in-the-projected-reason]."
Unfortunately, the pro-choice stance requires a complete repudiation of everything that contradicts or brings into question their beliefs. Most rational people understand there are definitely two, if not 10, sides to this issue.
4
@AACNY I understand it, I just cannot accept that an unborn embryo has more rights than an alive pregnant person. I cannot accept that the same people who claim to be "pro-life" refuse to require the other set of haploid cells (i.e., the father) to be responsible from the moment of conception. I cannot accept that the political movement that ushered in these draconian laws are against universal healthcare, and refuse to address the increasing maternal death rate in the United States.
I'm happy to discuss someone's sincerely held belief, so perhaps you can tell me what part of that sincere belief precludes, as the Alabama law does, the termination of a fetus that cannot be born alive?
13
@AACNY. If your stance for anti-abortion is your belief that life begins at conception, that's fine and you have every right to believe it. We aren't forcing abortions on anyone. Yes, some religions, including Judaism, believes life begins at birth. So people with other firmly held beliefs are not infringing on your right to practice your beliefs. Why should you have the right the impose your beliefs on them? Remember the separation of church & state? The constitution does not allow state sponsored religion, which is what these anti-abortion laws are. And it also guarantees a right to privacy which base the basis for Roe. The AL law shreds that right. "It's not about life it's about [fill-in-the-projected-reason]." The reasons - financial, physical, mental - and the impact on individual women and their families are REAL challenges faced by REAl living people, not just beliefs. I don't see any anti-abortion stance relying on anything but one belief .
12
@AACNY it absolutely is about life - the rights of the mother, who is currently alive, with the rights of a fetus that doesn't medically meet the requirements of life, such as consciousness. a fetus with nothing but a brain stem cannot scientifically have thoughts and is therefore not yet a "life" pro-lifers think a fetus is already a fully functioning human that should be afforded the full protections of a living human. pro-choicers see a fetus from a scientific standpoint. it is part of the woman's body and therefore her right to decide if she wants to carry it to full term.
13
Roe v. Wade which permits the government to interfere during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters does not do enough to protect the rights of women.
Moreover:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..."
20
@Robert:
wait, I never knew the U.S. government was forcing abortions on women, which is what you imply.
@RLiss
"wait, I never knew the U.S. government was forcing abortions on women, which is what you imply."
Thanks for your reply. I don't believe I implied that. In Roe v. Wade, the trimesters are treated differently. That's what I meant. Those different treatments include in some cases permitting the government to impose particular requirements on abortions.
1
The Alabama law is the same sort of law that killed enough women in Ireland for the people rise up and finally pass a referendum ending the abortion ban. Women will die because the Republicans want to make points with their Base.
35
I have been pro-choice since elementary school when men began making sexual comments, or leered at my developing breasts, or chased me through the streets of Berlin when I was 13, or when when when......I knew by fifth grade that I would never carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I have been grateful my entire life to have a choice. I do not believe a fetus has the same rights as me.
49
Why aren't HMOs, hospitals, and insurance companies up in arms? They will be paying for the unwanted pregnancies, which are significantly more expensive and dangerous to carry to term than a termination.
16
Let's be clear. The "pro-life" movement is not pro life. They certainly are not pro my life or the lives of women and their families wrestling hard choices. It's about choice and power, and being anti-choice is an exercise of power over women. Take a look at who passed the Alabama travesty. All men. "Pro-life" is a marketing slogan.
Someone close to me had breast cancer before she was 40. She and her husband wanted another child, but her oncologist advised her that a pregnancy would elevate her hormones and increase the risk of a cancer recurrence. An accidental pregnancy occurred. After considering her doctor's advice and the future lives of her husband and kids, she made the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy. It was the right thing for her and her family, and I understand this is not uncommon.
What would have happened to her in an anti-choice state? Would she and her doctor have sustained an argument that the procedure should proceed to protect her health? Her life? The same anti-choice men who somehow are fine with their wives and girlfriends getting abortions elsewhere think not.
36
@Anj
Indeed, the "pro-lifers" are all too often the pro-death penalty supporters. How ironic...
Why don't they put their money where their mouth is - spend money on educating women (and men) on how NOT to get pregnant in the first place and supporting the venues that provide birth control. The number of abortion seekers will surely continually decrease.
3
Whether elephant or mouse, cells are the same size. A teaspoon of cells is only different if the cells themselves have differentiated. But human embyonic cells differentiate more slowly, repeat more slowly, than other mammals.
It takes months for human embryos to develop features not present in other species. Until then, the same size embryo in a human and other mammals have similar cells. For example, many species embryos' hearts start beating when they reach pea or bean size.
Only an expert can tell the 1.5 inch human apart from other mammals with a naked eye, at 2 or 3 months. Of course we know it's human, in a sonogram, but we'd be fooled if another species was on the screen.
All mammals have brains and hearts; the human ones become more complex or particular as cells differentiate. Because human cells differentiate slowly, stem cell implants take months to develop.
Imagining that undifferentiated cells, or cells no more differentiated than a mouse, combine to form something human, is just us projecting beliefs on them.
I could just as well believe that any organism with as much complexity as a 3-month human embryo has legal rights. That would give nearly every mammal, bird, and reptile on earth personhood.
16
@Brian
Interesting comparison. But you ignore the fact that, if left to continue developing, one group of cells develops into a human. And, for many, that makes all the difference in the world. If you don't address that difference, you won't convince them.
4
@Citizen What is so great about humans? We torture and kill -for pleasure. We go to war and commit crimes against humanity. We're making the planet uninhabitable for future generations. We have been given a great gift, and we are destroying it from some belief in human superiority. The children we'll be forced to bring into this world will, in a generation, have neither clean air nor water, and unbearably hot temperatures and violent storms. It's time for a pandemic or a cataclymic event. We've worn out our welcome here.
6
@Citizen If "clumps" of human cells have rights, then human eggs and sperm cells have half rights? Shouldn't men and women be forced by the government to maximize the number of fertilized eggs so that a minimum die?
3
The primary goal of men in power is to stay in power. This is about power. Nothing more.
39
@Meli LEt's not ignore those pro-life women who bring their children to demonstrations. Obscene tactic, using children as props.
4
There are so many awful things that come to mind, and so many horrible sentiments.
It's as if women are now in "open season" by rapists. Actually, not "as if", it's an "is."
The gyrations that will be done in criminal court by horrible, evil men on women, men who rape women, then dodge their rape conviction and come after the woman.
Scenario: A married woman who already has three kids is raped. She, her husband, her children must now bear the evil mark of the rapist. Presumably, a judge will then state that the rapist his visitation rights. If I was the husband, and such a man came to my door, after such a proceeding, he would not walk back out that door. And I would not fault my wife for helping me, or if she acted that on her own.
These laws will only increase crime. Only increase murder.
Furthermore, while the pro-life people have a point, their point is a moving goalpost. If infant mortality rates were higher due to disease, then we might go back to only naming our children when they reached 2 years of age. If antibiotic-resistant bacteria made a huge comeback and killed babies frequently, then the current fetus-fetishizing would cease.
Pro-Lifers are nearly completely dependent upon only seeing one thing, and one thing only: a fetus or zygote as a human.
17
The tell is that under the legislation, it's illegal to abort a fetus that will not be born alive (perhaps the most horrifically cruel fate I can think of as a mother). The tell is that there is no concomitant right of a mother to collect child support at six weeks pregnant. The tell is that the penalties don't apply to embryos outside a woman's body. The tell is that they know women will die and don't care.
57
@Law Feminist
Yes, and that no one is proposing (that I'm aware) that a fetus should count on the census for the purpose of apportioning representation.
This "personhood" thing is ridiculous.
13
From the moment of conception is a very dangerous concept. Some anti-choice people believe that some forms of common birth control are abortifacients. I am afraid that the next goal would be birth control. Not to mention that this country does not have affordable and available birth control and other women's health service and that it is even worse for rural areas in states such as Alabama, Louisiana and other southern states.
27
First: If men could become pregnant, abortion on demand would be the law of the land the next day. After all, who wants a fetus to stand in the way of a career. Second: If you truly want to outlaw abortion, then you must create mandatory DNA testing protocols to determine fatherhood and require, by law, support for the life created by the father or the father's family if the male is underage; mandatory support, no exceptions. I believe that the efforts to outlaw abortion are so as to regain control over women, which was lost with the pill, a boon to playboys of all stripes at the time but freedom for women even if "unintended" by the patriarchy. I also believe that whoever bears a child has final say in what she feels she must do, with or without support from a father or society in general.
30
@Robert Sieviec
Another idea? If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term and does not want this or is harmed/dies due to the birth, the impregnator must be mandatorily and irreversibly sterilized. If the woman dies, the impregnator is sentenced to life for manslaughter.
Mandatory support can be circumvented in so many ways...
Of course, none of these ideas makes sense for human beings, just as banning abortion does not make sense for human beings. It does not respect the human rights of woman at all.
5
Most pro-life people just do not want to hear the inconvenient truth that as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal pro-abortion law of the times, and that up until Roe, the GOP was the pro-choice party, until they discovered they could secure more votes by appealing to devout Christians with anti-abortion rhetoric. These facts make it more than obvious that pro-life politicians are simply securing more votes so they can pass more tax cuts for the rich. The abortion debate is strictly political. It has nothing to do with saving babies.
50
@Vexations And, the anti-choicers must also understand that without access, the people they despise
, the population most affected - people of color - will explode in numbers. What then?
3
@Vexations and they know that they can always obtain convenient miscarriages for their wives, daughters, and mistresses.
1
The problem is that the opposing views are not "opposites." Each side is talking about different values that find themselves on this particular battlefield. They will always be talking at cross purposes. In any other situation, most women would want control of their choices.
The problem is that the life-saver's viewpoint is aligned with an ideology that rejects the proven ways to reduce the need for abortion - access to family planning and education. This passion for life group shares an ideological platform that is also rabid in its refusal to adopt commonsense, life-saving measures for gun violence (for instance), in its refusal to consider life-saving climate measures, in its insistence on cutting out the financial assistance for women and children who are the next phase after carrying a baby to term, and in its frankly puerile obsession with others' sex lives.
I hear the passion and love for life in these people's voices but their political platform renders their arguments moot. IF they were really pro-life, they'd actually BE pro LIFE.
32
This very issue is an excellent reason to bring more women into the political process, and to get them elected to office.
13
@Dirk R Yeah. Pregnant and barefoot?
@Dirk R: But the Alabama governor (Ivey) who just signed this madness into law is a woman.
@Dirk R
You are assuming they won't be pro-life women? Or do you just automatically exclude pro-life women when you refer to "women"?
1
Ive been a mentor to kids that were given up by their parents to the state. They call them wards of the state. We dont take care of these children, in fact they try hard to push them back on their parents that dont want them. Its heartbreaking to watch.
I love but NO ONE TALKS ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ALL THESE CHILDREN. We thankfully dont have orphanages but we also dont have enough good home in foster care either. There was no planning, no talk of where
these kids will go.
41
@Therese Stellato we all know what will happen to unwanted children. They will probably be abused, tortured and then killed. The ones who survive have a high probability of ending up in prison.
5
As a life long liberal democrat male, I am as appalled as everyone by these new lays. However, I want to continue to point out that 53% of White women voted for Trump despite his pre-election promises to appoint judges at every level who would seek to overturn Roe v Wade and he has largely kept that promise. Why is it that many men vote on gun freedom as a single issue, but almost half of women don't vote on right to choose as a single issue when it is so much more important than the right to carry guns without any control.
19
I didn't hold a strong opinion on abortion until I had my first child (wanted, loved, and planned). It makes me physically sick to think of any woman -- let alone a child under 18 -- being forced to go through the pain, danger, and permanent physical changes of pregnancy and childbirth unwillingly.
121
I consider abortion a necessary evil: I would never have one, but I also can't justify making it illegal. As long as the fetus depends on a pregnant woman's body, I don't see how I can force her to keep it, even if I do hope that nobody has to abort for a lack of resources. Having close relatives who are anti-abortion activists, I find it incredibly hard to take seriously their claims of protecting precious life when they are so hostile to every person and animal outside their own closest circles. For them, it is all about gloating that they were never stuck with an unwanted, unusustainable pregnancy and punishing the women who aren't so lucky.
63
Zoe, who can't even understand the other side, you are part of the problem. This is a divisive issue because both sides of the argument have valid points. You can be pro-choice and still sympathize with the pro-life side. Abortion is a very sad thing in any circumstance, but sometimes the right thing (IMO).
14
@ModerateNerd I'm sorry but I can't see any valid points on the pro-life side. What are they again?
10
@ModerateNerd
I'm not sure why abortion is "a very sad thing in any circumstance". Sure, sometimes it might be, but in most cases it's an undramatic, practical decision with no lasting ill effects. The "very sad thing" narrative seems like a right-wing canard.
2
@ModerateNerd A lot of people on that side would prefer that I die than have an abortion and are fine with the idea that women will die due to illegal abortions and from carrying unplanned pregnancies that they don't want. Kind of hard to sympathize with that.
3
Although I share the concern for the well being of a woman who might find herself with an unexpected pregnancy, but to suggest that, as one writer does, "Without the remedy of abortion, it is the woman who suffers physically, emotionally and economically" is to ignore the reality that personal responsibility plays a significant role in the consequences of sex.
The principal biological point, after all, of sex is pregnancy despite bourgeois parlor room games and discussions to the contrary. Equally important, the man involved is not without his legal responsibilities to provide for the child till majority.
It would seem that having sex with one one loves enough to marry and believes would make a good mother or father --depending -- for the child is the best remedy, and excluding shotgun weddings of back in the day, it is time perhaps the postModern American couple began thinking in those terms … once again.
4
@Alice's Restaurant So you would support a law that would require a man to pay child support as soon as a woman presents him with a positive pregnancy test? Do you support the law's prohibition on the abortion of a fetus that will not be born alive (which, in many instances, is the result of a planned and much wanted pregnancy)?
9
@Law Feminist
Not against it, but not sure--could be wrong given the pace of modern medicine--it's possible to positively identify the father before the child is born. But if it is in fact his, time to start helping the mother of his child, to include medical costs of her pregnancy and loss of wages due to same, no question about that.
2
@Alice's Restaurant No contraceptive is 100% effective.
Millions of women in committed relationships have very little say in whether or not to have sex with their partner--it was only a few years ago that marital rape became illegal, after all, and I doubt many men are aware that it is. It is not the woman's fault that she submits in order to prevent him from abandoning her and their children.
Many thousands of women in the US alone wind up with serious medical conditions that will cause devastating harm if an initially yearned-for pregnancy is carried to term. Are you willing to tell a pregnant woman newly diagnosed with cancer that she must forgo treatment just in case the fetus can be brought to term before she dies?
What would you tell a woman forced to carry a brain-dead fetus that still has a flicker of heartbeat?
What would you say to a woman who's getting fired from her job and cannot be home to take care of her children because she's stuck in a hospital until the ectopic pregnancy tearing her body to shreds finally gets septic enough to warrant removal?
I just wish the pregnancy-enforcer folks would show some "personal responsibility" for the disasters they aim to cause.
5
What divides us is the belief by one side that abortion is murder. But considered objectively, abortion is not murder. It is the end of a potential human life, nothing more. As long as a fetus cannot live outside of the mother's womb, then it is not a full human being, only a potential human being, totally dependent on the mother's internal support system, a part of her body like her organs. And therefore, the woman should have the final say about whether she wants to give birth or not. No woman should be forced to bring a child to term. The anti abortion people are basing their stance on a lie.
44
@JS You are absolutely correct. I would only add that we need to change the rhetoric to change people's thinking. Instead of "anti-abortion," perhaps use the more accurate "anti-choice."
8
Fire with fire. Extremism is answered by extremism. The NY law that lit up the Freedom Tower is an example. It was a pre-emptive move planned by extrremists assuming extremism in the courts. Roe in its inception was a move far ahead of the mainstream, and will remain unsettled because of it. The comments here and in every article about abortion rights show extremism. I only had to read a couple of comments before I saw the usual attack that slanders "pro-life is just pro-fetus". It doesn't matter how many crisis pregnancy centers, hospitals, adoption agencies, schools, and social services, food pantries, hospices, and death penalty vigils churches run, someone will claim and it will get posted that pro-lifers only care about fetuses, and don't care at all what happens after birth, and it is about controlling women's bodies. Like clockwork. But extreme. How do sincere people talk to that side?
4
@TD
"Roe in its inception was a move far ahead of the mainstream, and will remain unsettled because of it."
Nonsense. Read the law, Ducky. Roe v. Wade is already a compromise which permits the government to get involved during the second and third trimesters. In my view, Roe v. Wade as is does not do enough to protect the rights of women.
9
@TD I sincerely would like to know the purpose of not allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy at any stage once it is determined that the fetus will not be born alive. Anyone who has been pregnant can tell you how heartbreakingly cruel that fate would be for the woman and has nothing to do with "murder" or anything like that. So if you have an explanation, please, I sincerely would like to hear it.
15
@TD
About the good you think churches do:
Your crisis pregnancy centers lie about their identity and try to manipulate women away from abortion
Your schools preach abstinence (which backfires) and creationism (which is reckless), and protect pedophiles (which is evil)
Your food pantries are nice, but your vigilance against common welfare and progressive economic laws perpetuates the need of them
Your death penalty vigils are an extreme outlier in the larger world of the faithful
With the above, its endorsement of Donald Trump, and its support of extra-legal means of seizing power, the moral authority of the church is gone. Just gone.
8
The Constitution gives all people - citizens and non-citizens - Equal Protection of the law. Yet women of child-bearing years do not have the same protection of the law as others.
Take this situation: A viable human being, let's say, a child, requires a blood donation. No law in this country forces any person, man or woman, to donate as much as a drop of blood to save that viable child's life. Why? Because the law says that all people have bodily autonomy.
Yet women of child-bearing years are being forced to donate blood, tissue, and their uterus to non-viable embryos by these anti-abortion laws. These women are forced to risk their lives and health. No man is forced to do so. No woman of non-child bearing years is force to do so. As such, it is a clear violation of Equal Protection.
For Equal Protection to be satisfied, there must be laws requiring the harvesting of blood, tissue and organs to save the lives of viable beings.
Let's see how the "pro-life" forces take to that idea.
75
@D F This is my sentiment exactly. No court in the land would order a donor match father to provide a portion of his liver against his will in order to save the life of his child.
14
It seems to me that those who are opposed to abortion are avoiding the most basic question. To me that is what does it really mean to be human? If the definition used in these new laws (a fetal heartbeat) was applied to a person who has suffered brain death, taking that persons heart or lungs for transplant would be murder.
What I am trying to say is that saying life begins at conception is not the same as saying that being a human being begins at conception
15
@Richard Frankel
Not a great analogy. Presumably, the person offering their organs for transplantation has signed consent papers to do so. If they have not consented, then it very well may be murder as long as that person is still alive when her/his organs are harvested.
No fetus has ever signed consent papers to be aborted, or to be born, for that matter.
I agree with your larger point -- that a larger and increasingly urgent discussion is needed around the question of what it means to be human. Though even the question about what it means to be "alive" is becoming more complicated.
4
Don't abortion rights fall under very basic religious freedom? My religious doctrine (Jewish) does not hold that a new human life begins at conception, and does not recognize a fetus as having the same status (or, therefore, rights) as a born baby - this is clearly and unambiguously established in Judaic law. So criminalizing abortion on the grounds of defining life at conception is legislating one set of religious beliefs over another. It seems like that's not coming up up enough in the debates.
111
@Daniella I think that is a reasonable and sound position. But if the law is facially neutral, meaning it is not targeting a specific religion, then I don't believe it would hold up in court.
2
@Daniella the only religious freedom they recognize is their freedom to impose their belief systems on the rest of us.
14
@Daniella. Ya got that right, Daniella. I believe the original statement can be found in Exodus XX, not sure of the verse. Too bad it doesn’t mean a darn thing to the Catholics on the SC. They don’t believe in diversity or the Constitution or stare decisis.
3
Why is it that, because I believe in a woman's right to choose , no matter how she became pregnant, I am being labeled anti-life? The truth is that NO ONE likes abortion, but the minute you pass a law that requires an "official" to know what is going on in my doctor's office, I become very enraged. The nerve of a bunch of men telling me or, worse, telling someone who was raped, that they HAVE to bring a pregnancy to term is simply beyond comprehension. Has anyone really thought through the enforcement tactics necessary for the Alabama or Georgia law to work? I totally agree with the previous comment that the men responsible should indeed be forced to care for the child and be held responsible. The stupidity and ignorance evident in the the majority of legislatures that have passed these restrictive laws is outrageous.
44
@Cecilia toss out the terms "pro-life" and "anti-life," they are meaningless propaganda, but apparently wielded with some effectiveness by the anti abortion side. The power of language, no matter how inaccurate. I can't believe journalists actually still use the term "pro-life" to describe anti abortion activists.
3
This is not the most restrictive abortion legislation in decades, it is the most restrictive in American history and almost the most restrictive in the world. It is more than medieval, it is prehistoric and can only be conceived of in the most authoritarian theological cultures. Alabama has long reveled in its bottom feeder reputation as one of the most backward states (it fights for this honor with Mississippi) in the country and this legislation finally puts it in the lead. It is not so much that the legislation is unamerican and undemocratic, it is the fact that it is a farce. The government of Alabama cares so little about the health of its female citizens that it has cavalierly condemned hundreds of its women to investigation, arrest, jail, and death for the crime of having reproductive organs that do not work the way the all male legislators understand. The legislators are playing a game, their women will bleed for it. At some point the misuse of power becomes a crime in itself and I think Alabama has reached that point. In some future just society each of these legislators would find themselves in orange jump suits begging a woman judge for mercy. I hope she remembers this day and gives them the justice they deserve.
50
@E
Give moderates and independents some credit; they understand the nature of the internet. An online comment posted by someone calling himself Bobo The Clown is not going to swing their votes.
1
What if? What if 50-60-100 years ago there was no initiation of the argument now called "Pro-life vs. Pro-choice"? What if instead every hour of effort, every dollar spent fighting for one side or the other had been spent differently? What if all the immense supply of resources had been invested in eliminating unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies?
What would it be like now? How many abortions would be needed? How many abortions would have been prevented?
When will we ever learn?
12
My reaction to the appalling anti-abortion bills was to double my monthly contribution to Planned Parenthood and start one to NARAL. I'm lucky enough to live in a blue state where women's rights are honored and respected. And remember the old saying, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Still true.
34
@Carole O
Good idea, thanks I'll join you in making additional donations to PP.
5
Andrew Zhang: "We support the existence of human lives, not seeing a baby’s chance of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness being wiped away without knowing."
What about the mother's chance of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, especially in case of rape or incest? Even if a law like this makes an exception in case of risk to the mother's health during pregnancy, how easy will it be to find a medical provider willing to take the risk of a jail sentence to provide the abortion? It is interesting that many of the states pursuing this type of legislation, like Alabama, also refused to expand Medicaid and have some of the poorest records on health outcomes, rates of poverty and education in the country. I will believe those who say they are concerned about "the baby’s chance of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" when I see them working as hard to provide healthcare for ALL children, address income inequality and improve access to healthcare as they do to push these anti-abortion measures. Of course that's hard slow work and not as emotional and headline grabbing.
76
Vote Democrat and things like this will not happen. Alabama has a Republican trifecta: all three houses of government are controlled by their party. The House has 77 Republicans and 28 Democrats. The Senate has 27 Republicans and 8 Democrats. Two Senate Republicans chose to abstain from this vote - which is perhaps a small profile in courage as all other Republicans voted in favor. The governor, a female Republican, also voted in favor. As with the President of this country, rank and file Republicans appear to have lost their moral and ethical compass. The only thing to do is vote them out of office whenever there is a chance.
38
@MC
And, Governor Kemp stole the election using his position to refuse the vote to likely hundreds of thousands of voters.
3
How is it that there is not a section in this article about how these laws overwhelmingly disadvantage people in the lower income portions of society?
People of relative affluence will still get abortions, even if it means leaving a state / region to do so; even if it costs thousands, or tens-of thousands. Poor and lower-middle-class people (who are also the most likely to become "unwantendly" pregnant) will not be able to make similar arrangements.
These laws run a little too close to class warfare, in my opinion.
54
@Chris R. Exactly. Women of financial means will always get abortions. Poor women will be forced to carry fetuses against their will or risk their health and freedom to obtain illegal abortions. Anti-abortion activists seem unable to consider the problem from the point of view of a woman who desperately does not want to be pregnant -- because she is young, poor, a rape victim, has a goal she has been working hard for that is not compatible with pregnancy, is carrying a fetus that is not viable and/or will require a lifetime of medical care, etc. Of the 4 women I know who have had abortions, 3 were pro-life . . . until they discovered they were pregnant and desperately did not want to be. My guess is that many "pro-lifers" in Alabama would take their own 12 or 13-year-old daughter out of state for an abortion. They don't realize they are hypocrites because they lack the empathy to imagine themselves in the situation.
14
"We should unite to continue to drive the numbers down, both Democrats and Republicans"
That is impossible to do while the Republican's primary objective, maybe their only objective, is to criminalize and punish the act of abortion; an act that will continue, as it did before Roe v. Wade, whether or not it is legal.
26
I had an abortion. I was not raped, I was not a child. My partner was also responsible for the making of that life, and he stepped aside and supported me, would have supported me, regardless of my decision.
It was 1989. I was in the middle of finishing an undergraduate degree, and had ambitions to go to grad school. Had I chosen to carry the child to term, I would have dropped out of school, we would have had to move to a larger and less affordable housing situation, and I would never have finished my degree. I knew this.
I chose to terminate the pregnancy. I was roughly 8 weeks pregnant. I have never regretted that decision. I know have a son who is 19, and he was born at a different time of my life. I nursed him while starting grad school, teaching multiple classes while taking classes, and I don't regret him, either.
My body, my choice. I am so grateful that I had access to a resource that was professional, kind, and affordable in my own city. I can't imagine what other women have to endure.
199
@Hroswitha
Thank you for your courageous witness.
12
@Hroswitha Me, too.
1
@Hroswitha
Wake up - your Red State of Iowa is probably next in forcing women to endure what is now occurring in the other Red States on restricting access - it's contagious and it spreads.
2
For the love of God, calm down. Google and read ROE! The trimester logic is used. Viability ignites the State’s interest in regulation. Modern genetic testing enables a woman to know very early on if the baby is severely ill. Baseline: the procedure should be absolute prior to viability. Thereafter, the State has an interest. If we want part of ROE, we have to embrace it all.
5
@Mary Louise
I agree completely. I suspect very few people have actually read the decision. Of course, it would be nice if the state would pass laws that reflect a compelling interest in the life of the child.
2
@Mary Louise Not all women have easy access to medical treatment and testing. Some problems aren't found from genetic testing.
These more recent laws from Alabama and Georgia do not follow Roe in the least. No trimesters or viability are considered.
5
@Mary Louise I don't know who is "we" in your last sentence, but neither side has to accept Roe as the final word (and it's not, as Planned Parenthood v. Casey changed the analysis somewhat).
To your substantive point, modern genetic testing won't capture every instance of whether a fetus will develop abnormally. Some just don't, and that's often not discovered until the 20-week scan. Not every pregnant person is able to get the scan before 22 weeks (thanks, insurance companies!). Some pregnant people live hundreds of miles from a doctor who can perform the procedure (as many rural hospitals have been shuttered, again, because of profit concerns).
"Viability" is extremely amorphous, given that some babies born at 22 weeks may survive childbirth but die within days or weeks, or live with extreme developmental delays. Some babies born at 33 weeks have underdeveloped lungs, heart problems, and cannot nurse.
Ginsburg, perhaps the most ardent defender of Roe on the Court, has pointed out that it is not the best decision from a number of perspectives. Roe is not the end-all, be-all. A person's right to bodily autonomy is.
3
I think it’s important to start by looking at American opinion. Gallup polling shows 48 percent of Americans consider themselves pro-choice while 48 percent of Americans consider themselves pro-life. Regardless of what I might think or you might think, perhaps pro-choice supporters, rather than stand in the corner, need to get out and attempt to persuade. Our way or the highway is a failed political stance.
5
@Ralph braseth I agree wholeheartedly with your stance, but I guess I see it the exact opposite. Contradiction I know, but allow me to explain:
Pro-choice includes significant caveats mandated by States. I've never heard a pro-choice argument which allowed carte blanche abortions. Pro-life, however, is 100% no abortion, no exceptions. The current laws being passed prove as much. Under the new legislation a pedophile can rape a pre-teen who would be forced to give birth, and anyone who attempted to provide an abortion would be given a stricter prison sentence than the rapist.
Meanwhile pro-choice supporters are requesting reasonable access to medical facilities to perform safe abortions with states varying the timeframe allowed for these abortions, and increasingly access to facilities. So yes, the our way or the highway mentality has failed, but only the pro-life side has offered a maximalist, no room for compromise stance.
The compromise would be access to medical facilities with the ability to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus could survive outside of the womb, but when pro choice folks equate that to slitting a toddlers throat, there isn't much wiggle room in the debate.
40
@Ralph braseth Good point. I always have to laugh when I see the pro-choice comments that end with "Period," "End of discussion," and so forth. No one can squelch this discussion. It's always going to be too important to people.
2
@Mash
Roe v. Wade is the compromise. The anti-abortion people are the ones who are messing with settled law because they don't like women having agency over their own lives.
12
There is only one kind of "pro-life" view that I can respect, and that is the "seamless" pro-life faction, the people who also reject war, unfettered gun rights, and capital punishment and support a more generous social safety net.
The rest of the "pro-life" people that I have met fall into one of three categories:
1. They manifest the type of cheap sentimentality that one sometimes sees on right-wingers' Facebook pages (soft-focus pictures of babies, animals, and Jesus, along with memes promoting gun worship, war, and cesspool-level bigotry).
2. They see unwanted pregnancy as just punishment for women who have sex outside of marriage, and the thought of such women "getting off scot-free" angers them. This isn't only a male attitude. A lot of older women whose only sex education was "don't do it" fall into this category.
3. They are white (or sometimes black) nationalists who worry that their particular ethnic group isn't having enough babies.
Of course, some combine all three attitudes.
I'd say that anyone who really wants to reduce the number of abortions needs to stop slut-shaming women who are pregnant outside marriage, provide better social support for women who decide to give birth, promote better sex education for young people, including contraception, and understand the wrenching decisions that some women have to make.
190
@Pdxtran Thank you so much for cutting through the noise and getting to the heart of the issue. This is 100% spot-on.
27
@Pdxtran
I taught in a law school. One of my students dropped by my office to ask a question. His bag had several anti-abortion stickers on it. I asked him if his pro-life position extended to opposing war and the death penalty. We discussed it a bit. A month later he dropped by again and thanked me for our discussion and wanted me to know that he was now a pacifist and opposed the death penalty. Periodically when there is an execution in our state the TV crews go to the prison and cover the event and include the protesters. My former student is regularly there. I have come to respect him greatly.
26
@Pdxtran
Good analysis, but you forget that there is no "pro-life" position at all. It is just one of a set of brain washing "wedge issues" dreamed up by conservative politicians and indoctrinated on a gullible public by 24/7 propaganda stations. No pro-life person really believes what they are saying, they are all walking unconscious in a dream world. Rather than making logical arguments that their dreams are not real we need to break the machine that is brainwashing them. Once they wake up you will win.
14
And it is all based upon a lie. The Bible, that big book of superstition and mythology, clearly states that babies are only viable when they take breath and that abortion is not murder. Evangelicals use to believe this until they were propagandized by fat cat Republicans seeking a wedge issue for political gain. Now they are amnesiac.
89
@Chuck Burton
Not true. Nowhere in the New Testament does it state or imply that abortion is not a gravely sinful destruction of human life.
If you should have sincere interest in this subject, you can start your edification by consulting the Didache, an ancient venerable Christian work that clearly lays out the normative, early Christian doctrines that are firmly against abortion and contraception.
2
@Rob "Nowhere in the New Testament does it state or imply that abortion is not a gravely sinful destruction of human life."
Reading between the lines of your claim about what the New Testament doesn't say, I take this to mean that it must be in the Old Testament and the New Testament says nothing about it either way. Would that be correct?
6
@Rob Could you point to the Bible passage where Jesus says abortion must be 100% illegal?
3
If you believe the people who call themselves "pro-life" have any good will towards women, you believe Donald Trump has good will towards Muslims.
47
@camorrista I'm not pro-life, but I am also not going to put all pro-lifers into the same "ill will towards women" category.
Some? Absolutely. But I also know pro-lifers who simply believe fetus (and even zygot) is life, and therefore needs protection. Are some of these people hypocritcal? sure. But some are just dealing with conflicting values and priorities.
I stand for autonomy. Women have this inherently, and it is absolutely, and unjustly infringed upon with certain policies, etc. I don't know when or where life begins (most people with a stance on this point seem to pick awfully convenient points to support their preferred side), but once it has then that life ALSO has an inherent right to Life (hopefully along with liberty and pursuit of happiness). I am against killing for convenience. But I also acknowledge that at some stage in the spectrum of gestation, life is not 'viable' yet, and therefore it's not killing.
In other words, this is not a black and white choice that can be made with a simple yes or no that automatically applies to all people and all scenarios. There are competing values, factors and issues. A woman's autonomy should be supreme in this issue. But we also need to acknowledge that at some point aborting is wrong (e.g., 39 weeks pregnant with a healthy, viable life in the womb).
I don't see an easy way to do more than incrementally improve upon Roe v. Wade.
2
This is a deeply personal issue and it is informed unconsciously by our upbringing. Many of us had an instinctive revulsion (sorry, but it's true!) the first time we realized abortions were widely performed or more particularly when a woman of our acquaintance had one. However, a more mature and considered reaction follows when one accounts for and confronts the fact that our instinctive reaction is based purely on prejudice. If we stop and think about the woman's situation and prospects, I believe we come to our senses and decide to leave it to her.
10
@Tom
This issue is not deeply personal or unconscious, it is the programmed result of national brainwashing by the conservative elite who have focused on a set of "wedge issues" to divide and conquer the electorate. The pro-life people are speaking the words programmed into them by 24/7 national propaganda channels. If the elites wanted them to believe in UFO's they would. If they wanted them to paint themselves purple and walk around with no clothes on they would do that as well and their conviction then would be no less than their conviction now. We need to pity the brainwashed and work to break the machine that brainwashes them because brainwashing is fundamentally opposed to the democratic process.
21
@Tom Not for me. First time I heard about abortion I was in elementary school and immediately thought that, although it sounded like a terrible procedure, ultimately it should be up to the pregnant woman.
4
The fact is that it doesn't matter in OUR United States of America what anyone believes about when life starts and what control women have over their own bodies and lives.
OUR U.S. Constitution REQUIRES Separation of Church and State. That means every single person can believe what they want - without government interference - and that they must not try to force or legislate their ideas and opinions on the rest of us.
The catholic church is behind the supposed "pro-life" movement. They apparently believe - as do the mormon, evangleical and some other religious organizations - that they are above the law. They are not.
It is time to take away their tax-free status and all the government contracts WE THE PEOPLE fund and allow them to use to enrich themsleves and take back the wealth and property they have amassed. They are definitely for-proift organizations and must be put on the stock exchanges, regulated and taxed to the fullest extent.
Meantime, Socially Conscious Women and men must DEMAND that the Equal Rights Amendment be passed without delay to stop these preposterous attacks on the inalineable rights of women and girls.
99
@njglea I think Catholic church held more sway on this topic in the past than they do now. I would argue that it has staying power at this stage because it's a convenient wedge issue.
15
What’s to talk about ??? Women are the owners of their Bodies, or Women are just property. And we know just who the Property
Propagandists are : the GOP.
VOTE in 2020, while we still can.
119
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Well said.
3
Litote raises a good point. Why aren't women able to file for damages against men for unwanted pregnancy? There must be some smart attorney out there who can figure out the legal issues.
125
@Liz Bello
There are a lot of women attorneys out there, what are they waiting for?
4
@Liz Bello
There is no law that stops a woman from suing her rapist, despite the popular Facebook meme. That being said, first, she has to know who he is, prove that he is the father, face him in a civil trial, hope he has money, chase him for child support, and, in short, tie her life up with someone who caused her pain.
It is hard enough to get child support from someone who is presumed to be the father of your child. From someone who might be a stranger, it is a nightmare.
7
@Liz Bello In most states, women don't need to sue. Statutes on the books will require the father of the child to pay. If he fails to pay, it can be both a criminal or civil issue in court.
Happens every day.
1
I wonder how those who crafted such ignorant laws would react to the government legally forcing people to give up "spare" organs to save the lives of those who need, say, kidney or liver transplants? Requiring a women to be pregnant, regardless of the impact it has on her body (including death), is really the same thing: requiring a person to submit their organs to judicial control in the service of keeping someone else alive.
159
@Multimodalmama
I have made that exact point. People cannot even be forced to donate a pint of blood to save a viable human life, but woman must donate much, much more to support a non-viable cell mass!
20
@Multimodalmama Sounds like you should start writing a dis-topian novel.
1