First printed on AOL’s PoliticsDaily.com
The political debate on abortion has for several decades focused on the wrong moral question: Does life begin at conception? Those who believe it does, oppose abortion. Those who don’t, or think the question is unanswerable, believe the pregnant woman should make that choice.
Yet consider this statistical couplet. According to a 2007 survey commissioned by a progressive think tank called Third Way, 69 percent of Americans believe abortion is the “taking of a human life,” but 72 percent believe it should be legal.
Let that soak in. Most people think abortion is taking a human life and yet favor the procedure being legal. How grotesque! Are we Americans utterly immoral?
Actually, what the data proclaim is something that politicians and activists can’t: Most Americans believe there are gradations of life. Some living things are more alive than others, and so the later in the pregnancy it gets, the more uncomfortable people become with the idea of ending it. But in reality they believe both that a life stirs very early on and that a one-week-old embryo is more “killable” than a nine-month-old fetus. For them, determining whether “life” begins at conception really doesn’t determine anything.
A handful of surveys get at this. According to a 2003 Gallup poll, 29 percent of the people surveyed believed abortion should be illegal in the first three months of pregnancy, 68 percent thought it should be illegal in the second trimester, and 84 percent in the third trimester.
Many women who have had abortions wished they could have the procedure earlier. In a 2006 survey of 1,209 abortion patients by the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-choice but widely respected nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues), 58 percent said they would have preferred to have done it earlier–including 91 percent of those who had abortions in their second.
Surely part of the reason for this preference is that later abortions are more complicated, dangerous and expensive. But that’s not all. Consider the reasons offered to researchers in that study by this 21-year-old, low-income woman:
“I do [wish I had had the abortion earlier] because when I came here last Friday and they told me, like, ‘You’re in your second trimester,’ and I’m like…’Goodness, now what am I going to do?’ Because I didn’t want to go into my second trimester, because it’s like, basically, really becoming a baby, you know. I just really didn’t want to do it that late.”
She did have the abortion. Her failure to get the abortion right away didn’t lead her to carry the pregnancy to term but rather to end it-uncomfortably-when her fetus was, in her own eyes, “basically, really becoming a baby.”
The basic hunch that what’s growing in the womb becomes more human as days roll by comports with what we know, or think we know, about human development. An embryo is a clump of undifferentiated cells. At week six, the heart is no bigger than a poppy seed but has begun beating. At 12 weeks, the fetus is just 2.5 inches long, but can wiggle toes and fingers; the brain is developing. At week 20, the fetus is exercising its lungs. At 22 weeks, some babies could survive if delivered prematurely. And any time in the third trimester, they’re practicing breathing, listening and reacting to stimuli, doing many things a post-birth baby does but doing it indoors instead of out.
This belief that life within the womb is on a continuum is not explicitly reflected in the political debates about abortion. We debate whether we should have parental notification–not when we should have it. We question politicians on whether they’d provide government funding for abortion, not ever asking whether subsidies should be provided for early abortions but not late.
The debate has evolved that way in part because of the fundamentally religious nature of the pro-life activist position. The essential point about the position of pro-life activists– including the Catholic Church and conservative evangelicals–is not that they believe “life” begins at conception. It’s that they believe a life that God creates on Day One is morally equivalent to a life at month one or month nine or 18 years. “The whole point of pro-life reasoning,” says Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, “is to encourage people toward intellectual, ethical and scientific consistency: A life is a life, no matter how small.”
Meanwhile, many pro-choice leaders have embraced a mirror image of this approach. The woman has a right to choose, whether the pregnancy is in its first day, first month or ninth month.
Even the moderate new coalition emphasizing “abortion reduction” doesn’t fully operate from the same premise as most Americans. President Obama and a collection of religious Democrats have emphasized the need to reduce unintended pregnancies and the number of abortions, not the timing.
Instead, an abortion policy matching the values implicit in the polls would focus less on rights or numbers and more on timing. Success would be measured on the basis of moving abortions earlier in the gestational cycle–even if that conceivably means more overall abortions. It would be not about whether, how or how many, but when. Not “safe, legal and rare” as Bill Clinton once said, but “safe, legal and early.”
Do Pro-Life Policies Lead to Later Abortions?
Pro-lifers work diligently to reduce the number of abortions through a variety of means. But what’s never acknowledged is that some policies they advocate actually push abortions later into the cycle, ensuring that fetuses have more time to develop–at which point they’re sometimes aborted.
For instance, most pro-lifers oppose “emergency contraception,” or Plan B. These pills are taken after intercourse when someone fears she might get pregnant. But many women who don’t take emergency contraception will end up getting regular medical abortions later on. At least one study by the Guttmacher Institute found that in the year 2000, emergency contraception in the U.S. prevented 50,000 medical abortions.
Or take RU-486, also known as mifepristone. Pro-lifers oppose this because it is an abortifacient, causing an embryo to abort soon after fertilization. But in Europe, where RU-486 is more widely available, studies showed its proliferation prompted an increase in the proportion of early abortions compared with later abortions.
Parental notification also sounds reasonable if your goal is reducing the overall number of abortions. But these policies may have a secondary effect: increasing the number of abortions that happen later.
The 2006 Guttmacher survey found that among women who said they wished they could have had their abortions earlier, the most common reason they cited for delay was that it took a long time to make arrangements. Therefore, efforts to reduce the number of abortion clinics, cut off government aid to women who want abortions, or otherwise delay the decision may reduce the number of overall abortions but also make it more likely that those abortions that do occur will happen later. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, a requirement in Mississippi that a woman wait 24 hours between realizing she’s pregnant and an abortion decision led to both a decline in the overall number of abortions and a rise in abortions performed after 12 weeks.
If a one day old is morally equivalent to a nine month old, then strategies of delay make great moral sense. Indeed, they figure, women who wait may come to think of the fetus as more human–a key reason why pro-life forces are pushing for greater use of ultrasound. And if a woman delays decision-making but ends up still having an abortion, there’s no additional moral harm; a murder occurred a few months later than it would have, but as part of a larger strategy to reduce the overall number. But if you believe that the later an abortion happens, the more fully human the fetus has become then a strategy of delay is immoral.
Have Pro-Choicers Abandoned the True Spirit of Roe?
Rhetoric from both sides has led to the impression that Roe v. Wade gave universal and sweeping rights to abortion up to birth. It didn’t. It gave an inviolable legal right to abortion in the first trimester, allowed for certain restrictions in the second trimester, and actually allowed states to ban abortion in the third trimester.
“Appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses,” Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. “With this we do not agree.”
In that sense, Roe v. Wade would seem to embrace the life-on-a-continuum view. But over time, pro-choice activists have come to view the right to choose as an unfettered right and become fearful that any regulation will lead to more restriction. They often successfully oppose regulation of even third trimester abortions, whether “partial birth abortion” or the “born alive” abortions that became notorious during the recent presidential campaign after President Obama’s position on the issue became the subject of a controversy.
Ironically, European countries–though more liberal on many social issues–often couple their “pro choice” policies with limits tied to gestational period. France, Germany and Denmark allow abortions up to 12 weeks; major restrictions are imposed after that. The United Kingdom and Finland put limits after 24 weeks, Sweden after 18 weeks.
In fairness, many pro-choice advocates would agree that earlier is better, but still argue that making the moral judgment calls about abortion, even in the later months, should always be left up to the woman. But that was not the principle of Roe vs. Wade, which argued that a woman’s control over her body became less and less absolute as the clock ticked.
What about those currently advocating for a “common ground” approach to abortion?
President Obama has called for reducing the “need for abortion” and Vice President Joe Biden said their policies would “reduce considerably the amount of abortions.”
Some of the approaches Obama and his religious allies promote–birth control, family planning, economic support for pregnant women and policies to promote adoption–could reduce abortions. But focusing on the number of abortions rather than the timing, may sometimes take them down the wrong policy track.
For instance, abortion reducers would likely oppose making RU-486 readily available on the grounds that it could lead to a dramatic growth in what is technically an abortion. But if the goal is have fewer late abortions, then promoting RU-486 makes great moral sense.
A New Agenda
What else would a “safe, legal and early” agenda include?
First, it would aggressively promote not only barrier method birth control, but also emergency contraception. Women would be able to easily buy Plan B at the drug store just as they can buy condoms. Even if one accepts the (disputed) notion that Plan B may sometimes cause abortions, for most people that’s a risk well worth taking to reduce the number of medical abortions later in the cycle.
Government funding would no longer be driven by either pro-life or pro-choice activist sensibilities. Instead, Medicaid funding would be generous for first trimester abortions, minimal for second trimesters, and non-existent for the third.
Same with parental notification. Teens could get abortions on their own in the first trimester and require notification in the third.
Late abortions are already quite rare. (Only 1.5 percent of abortions occur after the 21st week and less than .5 percent after the 24th week). But this approach would virtually eliminate third trimester abortions, including “partial birth” and “born alive” procedures, providing exceptions only when the life of the mother is genuinely in jeopardy. For women who decided late in pregnancy that they didn’t want to raise the child, society would offer a generous set of incentives to put the baby up for adoption – full health care coverage and credits not only for the family adopting but the woman carrying the baby to term.
By pushing toward earlier abortions, policy could indirectly limit one of the most ethically problematic types of abortions: those done to select for factors like gender or fetal abnormalities. It’s difficult to find out many characteristics of the child if it’s being aborted in the first week. These policies would therefore push away from eugenically oriented abortions.
All in all, birth control would be more available, early abortions would be easier and might increase, second trimester abortions would decline and third trimester abortions would virtually disappear. There would be more abortions before the baby’s heart starts beating, fewer after.
My Fantasy of a Less Toxic Abortion Debate
In my fantasy world, one more thing would happen. Some of the toxins would be drained from the abortion debate. It’s often said by people in the middle, like myself, that those on the “extremes” are unreasonable or irrational. I disagree. As Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet, the leading multifaith spirituality site, I’ve had the privilege of spending much time with pro life and pro choice activists. My experience has been that pro-life and pro-choice activists are usually rigorously logical and morally consistent. They just operate from different premises–and everything else flows rationally and compassionately from those positions.
My fantasy is that if the political system embraced the safe-legal-early doctrine, a few activists might even accept the legitimacy of part of their opponents’ argument. Pro-choicers who accepted this framework would be implicitly conceding that, for at least part of the pregnancy, there’s a “baby” in the womb–and the woman’s right to terminate that life is neither absolute nor nine months in duration. With early abortions not only legal but easier, pro-choice activists could then have the confidence to accept what many of them have publicly avoided but privately wanted: reasonable, tightly written prohibitions on third trimester abortions while genuinely protecting the life of the mother.
Open minded pro-lifers would take note of these concessions from their “enemies,” viewing them as a sign that these pro-choicers–far from being hideous baby killers–fully embrace a moral dimension to the abortion decision.
Meanwhile, any pro-lifers who accept this framework would be making a concession, too. They’d be saying, in effect, that if the other side can concede that something precious is alive – and becoming more alive with each day – then they could, in turn, acknowledge that reasonable people, of different faiths, can disagree about when exactly that baby becomes alive enough to have legal rights.
Open minded pro-choicers would take note of these concessions, feeling less condemned and more respected.
And in the great likelihood that my fantasy turns out to be just that, and most activists concede nothing, at least something else would have happened: the large majority who view life within the womb as on a continuum would now set the terms of the debate.
The questions would change. The focus would be not “when does life begin?” but “what steps will you to take to make early abortions easier and later abortions harder?” Insurance companies and government policy makers would examine financial incentives not only in terms of rights but timing. Researchers – instead of studying whether state abortion restrictions reduce the numbers of abortions – would look at whether government policies make abortions earlier or later.
Politically, the battle would shift away from the third trimester (pro-lifers having largely won) and the first trimester (pro-choicers having largely won) and toward the second trimester – what most Americans view as the true moral gray zone. Both sides could use a mix of science, libertarian philosophy and theology to argue for more, or fewer, restrictions during this period.
And women who felt that they must have abortions would encounter a health care system that helps them do what many of them wanted all along: to have their abortion as early as possible.
First printed from AOL’s PoliticsDaily.
posted April 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Reasonable.
I recuse myself from these discussions on the grounds that I, a man am married to a man and thus not competent to tell a woman what to do with her body.
Personally, I’d like to see contraception, including Plan B freely available and the State offer benfits to a woman who decides to carry a baby to term and then either permit adoption or decides tokeep the child.
But, as I said – I have no standing.
Just a deep weariness of these endless hate-filled, spiteful culture wars.
posted April 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I find the gradations of life very helpful. Personally, I don’t see how anyone can argue with “Life begins at conception”. It obviously does, as a biological issue. (In fact, there is life before conception, too!) But it’s life of a generic kind — if you look at it, you can’t distinguish it from life of many other species.
The trouble many “pro-life” people will have with this is that you are setting the issue up as a gray area. No one rings a bell when you become “human.” Many people want to think in terms of black and white absolutes, and I fear you will never convince them.
posted April 27, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Unless we abandon the principle of secular government here, too (we already did in permitting the hateful conservative Christians to declare homosexuals and transgendered second-class citizens), we are going to have to live with compromise.
Personally, I think the demand of the Christian right-wing on this that we do not teach our children about sex, that we provide no contraception and that we make abortion illegal while refusing funding for unwed mothers is one reason the pro-choice side is winning.
This conflict can not end, but we need to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Thanks to the dictatorship of the majority-imposed morality on the US the last eight years, we got to see whether the right-wing Christian approach reduced unwed pregnancy or abortion.
It did not.
It did not even reduce pre-marital sex.
Time for those intolerant absolutists to step aside and let reasonable people try those solutions which we have found to work in Europe:
1) Thorough education in anatomy and sexual relations with a strong focus on seeing one’s individual worth as not defined through sex or teen-pregnancy.
2)Free contraception, Plan B availability.
3) Abortion after the first trimester only if the mother’s life is in danger (in Germany, for instance, Steven is not quite right – a woman must present a medical reason as to why the pregnancy would be directly harmful, it is not a right.)
Our abortion and out-of-wedlock as well as teen pregnancies are lower than yours.
posted April 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I see many reasons to explore compromise here, but I fear that they will not get any traction in the greater political realm. Both parties have too much to lose if they give in towards the middle ground. The GOP sees the social conservatives as their base to activate every election cycle, and the Democrats see social liberals as their base to use in a similar way.
I have to wonder if an effective way of presenting this might be to confront conservatives with the concept via their general support of the death penalty. We know that there is a high probability that innocent people have been executed over the years, yet in spite of that support for the death penalty remains generally strong among social conservatives. In this issue they seem quite willing to sacrifice innocent life for what they see as a broader purpose.
posted April 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I was particularly pleased to read the argument and as a cultural liberal who wholeheartedly subscribes to the nuanced “life is a continuum” analysis which, as your colleague pointed out, is used to a certain extent in Europe. I would urge my representatives to sign onto legislation that encourages earlier abortions. Personally, I believe life of any significance begins at the moment of sentience which I guess is debatable but in all likelihood it is acquired over a period of time (probably dependent upon the nervous system’s development though how much growth is required is debatable). Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court should revise its abortion jurisprudence so that it weighs the interests of life and choice, with the burden of proof falling on the life side in the earlier stages of development and shifting in the later stages of life. Why not use the trimester system in doing that?
(a) uphold the woman’s right to have an abortion if performed within the first trimester
(b) uphold the third trimester fetal being’s due process & equal protection right to life.
(c) and let the states decide what happens in the 2nd trimester.
posted April 27, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Fetuses are live human persons, but if one is located inside my body, then I’m entitled to kill it anyway.
If all the people in the world–innocent and guilty, unborn and already-born, great and small, rich and poor, smart and stupid–were assembled somewhere inside my body, then I’d be entitled to holocaust ‘em. That’s part of the meaning of the word “my” in the phrase “my body”.
posted April 28, 2009 at 5:14 am
SoMG,
Try looking at it this way. Your side had the political power throughout this century until January 22. You had great political strength (especially after knee-capping Clinton) for most of the end of the 20th century.
And you accomplished absolutely nothing in reducing the number of abortions with your approach.
Nothing.
Maybe, after nearly forty years of complete, total failure to achieve your goal it is time to start searching for ways together with us to reduce abortion.
No, you we won’t give you everything you want. But isn’t it better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to see an abortion?
Over at crunchycon nearly the entire discussion on this suggestion from Steven is way over the top in hatred, nastiness and attacks. I am biting my tongue here in writing to you, trying very hard not to contribute to this discussion ending up that way. If I have failed, please don’t just jab back – let’ see if we can’t find a solution.
posted April 28, 2009 at 7:28 am
Thank you, Mr. Waldman, for a sane and sensible essay. Your thoughts articulate and expand much of my own thinking on this difficult topic, and outline the beginnings of a third way.
Many fertilized eggs don’t even implant in the uterine wall successfully and the vast majority of miscarriages occur in the first term. I have always had a gut feeling that abortion during this time frame is qualitatively different from a 2nd or 3rd term abortion.
Your thinking is very helpful to me–thank you.
posted April 28, 2009 at 8:03 am
“69 percent of Americans believe abortion is the “taking of a human life,” but 72 percent believe it should be legal. ”
Continuum of life is one interpretation and a likely one for many.
But there is another — perhaps some significant minority of the 69% realize that they are making a religious judgment when they assert the truth of the proposition …. and as Americans are unwilling to use to force of law to constrain their fellow citizens to act in accordance with a religious understanding that is not their own.
That is, personally, my problem with what I perceive to be a majority of the pro-life movement — that they appear to be willing to use the law to force their religious beliefs on unbelievers. To the extent that this is true it is not, I believe, in accordance with the precepts that have made this country one of the most religious in the world. For forced adherence is counterproductive.
I would call on all, as Americans, to examine this idea … and determine what truth there may be in it … and act on that truth.
I’m not sure if this adds to your argument or merely hardens the lines … I hope the former.
posted April 28, 2009 at 12:51 pm
One factor that will get in the way of your fantasy coming true is that for many people on both sides, the abortion debate isn’t solely or even principally about “life.” It is about women–what is their “true nature,” what social roles should be open to them, how much control they should be able to exercise over their reproductive lives, how much they should be permitted to defy tradition and live as they choose.
posted April 28, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Thanks for this. Well done.
posted April 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I can’t speak for others, but I know that I’m one of those people that the statistics describe. For me, I believe that it’s a terrible evil that nonetheless must be legal for two reasons, mainly about rule-of-law. First, a restriction on it would be completely impossible to police in any meaningful sense; second, an attempt to seriously enforce such a restriction would lead to an extremely bad place for the country. To take one example, if a woman were to take a mild poison to kill a first-trimester child, how would anyone know? If you can’t police a law, it’s a bad law. On the second point, there’s a list of foods to avoid during pregnancy that’s two miles long. Do we start checking to see if someone is pregnant before we sell them a papaya? Do we start investigating reported miscarriages as potential Involuntary Manslaughter crime scenes? If we don’t, we’ll have the same sort of dynamic as during alcohol prohibition – a few doctors who are willing to look the other way (for a small fee) and sign the form saying it was a natural death. Do we really want that choice – treating grieving women as murderers, or enabling yet another illegal industry?
posted April 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“The essential point about the position of pro-life activists– including the Catholic Church and conservative evangelicals–is not that they believe “life” begins at conception. It’s that they believe a life that God creates on Day One is morally equivalent to a life at month one or month nine or 18 years.”
Not true. Pro-life activists say that the life of an early embryo is morally equivalent to an 18-year old, but they don’t really believe it. If they truly believed it, they would insist that any woman who has an abortion, any doctor who performs an abortion, and any person who conspires with them to perform an abortion (to include clinic staff, anyone who drives or accompanies a woman to a clinic, a husband/boyfriend who pays for the abortion, etc.) be prosecuted for first degree murder. Except for radical fringe elements, they don’t think that abortion should be treated like first degree murder.
Because they don’t view the appropriate punishment as the same, they don’t really see the victims as the same.
I say this as someone who used to be active in the pro-life movement, but has since come to believe that early to mid-term abortions should be left to the moral judgment of the woman who bears the burden of the pregnancy.
posted April 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Mr. Waldman, I relish your reasonable tone, but take exception with your thought that the people of the extremes are not unreasonable or irrational. My former physician, Dr. Elizabeth Newhall, has received death threats and was on the kill-list of an organization that killed and attempted to kill abortion providers. I find that to be extremely unreasonable and irrational. I hope that you simply were not thinking of such cases when you made your statement.
Also, please consider: most folks do not think logically or rationally about important issues. They begin with gut feelings and cognitive biases, and deliberately seek out support for whatever they already feel. It’s human nature, and one of the reasons good people disagree. We use language with a high emotion index that throws off our ability to reason.
To be specific: I know that I’ve had very late, heavy periods that were rejected pregnancies. It’s a natural part of biology (my husband and I had incompatible blood types) and no cause for mourning. But I also know the difference between a zygote and a fetus, and I know the difference between differentiated tissue and a baby. To think that someone could take away my reproductive rights based on an ambiguous Bible verse, when abortions were legal as far back as the Levitical law codes (yet not mentioned, much less prohibited, in any Biblical canon) is frightening.
Emotional belief is each person’s own, but when ambiguities require objective facts and logical discernment, reason, not emotional prejudice, must prevail. And I beg your pardon, but until men can become pregnant, I don’t believe they should have a say in the matter.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my feelings. I respect your attitudes, despite not sharing your beliefs.
posted April 28, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Connie has it right that most Americans see the abortion issue as being about the life of the woman. There is no need for the rest of us to intrude on her life, her aspirations, her potential and we want to leave her alone. We have common sense to know that we all undoubtedly have friends and relatives who have had abortions. It is a very secretive thing; people don’t tell you they’ve had an abortion. There were many, many abortions in the US before legalization – some sources put the number at a million a year.
I like Heather’s point about “rejected pregnancies.” Mr. Waldman, please ask an ob/gyn doctor about the percentage of spontaneous abortions. I have read that 50% of human conceptions self abort and asked a doctor about it and he thought that was a reasonable figure. Would Americans want to spend NIH dollars to research spontaneous abortion in hopes of trimming those numbers? I think at least 72% would say “NO” because we want that money going towards research to fight cancer and diabetes, etc., that take real lives, not potential lives.
posted April 28, 2009 at 9:42 pm
In the interest of not dipping from the well of religious thought, I offer the following info cut and pasted from statutes contained in the Revised Code of Washington State, hardly a bastion of pro-life or right wing christian fanaticism.
This is not rocket science. See if you can connect the dots.
——————————————————————————–
RCW 9A.32.010 Homicide defined.
Homicide is the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another, death occurring at any time, and is either (1) murder, (2) homicide by abuse, (3) manslaughter, (4) excusable homicide, or (5) justifiable homicide.
RCW 9.02.170
Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter:
(1) “Viability” means the point in the pregnancy when, in the judgment of the physician on the particular facts of the case before such physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.
(2) “Abortion” means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy
except
for the purpose of producing a live birth.
(3) “Pregnancy” means the reproductive process beginning with the implantation of an embryo.
RCW 70.58.150 “Fetal death,” “evidence of life,” defined.
A fetal death means any product of conception that shows no evidence of life after complete expulsion or extraction from its mother. The words “evidence of life” include
breathing,
beating of the heart,
pulsation of the umbilical cord,
or definite movement of voluntary muscles.
RCW 70.58.160 Certificate of death or fetal death required.
A certificate of every death or fetal death shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the death or fetal death occurred within three business days after the occurrence is known, or if the place of death or fetal death is not known, then with the local registrar of the district in which the
human remains
are found within one business day thereafter. In every instance a certificate shall be filed prior to the interment or other disposition of the
human remains.
However, a certificate of fetal death shall not be required if the period of gestation is less than twenty weeks.
RCW 70.58.170Certificate of death or fetal death — By whom filed.
The funeral director or person having the right to control the disposition of
the human remains
under RCW 68.50.160 shall file the certificate of death or fetal death.
RCW 18.71.240 Abortion — Right to medical treatment of infant born alive.
The right of medical treatment of an infant born alive in the course of an abortion procedure shall be the same as the right of an infant born prematurely of equal gestational age.
RCW 9.02.050 Concealing birth.
Every person who shall endeavor to conceal the birth of a child by any disposition of its dead body, whether the child died before or after its birth, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
————————————————————————-
The following are excertps taken from the transcript of testimony given by partial birth abortionist specialist Leroy Carhart under oath in a court of law.
My comments are in [brackets]:
Question: Are there times when you don’t remove the [human] fetus intact?
Carhart: Yes, sir.
Question: What do you do then?
Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the [human] fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.
Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?
Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the [human] fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the [human] fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes
Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the [human] fetus?
Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.
Question: At what point is the [human] fetus…does the [human] fetus die during that process?
Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the [human] fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.
The Court: Counsel, for what it’s worth, it still is unclear to me with regard to the intact D&E when [human] fetal demise occurs.
Question: Okay, I will try to clarify that. In the procedure of an intact D&E where you would start foot first, with the situation where the [human] fetus is presented feet first, tell me how you are able to get the feet out first.
Carhart: Under ultrasound, you can see the extremities. You know what is what. You know what the foot is, you know, what the arm is, you know, what the skull is. By grabbing the feet and pulling down on it or by grabbing a knee and pulling down on it, usually you can get one leg out, get the other leg out and bring the [human] fetus out. I don’t know where this…all the controversy about rotating the [human] fetus comes from. I don’t attempt to do that. I just attempt to bring out whatever is the proximal portion of the [human] fetus.
Question: At the time that you bring out the feet in this example, is the [human] fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes.
Question: Then what’s the next step you do?
Carhart: I didn’t mention it. I should. I usually attempt to grasp the cord first and divide the cord, if I can do that.
Question: Let’s take the situation where you haven’t divided the cord because you couldn’t, and you have begun to remove a living [human] fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?
Carhart: We remove the feet and continue with traction on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax came through the cavity. At that point, I would try … you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with your finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the [human] fetal … the base of the [human] fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.
Question: What do you do next?
Carhart: And you can reach that, and that’s where you would rupture the [human] fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out.
[In laymens turns he uses a powerful vacuum to suck the brains out while in some cases the human fetus is still shows 'evidence of life']
Question: At what point in that process does [human] fetal demise occur between initial remove…removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or I’m sorry, the decompressing of the skull?
Carhart: Well, you know, again, this is where I’m not sure what [human] fetal demise is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. You can remove the cranial contents and the [human] fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes, so is the [human] fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I don’t think it has any brain function, so it’s brain dead at that point.
Question: So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out of the cranium?
Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and they don’t die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the [human] fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.
Later, under cross examination from the Attorney General’s counsel, Carhart stated:
“My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the [human] fetus and terminate the pregnancy.”
————————————————————————-
My editorial comments are in brackets. If you object to the word ‘human’ preceding ‘fetus’, then please tell me when and where in history a woman has conceived, gestated, or birthed any other species.
When your momma was pregant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?
Elective abortion, where the embryo/fetus is still alive, is by definition ‘homicide’. It may be legal, but it is none the less ‘homicide’.
yor bro ken
posted April 28, 2009 at 9:56 pm
In practice all but the most fervently pro-life value and treat the zygote differently from a baby. This is reflected in the statistics of when abortions occur in the gestation cycle. It is also reflected in terms of how people answer ethical questions about the saving of life at different stages of development.
For further reflection, consider the following ethical question: You are running out of a burning hospital and can run into the fertility clinic to save a liquid nitrogen container holding 500 zygotes, or into the natal unit and save a baby. Which do you do?
posted April 28, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Reading the article and the comments, I see numerous false statements. I will not comment on the moral premises except to say that those who value all human life are appalled at the suggestion to kill more children [the English word for “offspring” which applies both before and after birth] in order to prevent a few of them from being killed at a later gestational age.
“Safe” abortion is a fallacy. In ignorance, abortion was promoted as “safer than childbirth” for several decades, but in this century good prospective epidemiologic studies from both Finland and from California have proven that maternal mortality after abortion is significantly higher than after childbirth both in the year following the event and up to 6 years later.
Comments state that teen pregnancy and abortion rates have not fallen with pro-life initiatives. This is not accurate. Actually teen pregnancy rates have dropped significantly, particularly in states with parental notification laws. While “abstinence only” sex ed programs (which do discuss contraception but emphasize its limitations) have received some Federal funding in recent years (and teen pregnancy rates have dropped in those same years), “comprehensive” sex ed programs continue to receive many, many times the Federal funding of abstinence programs. When they were the only programs receiving funding, teen pregnancy and STI rates rose. In addition “comprehensive” programs are not very comprehensive; though proponents claim that they also promote abstinence, the ones I have seen spend over 90% of the time promoting contraception and less than 10% on abstinence. Abortion rates have dropped significantly from their peak in 1990 by at least 25%. They have dropped by an even larger percentage among teens.
Social evangelicals are divided on the death penalty. It does seem ironic that social liberals are so concerned for a few hundred men and women guilty of the most heinous crimes killed through the death penalty since 1970 while caring nothing for the thousands of humans killed daily through abortion. As the comment says, sometimes innocent men are killed by the death penalty, and that is (or where it is not, it should be) a concern for pro-lifers. I cannot speak for others, but I have only so much time and energy, and while the innocent man killed by the death penalty is just as important as the innocent child killed by abortion, given the frequency of each occurrence, I have chosen to concentrate my efforts on the children.
The argument that it is “my body” is so patently selfish, that it hardly needs refutation. We don’t own other people as slaves, and we don’t own our children – before or after birth. Your child is not your body and you have no more moral right to kill it than you have to swing your own arm and crash it into a one-year-old’s head.
Your moral rights end when they interfere with another human’s rights to life and protection from bodily harm.
One commenter argued against laws against abortion because they cannot be adequately policed. Our laws against post-natal murder are not adequately policed, either. Should they be repealed?
I saw the usual comments about imposing religious views. Two responses: first, all laws reflect religious points of view including those criminalizing post-natal murder, theft, assault and battery, child abuse, speeding (wrong because it endangers other people), and even tax laws have a moral basis (or immoral in some cases!) Second, while the pro-life position has one of its bases in religion (especially for Catholics and Protestant evangelicals), it also has a basis in the US Declaration of Independence which declares that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and lists first of all the right to life. [Before you try to claim that this is patriarchal because it says “all men”, look up the definition of “man” in the dictionary. While one definition refers to male gender, the second definition is “human being”, and it is in that sense that it is used in the Declaration.] So the Declaration of Independence lists “life” as the first inalienable [that means cannot be taken away] right, the US Constitution in the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, and thus there is a clear secular political argument that the right to life cannot be denied.
posted April 29, 2009 at 6:08 am
“One commenter argued against laws against abortion because they cannot be adequately policed. Our laws against post-natal murder are not adequately policed, either. Should they be repealed?”
Our current laws against post-natal murder can be (and are) enforced in the context of a free and open society. Laws against abortion cannot be.
posted April 29, 2009 at 9:37 am
Dr. J,
Frankly, after reading all the support your side of this argument has given to the torturers, I am having enormous trouble believing for even one nanosecond that you actually care two cents about the baby. I am more inclined to believe that your only interest is in forcing women to accept your will.
Rather in the same manner as you conservative Christians force American homosexuals to accept non-human status in your country.
Prove to me first that you reject torture and then and only then am I willing to grant you an assumption of good will. Until then, you and all the other conservative Christians around here have have completely devalued every single argument you wage on the “sanctity of life”.
Speaking as a gay Christian, I can not think of any single thing you conservative Christians could have done which better shows your real beliefs. It is not about honoring God for you, it is only about imposing your will on the weaker members of society.
posted April 29, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Dr. J simply bypasses the entire point of the article by ignoring the underlying premise–that most Americans value a clump of undifferentiated differently from a fully-formed fetus. Current law reflects the binary position of radical pro-life/pro-choice politics–a position at odds with the implicit common sense shown by most Americans.
posted April 29, 2009 at 2:49 pm
that should read: “undifferentiated cells.”
posted April 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“Open-minded prolifers”? Never met one yet.
When the prolifers actually do something about the hungry, homeless children who can’t get medical care in this country, and start actively opposing the death penalty, then I’ll think they might have a moral position that supports life. Until then, they’re just self-dramatizing whiners.
posted April 29, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I’m interested in Mr. Waldman’s point that those who want to recriminalize abortion would be very appreciative of this safe, legal & early formulation because it would establish that pro choicers see a “moral” aspect to abortion. I remember Obama at the Saddleback Forum saying that abortion is a “moral” issue and I thought that was a clever way of appealing to the recriminalizers while actually saying nothing. Everything has a moral component. How many lives could I have saved for a month with the money I spent on new chairs last year when the old couch was still a comfortable place to sit and watch TV? The octo-mom NOT aborting several fetuses is a moral issue. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a moral issue. Giving a child up for adoption is a moral issue.
posted April 29, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Whatever happened to the choice of not creating unwanted babies through irreponsible sex in the first place? All actions have consequences but no one seems to want to address the root action in this case.
posted April 30, 2009 at 8:28 am
Woog,
That is a valid point.
Unfortunately, human children become sexually mature long before their ability to understand the consequences arising from prematurely having sex are clear to them.
This is why, here in Western Europe, we make effective contraception available without age restrictions.
Immoral secularists as all of us Christians over here are, we feel it is better to prevent conception than to see an abortion.
Of course, we also don’t run around advocating torture like you conservative Christians do in the US, so I daresay you have no problem with pushing the completely failed approach you American conservative Christians so delight in: No contraception, no aid to the pregnant child, instead, as Rod advocates, ostracism and social punishment.
What wonderful people you are. Not.
posted April 30, 2009 at 11:45 am
The primary victims of abortion are the women who buy into the lie that their bodies belong to themselves alone, and who also accept the satanic distortion that being legal must mean that it is also moral. At whatever stage of development the fetus is taken it still results in emotional pain to the mother in the form of “post abortion syndrome.” This is a psychological condition similar to PTSD, and as a professional counselor I’ve treated literally hundreds of women haunted by their decision–full of guilt, shame and remorse. In my experience well over 90% of all women experience this emotional pain. The aborted baby is with their Creator but the mother is here to live out a lifetime of guilt unless she can find forgiveness thru a realtionship with Jesus
posted April 30, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“Satanic distortion”
Oh you, sir or madam, win a shiny new internet. I haven’t laughed that hard in days.
The arguments here that state women are selfish for their choice because while their body is their own, the “baby’s” body is their own as well…and the woman’s rights end where the baby’s rights begin because you can’t harm someone else just because you feel like it.
Women are harmed in pregnancy. Bodily changes, organ compression, higher blood pressure, hyperemesis, gestational diabetes, risk of major abdominal surgery to remove the resulting fetus, hours of intense trauma during child birth, torn genitals.. and that’s just BEFORE or during birth. PPD and PPP are common afterwards as well.
Does the fetus have the right to inflict bodily and psychological harm on the woman carrying it simply because two gametes came together unintentionally? Is a woman to be FORCED to submit her body to the will of the “child” because of an accident?
..that said. If someone is in a coma, has no higher mental capacity and no ability to interact for nine months..and to live, they MUST be attached to you to share your nutrition, oxygen and blood flow. Everywhere you go, you must have them carried by your person…is it THEIR RIGHT to require you to do that? To force you to keep them alive even at the detriment to your person?
Most Pro-Lifers I know would say no, but then immediately say “but it’s a BABY!” The moment there are no more hungry, uneducated, abused or unwanted children in this country is the moment you can tell the world “OK women, MAKE MORE OR ELSE!” But as it is, there are children living in squalor, children who have no families at all, children being abused in the foster systems and children living on streets because they have no one that will take them in. “Pro-Life” is an amusing term because most I’ve met aren’t pro-life, they’re pro-gestation. Once the resulting infant is born, they couldn’t care less what happens to it as long as they don’t have to deal with it.
posted April 30, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I am pro-life and believe in life at conception but I think this is a well thought out article. I like the rational discussion as opposed to the usual pointless ranting one one side or the other. It would be nice if our polis could rationally discuss a compromise like this that would benefit both sides immediately and continue the more idealogical debate afterwards.
posted April 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Your Name, April 30, 2009 11:45 AM
quote:
The primary victims of abortion are the women who buy into the lie that their bodies belong to themselves alone,
end quote
Guess what? Slavery was abolished in the United States sometime ago.
A woman’s body does belong to her, and to her alone.
OK, so not only do the majority of conservative Christians think torturing people is a good idea, now they are starting to admit that women aren’t masters of their own bodies.
Goodness, it just gets worse and worse.
posted April 30, 2009 at 2:59 pm
…make that “starting to admit they believe women are not masters of their own bodies.”
posted April 30, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Very impressive and thought provoking article. My only hope is that this article not become yet another forum (as if one is needed) for the two opposing sides to banter once again as to why they are right and the other is wrong but instead people actually respond to the article. Unfortunately what I am seeing is exactly what the article is referencing and quite frankly it’s old. There is nothing that either side can say to make more absolute their point. We’ve heard it before. Spend some time, not long, just the few minutes it would take to respond outside of and off of your soapbox and respond to the article. For someone still solidifying their opinion I find more truth in this article than in other argument voicing why they are right and someone else is wrong.
Great article.
posted May 1, 2009 at 8:24 am
“being legal must mean that it is also moral”
Maybe some people are arguing that … but I’m not seeing much of it … mostly I see arguments about what should be illegal and what should be an individual (i.e. moral) decision.
Another thing I’m NOT seeing is people arguing that choosing to have an abortion is a simple decision or a risk free choice. Even for those for whom ‘a glob of undifferentiated cells’ is not a baby the decision to have an abortion is not as far as I can tell (having the wrong kind of plumbing to get stuck with the actual decision myself) lightly or trivially taken.
posted May 2, 2009 at 3:14 am
The article and the comments are sadly shallow, theoretical and conveniently abstract when the topic is the most concrete, deep and high stakes topic of all. Everyone reading these words has already been born. They acknowledge that they are human and alive. They probably believe they deserve to be alive. I wonder — exactly how many days, prior to the day each reader was born, would they say they were a valuable human being? One day? 60 days? 150 days? 200 days? And how many days will they, in their high(?) position, determine that the next human being has been around enough days to become valuable? Any answer you give, other than the day you were conceived, reveals only one conclusion…you are willing to end the life of another human being. Just face it. Just admit it. Stop trying to dress it up. Just say your opinion is more important than the life of another human being. And then be thankful your mother didn’t share your opinion. If she had, you wouldn’t have one.
posted May 5, 2009 at 1:43 am
An interesting article. Only wanted to note that there are reasons for late term abortions. In my case, the fetus stopped growing/developing. I could’ve waited for a spontaneous miscarriage. But my doctor advised against. Yes, the fetus was still alive, but no it was never going to be an actual baby.
I agree that earlier is better. The worry is that restrictions will be moved forward.
As to the intact dilation & extraction, it’s usually used in cases like mine. And while I do understand that it’s icky, I don’t see how logically Congress can insert itself into the medical community sufficiently to determine that something has no medical value. And mind, they did so without addressing the question of whether that fetus was viable in any way. So effectively they put the woman in harm’s way to protect a fetus that in 99% of the cases was simply not a viable fetus. That is just wrong.
posted May 6, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I disagree. The issue is:
1. Does the state have the right to decide that a baby in utero is “human enough” to have human rights?
2. How do you propose that be measured in law? Is it gestational age, viability, implanted or not?
a “debate” on this is not happening at:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/
specifically
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/TFQP2A7JORFA3VCDF
and
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T1OH28R0517P1KHI1
posted May 15, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Yes, some good points in this article.
In my fantasy, though, the terms pro-choice, and pro-life, would be replaced by “those supporting the equality of women and girls to that of males, including, but not limited to thefreedom to control individual reproduction” v. “those working to further institutionalize the inferiorty of females by way of controlling others’ reproduction by means of criminalizing abortion, limited access to contraception, forced abortion, forced sterilization, brain-washing, etc..”
I am an active feminist, and I have seen no evidence of even “extreme” feminists supporting third-term abortion post-viability as an “at will” option. Who are these people? Lots of info. on Dr. Tiller, but he does abortions on women with severe health problems/and women carrying severely ill fetuses.
That said, from a women who had an abortion with my fourth pregnancy (at 27 days gestation-thankful for legal because of my thin uterus from 3 C-section, illegal would have been very dangerous)because of intuition that it would cause severe harm to me, to my abililty to mother my three children, and that the pregnancy was WRONG…I still would like someone to answer this: my religion says “life begins at egg” and I know better than you, so I decide if you should be sterlized, or forced to try to conceive.
Kali
posted June 3, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I would also prefer that most abortions be made early, safe and legal. Having said that I do see one inconsistancy in what you have written. You assume that those having third tri-mester abortions because of the their health or the health and viability of the fetus are women who would have abortions anyway. It seems to me that late abortions are frequently occuring when a pregnancy that was for a wanted child has severe health or viability problems. It seems to me that parents should have the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy that would result in lifelong health and quality of life problems. Frequently these problems are not able to diagnosised earlier in the pregnancy. Adoption in this type of situation is rare so the parents have to face condeming their child to a short life of pain or a long life in an institution with little or no quality of life and increasing difficultes for the family both emotionally or financially.
Additionally I see other difficulties with our society’s inconsistancy about the viability of life. For instance if life begins at conception which is why we have this disagreement regarding abortion. But what about laws that limit the fetus’s rights in terms of say an auto accident that causes an abortion. Should the driver causing the accident be held responsible for murder and prosecuted accordingly. States have different statues regarding when a fetus can be considered a human being with right to life when it relates to these types of pregnancy terminations and it is rarely in the first tri-mester much less at the moment of conception. In fact if it is murder as the anti-abortionists contend then why do they consider that there would logically be a judicial penalty for this type of murder. Ask a those who have protested against abortion for years if they believe that abortion is murder and should be illegal and they will all say yes. Then ask them what the penalty for a woman that decides to have an abortion should be and watch the bewilderment come over their faces. After all don’t we send murderers to prison, shouldn’t murderers do life in prison at the very least. Until we can deal with the type of inconsistancies in the law then we can not call it murder and a parent should be able to make decisions about the quality of life or death their child will have to deal with.
posted June 8, 2009 at 11:07 am
Hello Mr. Waldman,
I am in a belief-system category that was not touched upon in your article; I believe that life begins at conception, and I also believe in a woman’s choice. But, there are so many variables interjected within the debate of abortion that I believe there needs to be a deduction of issues for debate; that opposing sides can remove from the table–because it becomes so clouded. If we as a society accept the intention of our forefathers to separate church and state, then the issue of when life begins relative to abortion would not be debatable, would it? Because, the right to life side uses their religious/biblical beliefs to support when life begins, so the argument has religious roots. (Not knocking religious roots, I have mine firmly planted). I believe in an ethical society, and I believe in the freedom of religion, but it is not possible to legislate morality; so how can we legislate abortion when it is a moral issue, really. Obviously it has been, (ROE V. WADE), and will continue to be debated in our legislative branch, but I wonder what the future holds with this debate? It will be the same thing from now until eternity, and opposing sides many never find a middle ground; and isn’t that necessary? I am not a proponent of abortion, nor an advocate, and I don’t even think it is a good choice, but it should remain a legal and safe choice. I also believe in term restrictions; no late-term abortions because of the issues surrounding how they are performed.
posted July 2, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I agree with almost everything Stephen says in this article, and have myself made many of the same points in various posts on the Abortion debate here on Beliefnet.
The only real disagreement I have is with his assertion that early abortion will reduce the number of late-term abortions done because of significant defects with the baby. Many critical and life-threatening conditions cannot be diagnosed until relatively late in pregnancy; and some parents do wait for a final diagnosis, even when problems are detected earlier, until hope is lost.
In these tragic cases of major defects that will lead to severe disability and/or death, I firmly believe that the parents of the child are the proper persons to decide how best to proceed.
posted July 31, 2009 at 5:29 pm
A rarity: a complex and well-reasoned position, that has a bumper sticker slogan! I’m disappointed I haven’t heard it before.
A small correction that is important to my comment following. The 69% and 72% almost assuredly “count up” from opposite sides of the scale. That is, one question goes 0-100 and the other from 100-0. Thus, the number of people that believe both is around 41%. (69 is 19 points “past” 50 and 72 is 22; 19+22=41.) Still higher than you’d think, but not most. Anyway, that’s not the important point.
The main point is that these 41% are the mythical abortion moderates! And there are lots of them! A plurality, in fact. And what’s even better is that your “early” construction is exactly where they would feel comfortable joining the debate. BTW, I suggest ditching “legal” altogether. It doesn’t help to completely alienate one side in your slogan. And under your conception, abortion would be legal in some cases, not in others, so it really doesn’t fit.
Another problem to overcome is the “slippery slope” problem. There are other issues that two opposite sides argue logically and reasonably from different premises, but reach compromise nonetheless. In fact, this covers most political issues. But again, focusing on the timing is brilliant because it necessarily places the two sides on a continuum.
Well done, sir! Good luck promoting the “early” agenda!
posted September 16, 2009 at 11:29 am
Thanks for helping to define the middle ground on the abortion issue. Abortion has become a divisive issue in the debate on health care reform and some middle ground is needed. Health care reform is too important to those on both sides of the abortion issue to let it become a battlefield for ideological differences. The Health-care Reform Bill does not provide public funds for abortions nor does it even mention abortion. There are those who wish to insure that public funds are not used for abortion and their wishes should be respected. There are those who think providing health care to women who are now uninsured would surely reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and they are right. There are methods of birth control acceptable to every religious faith. Certainly, providing health counseling to women, good prenatal care for expectant mothers, and excellent health care for babies is a goal that everyone can share.
posted September 16, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thanks for helping to define the middle ground on the abortion debate. Abortion has become a divisive issue in the debate on health care reform. Health care reform is too important to those on both sides of the abortion issue to let it become a battlefield for ideological differences. The Health-care Reform Bill does not provide public funds for abortions nor does it even mention abortion. There are those who wish to insure that public funds are not used for abortions and their wishes should be respected. There are those who think providing health care to women who are now uninsured would surely reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and they are right. There are methods of birth control acceptable to every religious faith. Certainly, providing health counseling to women, good prenatal care for expectant mothers, and excellent health care for babies is a goal that everyone can share.
posted September 28, 2009 at 2:48 am
This is completely ridiculous. We want to reduce the number of abortions (technically, the ratio of abortions to live births – abortions resulting from the use of abortifacient contraceptives included). Are you opposed to abortion because you think it’s “icky”, and that early abortions are less “icky” than late ones? That’s absurd, to say the least. I swear, you’d think this site is run by pro-choicers.
posted March 8, 2010 at 11:04 am
One remembers that life is expensive, nevertheless some people need cash for various issues and not every man gets enough cash. Thus to receive some personal loans or just financial loan will be a proper solution.
posted July 24, 2010 at 5:10 am
whatever the way, abortion always the sin.
e-marketing strategy
posted July 25, 2010 at 7:40 pm
For those readers looking to get a personal loan fast and easy, we have identified the Top 10 most eager, flexible and fast loan providers to help you get the money you need in as little as 24 hours or sooner. Each of the finance personal loans providers on our list will give you a quick, confidential, secure online loan to meet your needs.http://personalfinanceloans.org
posted August 6, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Many abortions occur due to temporary relationship break ups. More thought should be given to the deep issues of the relationship before abortions are ever considered.
posted September 20, 2010 at 3:40 am
the correct verbiage is anti-abortion not pro-life. they care nothing about the life of the woman or the fetus if carried to term. witness the fight to kill the medical coverage for all so pregnant women and children would have medical care when needed in case of pregnancy or illness.
posted October 1, 2010 at 1:33 pm
The restaurants list with thousands of restaurants reviewed by visitors. http://restaurants-us.com/ca/San%20Diego/Chuey%27s%20Restaurant/92113/
posted October 18, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Once that the Sperm and Egg meet and combine together they already have LIFE IN ONE. Usining contraceptives like condomas and pills would be the best way to avoid abortion.
Thanks for this write-up Steven.
Sacramento Bankruptcy Attorney
posted November 4, 2010 at 9:12 am
Hy nice ppl. Here I wanna give u people information about Tubal Ligation Reversal.
The down side is that not all women can have their tubal ligation reversed and some women who have the procedure done don’t get pregnant. If you’re under forty and your tubes were tied by traditional methods your chance of getting pregnant is seventy to eighty percent. If you have the microsurgery your chance of getting pregnant is about ninety percent. Your doctor will need your Operative Report and Notes to help determine if you’re a tubal ligation reversal candidate.
posted May 23, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Hello,
Thank you for sharing this information enjoyable.Last week, I found a site that is about organization of parties specially Birthday Parties.
Katherine Fernandez is very responsible Lady to organize these parties.
posted June 28, 2011 at 2:01 pm
What most people speaking from a clinical point of view fail to consider is that the baby is only part (although a HUGE part) of the issue. An young woman already has her ideas and plans and fantasies about what pregnancy, motherhood, babies, the whole family experience is like. When you have an abortion, and I speak from experience, that whole perception changes. Since I can’t speak for everyone or swear that what I feel is what will happen to you, let me just speak for myself and you can evaluate how it may or may not afect you:
I KNOW I would be a great mom. I think I’m smarter than most people – definitely smarter than my own mother. I always thought I’d be one of those moms who would march down to the school enraged because a teacher made an inappropriate comment to my child. I know I’ll be one of those crazy moms whose teenagers roll their eyes at. And when I have kids who are in their baby/toddler/pre-school ages, especially if I have a little boy, my child and I are destined to be in love with each other. I can just picture my little angel in his crib or sitting in the grass just gazing at me like I’m the most important person in the world and me looking back at him like a school girl in love – like completely, obsessively, infatuated in love.
whatever you picture of being a parent and going through the stages of parenthood may be, you have a preconception.
Abortion changes everything. Not only do you feel that baby growing inside of you, you’re hungry when he’s hungry, you’re sleepy when he’s sleepy (or so you tell yourself or feel like) – even if you’re MISERABLE with hormones like I was – headaches that felt worse than a hangover must feel like – I was so disgusted with the thought of most foods. And then you feel the absence of the baby after the abortion – it’s a physical knowledge that the baby is not there anymore. My baby, the baby that was with me all those weeks – even before I knew it. The baby was eating what I was eating, getting the rest I was getting, dependent on me.
But all that aside because that’s heartache enough for me, but maybe not for everyone.
Abortion changed my whole outlook on life. No, I didn’t plan to get pregnant – I wasn’t married, although I was dating my boyfriend for many years. I didn’t think I could face family and friends having gotten pregnant. I didn’t think I was going to be able to afford vitamins, much less everything that came with pregnancy and a baby. My borfriend already commissioned for the military and would be moved around for training and relocation beginning with when I would be 6 months along, then he’d continue to be moving around & be out of state for the next 6 months – meaning I’d have to be in my late stages and give birth ALONE. Anyway…
So it wasn’t planned, but once it happened I was still going through scenarios in my head – I could save every penny & be poor, but I would be in love with that baby – I already was even though he was making me miserable with all the hormones. I never got “morning sickness” to the point of throwing up though – which was hard in itself – I felt (after the abortion) like “he was so good my little baby, he never even made me throw up”
Now, after the abortion, I feel like nothing is going to be the same. My life with forever be tainted with this sadness.
Now when I have a child – planned, married, etc – instead of falling in love and gazing into my child’s face with a goofy, lovestruck smile, every look my child sees on my face will have that hint of sadness as I remember the child I threw away.
I will never have that first pregnancy experience where I can look forward (or dread) every stage, every new feeling & experience. It’s these little things, along with all the other more obvious things of course, that no one thinks about or considers or acknowledges.
People panic, that’s what they do when the unexpencted happens & lifechanging events pop up out of left field. Men probably panic more than anyone else, but women do too. But there is nothing worst than the feeling of realizing you’ve made the wrong decision & wanting to go back yeat knowing you never can.
Abortion is, in most cases, irreversible. You will have to live with it forever. How many children have come through less than ideal circumstances? Probably everyone who reads this. Aside from being Bill Gates’ daughter (& even she might have some misfortunes if you asked her), no one;s life is perfect. You’re not protecting your child by aborting it. Everyone has experienced happiness or contentment or joy or something good at one time or another in their lives. Aren’t those moments worth it?
To take that chance away from someone – your child no less – is not fair. No matter how bad you think your child’s life would be, no matter how poor you are now, or how hard your life is – look at all the amazing people who have come out of those same circumstances and found happiness in life. And no happiness doesn’t last forever, but everyone can find it, no matter what their family situation was when they were born.
Think twice before having an abortion. I wouldn’t wish what I am feeling on anyone.
Pingback: “Kill Babies Faster” (Safe, Legal, Early, Cont’d) - Steven Waldman