Two problems with the bill. One is that it targets a specific procedure rather than targeting all abortions after X number of weeks. This means that where D&X (dilation & extraction, a.k.a. partial birth abortion) is prohibited, D&E (dilation & evacuation, which involves vacuuming up the baby's brains without partially inducing birth) remains legal. That's dumb - akin to making it illegal to kill someone with a revolver but legal to kill them with a semiautomatic pistol.

The bigger problem, and the only legitimate constitutional one IMO, is that this statute is a flagrant violation of the Tenth Amendment. Whatever regulation of abortion is permissible after Roe and its progeny, that is the job of the states, not Congress. There is no general federal law against killing the born. Why should it be different with respect to the unborn?

Rosemary,
Many people are against abortion except in the case of rape and incest. Let me be the Devil's advocate for a moment. I presume you feel that abortion is wrong because it kills a human being. If you have a different reason for being pro-life, I'd be interested in hearing it. Presuming the reason I've give is the one you hold, then I would ask why is it wrong to kill all human beings EXCEPT those that are a product of rape or incest?
Ted

I personally could not have an abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. I would have the baby and put it up for adoption if it was too painful for me to raise myself. the only reason for an abortion that I can see is to save the life of the mother, and that would have to be a PHYSICAL illness, not a mental "I can't do this" type of thing. I have a beautiful 20 yr old daughter that proves I put my money where my mouth is.

Good point, Ted. Seems to me if you believe it's a human being, it's a human being whether it was the mother's "fault" or not it was conceived.

Even the "for the life of the mother" thing is a difficult one, because then you're saying, the mother's life is worth more than the baby's. That's something that many pro-life people don't want to grapple with, since they put so much into valuing the baby.

Adam,
Your point is well taken. Which life is more valuable? If it really came down to that, a choice would have to be made. However, although I don't have any numbers to show, I would guess that having an abortion to save the life of the mother would be very rare. There is always caesarian and survival rates of premature babies gets better all the time.

Remarkable. I thought my own position on the issue was more rare, but two of the first three posters bring it up explicitly. I can make a solid argument that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances except when the life of the mother is at stake, based on the 14th Amendment and the principle that the law ought to be minimally arbitrary. Cases of rape and incest are horrible, but including exceptions in those cases is inconsistent with any position based on the assertion that the unborn have a right to life.

All that aside, the basic question on abortion, from which all else flows, is this--when do you believe that a person acquires the right to life? This is a fundamentally moral question, and as far as I'm aware, it is independent of any other moral judgement.

(By the way, possible answers include, but are not limited to, the following: conception, viability [which is actually as early as 20-21 weeks, currently], birth, and the more complicated "sliding scale that depends on the factors placed in opposition to it." I have opinions on each of those answers, but I'll let this stand for now.)

In the case of rape, assuming that it's reported immediately there are ways to induce an immediate miscarriage like taking large doses of birth control pills for a few days. Rape is the ultimate violation and I cannot fault a woman for not wanting to endure a pregnancy. That pregnancy would be a continuation of the violation for some and emotionally some women wouldn't be able to endure it. I'm not sure what I would do in the case of rape - I'm not sure that I would be strong enough to handle having that child. As much as I respect life - I am unwilling to force a woman to do what I myself couldn't.

Incestual relationships involve an abuse of trust and power even among persons old enough to "consent". Incest is in a sense a psychological rape. Also because of the vastly increased chance of birth defects.

As much as I value life and I do believe that life begins at conception, I am also compassionate. I feel that I can accept the legality of abortion if it is done early enough so that the innocent life is snuffed as painlessly and humanely as possible. Victims of violence have to be shown compassion as well. It is unfair to demand a victim suffer the consequences of their abuse. That said - I still expect that those abortions take place in the first trimester because beyond that it is cruel to the life that had no choice.

Sam,

I have yet to hear about any child actually surviving at 20 weeks. Where did you read that? That is amazing.

Rosemary,
Can I conclude then that if the pregnancy causes the mother emotional pain, abortion would be OK.

Ted:

NO

Rosemary,

"Rape is the ultimate violation and I cannot fault a woman for not wanting to endure a pregnancy."

Nor could I fault a woman for not wanting to endure a pregnancy in that situation. However, if she translated that desire into the act of ending an innocent life, I would send her to jail. This is the ultimate reason that rape/incest exceptions are immoral under the premise that the right to life is acquired at conception. No matter how severe the psychological harm, how does this supercede the life of an innocent?

I cannot agree that "compassionate" accurately describes the position you describe. What psychological harm is done to a woman who believes that she has killed an innocent in order to ease her grieving process? I agree that victims of violence must be shown compassion, but it is not compassionate to allow a woman to commit a murder to ease her suffering. When her grieving process comes to an end, how does she justify her choice?

Given your belief that a person acquires the right to life at conception, what is the significance of the end of the first trimester? How is this particular line of demarcation significant in terms of the cruelty inflicted on "the life that had no choice"?

Rosemary,
This is my last post, I'm going to bed. I guess I'm a little confused by your response. In the post on why abortion is OK for rape and incest I got the impression it was the emotional and psychological pain endured by the mother that made abortion in those case OK. Is then abortion is OK if it causes the mother emotional and/or psychological pain AND the pregnancy is a result forced sex?

I guess you can say that since this is a free country and not everyone in it believes as I do - it is a compromise.

Yes, I am hypocritically compromising my belief system rather than force people to subscribe to what they do not believe.

The significance of the end of the first trimester is that once the child is no longer embryonic it feels pain and has a functional heart and brain. Perhaps to be specific I should say by 10 weeks. Not 12.

Once the life becomes a fetus all bets are off.

Ted:

Yes

Rosemary,

To clarify, the definiton of viability I was using was "earliest reported infant survival." I may have been insufficiently clear on that point. Also, I was quoting off the top of my head something I had read recently, but don't remember the exact source.

Most of the pediatric/medical sites I can casually Google up have the following table:

21 weeks or less: 0% survival rate
22 weeks: 0-10% survival rate
23 weeks: 10-35% survival rate
24 weeks: 40-70% survival rate
25 weeks: 50-80% survival rate
26 weeks: 80-90% survival rate
27 weeks: greater than 90% survival rate

A Right-To-Life site claims that the earliest reported survival was 18 weeks(!)--this is not the source I was remembering. I wasn't able to find independent confirmation of this, or any further details, so have a grain of salt along with it. If anyone can confirm or refute this claim, please do.

1. If you believe a fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder, and not doing everything in your power to prevent it makes you an accomplice.

2. If you beleive that a fetus is just a clump of cells, then abortion is just a mildly uncomfortable medical procedure.

3. If you believe in reincarnation, a fetus is a human being, but abortion just sends the soul back for another try.

No matter what you believe, it is absolutely and completely unproveable (so far) and thus as much a matter of faith as religion.

Regardless of what view you take, a child of rape is a child like any other, as is a child of incest. Punishing the child for the sins of the father is just plain wrong.

Gary,

There are three criteria that ARE provable, by biological definiton:

1) A zygote is human.
2) A zygote is alive.
3) A zygote is distinct from his mother--they are distinct and separate organisms.

There is one criteria that is NOT provable biologically, and can never be:

1) A zygote is a person, and therefore has the rights that accrue to that status.

Why? Because the definition of a "person" is not biological--it is a moral judgement. My moral judgement is that a zygote IS a person, and I use as my criteria of personhood the three listed above. I've found that I can't come up with a fourth criteria that justifies itself to my satisfaction--although I'd be happy to debate any suggestions.

Rosemary,

"I guess you can say that since this is a free country and not everyone in it believes as I do - it is a compromise. Yes, I am hypocritically compromising my belief system rather than force people to subscribe to what they do not believe."

Are you satisfied with this viewpoint? I would not be. It makes me uncomfortable, because I can see various people throughout history offering this justification in different situations, and I think history deals harshly with them.

Is compromising your belief system more morally correct than forcing people to subscribe to what they do not believe? I do not think so. As a principle, it says that the abolitionists were wrong to chastise the slaveholding South, that the West should not judge cannibalism in Central Africa, and that we should not criticize the members of NAMBLA. Its foundation is moral relativism, and I'd ask that you reconsider....

I've never been prouder of my vote for Pres Bush than I was today. Powerful speech. Anyone who opposed this law is truly a fanatic.

To me, the "rape and incest" argument has always been less about being compassionate toward the mother, and more about deciding whether the pregnancy was her fault or not. That's why I specifically brought up "fault" in my first comment.

Rosemary herself talks about these women as "victims," and in her original post talks about finding "having an abortion because a woman was too careless to take precautions annoying." I think deciding whether a woman should be able to have an abortion on the basis of her behavior is wrong.

I'm very late to this discussion, so I'd like to start back at the partial birth abortion. People who read my infrequent comments may recall I'm pretty adamantly pro-life. However, on the partial birth abortion issue I have some misgivings.

What exactly is the point here? Is there a problem with partial-birth abortions in this country? Why do doctors choose this procedure over others? I dunno. I'm not a doctor.

I get that this is an attempt to re-test the Supreme Court on partial birth abortion. Fair enough. Still doesn't get me excited. One cheer for this law.

The key issue is, as Justice Scalia said in his dissent in the last partial-birth abortion decision, is abortion is a value judgment -- and value judgments need to be settled in the legislature. And I don't see much progress on getting this issue to legislatures until Sandra Day O'Connor leaves.

PROTECTING MOTHER'S HEALTH IS A LIE. There is no way, and I mean NO way, that a partial birth abortion is in ANY way the sollution to saving the mother's life. Actually, in many cases, the partial birth abortion adds significant risk to the mother's health.

I was fooled about this for many years. But, THINK about it. In some cases the baby is seconds and about an inch from daylight. The safest thing for the mother is just a quick tug and the baby is clear of the body. Even assuming something goes horribly wrong with the mother, like a heartattack or stroke, the quickest way to get the mother treatment is to jerk the baby the rest of the way out and quickly turn your attention to the mother. (And, yeah, been almost in that exact situation. Not the partial-birth-abortion part, but the "damn! the mother is going to die" part).

Partial birth abortions are, in most cases, not made because a woman was undecisive for too long or because she was irresponsible not to get an abortion earlier. Partial birth abortions are usually performed when something happens to the baby during the later stages of pregnancy, for example, a condition which causes the baby's head to swell or otherwise endanger the mother's life should the baby come to term and be delivered.

With this ruling, we are not saving an innocent child's life. We are condemning mothers to high-risk births which will more than likely cause severe bleeding or other internal damage that will result in death. We have accomplished nothing except reversing a decision made thirty years ago for the good of the women in this situation, and condemning both mother and child to die.

I am ashamed of America today.

"The bigger problem, and the only legitimate constitutional one IMO, is that this statute is a flagrant violation of the Tenth Amendment. Whatever regulation of abortion is permissible after Roe and its progeny, that is the job of the states, not Congress. There is no general federal law against killing the born. Why should it be different with respect to the unborn?"

This is exactly the point I wanted to make. I think it's not only reasonable but good for states to outlaw killing children in the process of being born. But It is not the job of the federal government, leave it to the states. This is not just idealism, the more power we give to the federal government the fewer people it takes to control that power. The fewer people in positions of power, the easier it is to corrupt people. There are things that need to be done at the federal level, this is not one of them and therefore it should be left to the states to illegalize, to legallize, or to pass the responsibility for a decision on to local councils.

Hopefully states would choose the first of those options, but it is not the job of the federal government, and when this gets taken to the supreme court I hope their decision says "there is nothing intrinsicly wrong with the law, except that it is writen by the federal government, this is a state power and a violation of the 10th ammendment."

I doubt that will happen, as the SC long ago gave up the 10th ammendment, but I can hope.

Kelsey, why couldn't the child be delivered by C-section and treated?

Sam, I believe that personhood or sentience arrives in stages. A microscopic ball of cells, even though biologically distinct from the mother, isn't a person. An infant is. Sentience arrived little by little as complexity grew, as the brain developed, as the limbs formed and heart started beating. It will never be easy to agree on what point the fetus should be given rights.

I can't condone forcing a woman into enduring months of physical and emotional changes to her body in favor of the "rights" of a ball of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. But I can condone, as Rosemary said, limiting the amount of time she has to make her decision. Abortions should be legal for the first trimester and illegal in the third. I'm not sure where in the second the line should belong.

Kelsey:

What proof do you have for your assumption?

I have heard horror stories that the opposite of what you assert is true.

I personally know of a girl that was forced by her parents to have that procedure because they were not ready to be grandparents. The girl was 16 and 7 months pregnant. There was NOTHING wrong with that baby except for the fact that it existed.

That girl has been in therapy for a couple years and still can't get over it.

Sam:

Is compromising your belief system more morally correct than forcing people to subscribe to what they do not believe? I do not think so. As a principle, it says that the abolitionists were wrong to chastise the slaveholding South, that the West should not judge cannibalism in Central Africa, and that we should not criticize the members of NAMBLA. Its foundation is moral relativism, and I'd ask that you reconsider....

Another slippery slope.

This is a unique case. And no I'm not comfortable with it. But I'm not comfortable with rape and incest either.

In a perfect world rape/incest victims wouldn't become pregnant as a result of their violations.
This is not a perfect world. Victims shouldn't have to be further victimized because WE aren't comfortable with the method necessary to recitify the situation.

I am not perfect and frankly I hope that my compassion and understanding are not judged to harshly by God. If it is then I will have no choice but to accept his judgement.

I have to make my own peace with that. In my heart, I hope that those victims don't terminate. But my head will not allow me pass judgement on them if they do.

I know that you disagree with me and I respect that. I am willing to listen.

Michael, you are right that the 10th Amendment argument is a long shot, but I think it's a slight exaggeration to say that the SC has given up on the 10th Amendment entirely. After all, they have struck down two federal statutes on that basis over the past decade (guns in school in U.S. v. Lopez, rape in U.S. v. Morrison).

So I do think there is a decent chance a 10th Amendment challenge will prevail, if that challenge is made in the first place. That's a big "if," as many of the groups bringing the PBA challenge are even more hostile toward the 10th Amendment than they are toward the PBA ban.

Partial birth abortions are usually performed when something happens to the baby during the later stages of pregnancy, for example, a condition which causes the baby's head to swell or otherwise endanger the mother's life should the baby come to term and be delivered.

Kelsey,

I believe someone already posted the stats about survival rates of babies during later stages. After 27 weeks a baby can be delivered and survive just fine after a stay in the hospital.

My wife is/was high risk. She has type II diabetes, and you would not believe the stuff she had to go through. They monitored the babies progress EVERY step of the way. They even talked of taking the baby early because of her rapid growth. They CAN do that you know. In fact, they delivered my daughter by Cesarian in the 38th week. Had our baby gone the full 40, she would have been alot bigger than the 10lbs 15 oz she was. At that point it probably would have been risky for my wife to deliver the baby. At no point during the weeks leading up to the birth was the suggestion that if my daughter got too big, they'd induce labor, get the head out some, crack her skull open and suck the brains out.

Their suggestion was to take the baby earlier.

Medical technology is a wonderful thing. There is absolutely no reason for a partial birth abortion. We are not living in the stone ages anymore.

With this ruling, we are not saving an innocent child's life. We are condemning mothers to high-risk births which will more than likely cause severe bleeding or other internal damage that will result in death.

I guarantee more innocent children will be saved then mothers lost. As I stated above, with the medical technology available, there is no reason for a partial birth abortion.

I firmly believe most partial birth abortions are not done due to risk to the mother. They are done because people who shouldn't be having children anyway, conceived the child and realized it was cheaper to let the baby die than get the proper medical treatment to deliver the baby safely.

Maybe I'm a little biased, because my wife just had a baby. But after seeing all the tools available to OB's, I can't imagine a scenario where they couldn't deliver a baby safely.

I just Googled some abortion costs. It costs about $500 for a 1st trimester abortion & $3,000 for up to 24 weeks. So based on this, a partial birth abortion, I would suspect would cost somewhere around $5,000.

The total cost of delivery and care for my wife & daughter was $18,000.

So for $5,000 I can have a doctor perform an ULTRA risky procedure, to kill my baby and possibly my wife. OR, I can dig down deep and come up with $13,000 more and save them both.

Jerry

"1) A zygote is a person, and therefore has the rights that accrue to that status.

Why? Because the definition of a "person" is not biological--it is a moral judgement. My moral judgement is that a zygote IS a person, and I use as my criteria of personhood the three listed above. I've found that I can't come up with a fourth criteria that justifies itself to my satisfaction--although I'd be happy to debate any suggestions."

I think any reasonable definition of "personhood" would have to include "has a brain". In fact, when you get right down to it, the "person" is in fact the brain; the rest of the body is there to feed the brain, provide sensory input, and carry out its orders.

By this definition, we can clearly include near-term babies covered by the partial-birth abortion bad, and we can clearly exclude embryos that might be used in stem-cell research or targeted by "morning after" pills.

Admittedly, there's still a gray area. But it's a lot smaller, and we can properly use the precautionary prinicple (if there might be a functioning brain, no matter how small, we shouldn't kill it any more than we should knock down a building that might have people inside).

Rosemary,

Could you explain the slippery slope? I was not trying to make a slippery slope argument, because I think that implies a progression from one situation to another. I was going after an argument by analogy, and I think the analogy holds.

"Victims shouldn't have to be further victimized..."

In a situation where someone is being victimized, there are two roles that must be filled: the victim and the victimizer. The victim of rape or incest is obvious. The victimizer as to the act itself is likewise obvious, but how does the offense continue beyond the act? Also, assuming the rapist is no longer present, who is the victimizer in the alleged continuing offense?

Is it the absent rapist? If so, how does ending the life of a third party redress the offense as a matter of justice? Is it the unborn child? If so, his crime can only be the fact of his existence--a situation for which he clearly bears no responsibility.

Establishing continued pain is easy, but it is a step too far to assume that continued pain is a result of a continuing crime (in the moral, not legal, sense). Moreover, it is always wrong to punish innocent third parties for offenses that they neither committed nor had any influence over.

You need to look up hydrocephaly before leaping to judgments about the use of this medical technique. Hydrocephaly is a condition that's usually not discovered until late in the 2nd trimester or later. It causes extra fluid to accumulate in the fetus's head, and it's not unusual for the diameter to be as large as 20 inches (more than twice that of an adult's head). Not only will the child never gain consciousness if delivered, in fact the child will not survive long outside the womb, the mother *cannot* deliver the child vaginally -- she would die trying. The alternative to a D&X (partial-birth abortion) is a cesarean section, which aside from being major surgery with the risks inherent to any major surgery, also has pretty big risks to any future pregnancies the woman may carry, not to mention the physical and mental trauma of the procedure to the mother. All these additional risks to the mother, when the outcome is the same: a hydrocephalic, dead baby who never reached consciousness at all.

There is no reason why this ban couldn't have been passed with wording to allow D&Xs to be performed in these situations. There are other situations where at least some people would surely find the procedure justified, situations that haven't adequately been discussed: Is suicidal depression in the mother (possibly untreatable with medication during pregnancy) an excuse for a late-term abortion, and if so, how late-term? Is a late-discovered pregnancy in an overweight thirteen-year-old who didn't know she was pregnant? Is incest and abuse, where the young mom-to-be may not have had the ability to seek help early in the pregnancy? What about cases where the child is so damaged or deformed that life outside the womb will never be possible? What about severe retardation in mother or child? Rape? These are all valid questions, but they haven't been debated, because the easiest reaction to have when the D&X procedure is described is "Eww, that's yucky, that should be illegal!" The fact is, many medical procedures are illegal, and decisions have to be made every day in hospitals that have no 'good' answer.

When we make laws like this, we are drawing a line between what is acceptable to society and what is not. I happen to think that after real debate, after doing more research than listening to a ten-second soundbite on a TV newscast, society would see fit to draw that line somewhere between "Never!" and "Any time, any reason!" I know I would. What kills me is that people argue in favor of this ban without thinking about it, without researching it, without anything more to back them up than their own knee-jerk reaction. It's easier to these people to see this issue as one of good vs evil, with no shades of gray, and one they'll never have to worry about themselves if they live virtuously. The sad fact is this isn't true. One in 2000 fetuses become hydrocephalic.

Webwench:

C-sections are very safe, I know because I've had one. Have you?

They also carry less risk than any other major surgery because the woman is given an epidural or a spinal block.

the mother *cannot* deliver the child vaginally -- she would die trying.

Well, then I guess allowing it when the mother's life is at risk should be included. My bad, it was.

Could you explain the slippery slope? I was not trying to make a slippery slope argument, because I think that implies a progression from one situation to another. I was going after an argument by analogy, and I think the analogy holds.

I didn't see any analogy. I saw a slippery slope.
This is what you said: it says that the abolitionists were wrong to chastise the slaveholding South, that the West should not judge cannibalism in Central Africa, and that we should not criticize the members of NAMBLA.

The reason it is wrong is because you are equating the rape victim with slaveholders, cannabalists and NAMBLA. It is the rapist that is their equivalent not his victim.

The victimizer as to the act itself is likewise obvious, but how does the offense continue beyond the act? Also, assuming the rapist is no longer present, who is the victimizer in the alleged continuing offense?

Sam, you have obviously never been raped or known anyone that has been. If you had you'd be able to answer that yourself. Rape is more than a physical trauma. It is also psychological. The rape victims external wounds heal over time but the mental ones linger sometimes for years.

Knowing that there is a living piece of the animal that attacked them growing within their body has driven some women to suicide. You should perhaps read about the consequences of rape for a better understanding before you presume to pass judgement on people.

"Sam, you have obviously never been raped or known anyone that has been. If you had you'd be able to answer that yourself. Rape is more than a physical trauma. It is also psychological. The rape victims external wounds heal over time but the mental ones linger sometimes for years. "

But that still doesn't justify doing anything to innocent third parties that isn't otherwise acceptable.

But that still doesn't justify doing anything to innocent third parties that isn't otherwise acceptable.

Unfortunately, Roe V. Wade makes it completely acceptable.

Rosemary, here's some information about the risks of cesarean section: http://www.childbirth.org/section/risks.html

For one, it quadruples chances of the mother's death. For another, it doesn't make it any more likely that the baby will live. In other words, you're entailing additional risk and injury to the mother, all for no possible benefit to the baby. This is where a health exemption makes sense.

Whether or not I have had a cesarean section isn't pertinent, and I question why you would try to bring that into your argument. I have had the pleasure of giving normal birth to a 10 lb, 5 oz baby boy five years ago, so hopefully I've established sufficient 'street cred' to engage in discussion? He also happened to be the result of an unplanned pregnancy, so maybe I've even managed to establish myself as something other than a heartless monster.

I will say this, as a person with a heart who also happens to be pro-choice: I think it would break my heart if I were to discover in the sixth month that I'm carrying a hydrocephalic baby who will never survive outside the womb and whom, because vaginal birth would be impossible and the less-invasive partial-birth abortion procedure was outlawed, would have to be delivered via c-section, entailing major surgery for me with no chance of a healthy baby at the end, only a painful recovery, scarring to always remind me and my husband of my loss, the possibility any future babies will also have to be delivered via c-section; well, it would be horrible, and traumatic, and painful for the only person coming out of that situation alive, which would be the mother. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, much less hundreds of women I don't even know, all because the procedure that would spare all that trauma seems 'yucky' or 'barbaric'.

Rosemary,

"The reason it is wrong is because you are equating the rape victim with slaveholders, cannabalists and NAMBLA. It is the rapist that is their equivalent not his victim."

No. I was drawing an analogy for the purposes of illustrating my point, not equating. Rapists do evil, by definition, as do slaveholders, cannibals, and pedophiles. In this sense they are equivalent, but this sense is not relevant to my analogy.

My point was that in many cases, slaveholders in the old South, cannibals in Central Africa, and members of NAMBLA do/did not believe that those activities were morally wrong. Within this moral framework, slavery/cannibalism/pedophilia is morally neutral, at a minimum. Obviously, I disagree with this moral framework, and I'd certainly assume that you do too.

Since my moral framework holds those things to be abhorrent, it motivates me to work to prevent them. I don't agree with the position that it would be better to compromise my belief system rather than force people to subscribe to what they do not believe. Similarly, I believe that a pregnant rape victim who chooses abortion is making an immoral choice, one that ends the life of an innocent person. Even if she does not find her own choice to be immoral, why should that fact, in and of itself, be any counterargument to my position? I hope my intended analogy is more clear.

"Sam, you have obviously never been raped or known anyone that has been. If you had you'd be able to answer that yourself. Rape is more than a physical trauma. It is also psychological. The rape victims external wounds heal over time but the mental ones linger sometimes for years."

Your initial assumption here is not accurate, in a couple of respects...but I would prefer not to explore that side issue, please. Besides, I think my question was insufficiently clear, because your answer doesn't exactly address what I meant.

When I was talking about a "continuing offense," I did NOT mean the physical and psychological pain that lingers after the original rape, and I tried to indicate that in the paragraph following the one you quoted. I was talking about the "further victimization" you referred to earlier, which is not the same. "Further victimization" means that the act of rape was the initial victimization, and also that there were subsequent acts or events that caused damage in their own right. What is this act or acts that cause damage independent of the lingering effects of the original rape?

"Knowing that there is a living piece of the animal that attacked them growing within their body has driven some women to suicide. You should perhaps read about the consequences of rape for a better understanding before you presume to pass judgement on people."

Ok, I think you might not like my response here, but this is important. I fully agree that this is a common psychological reaction to a pregnancy due to rape. It is nevertheless an unhealthy psychological reaction that is due to massive trauma! "Living piece of the animal that attacked them growing within their body"? This is the reaction of an emotionally damaged person--and it is cruel and counterproductive to feed this kind of sick logic. The proper goal of the counselor is to provide support through the healing process, not to validate and affirm an urge to destroy brought on by grief and pain. Emotional trauma, no matter how severe, does not validate crimes against the innocent.

"Unfortunately, Roe V. Wade makes it completely acceptable."

If it wasn't obvious, I'll say it explicitly. Roe vs. Wade is not the basis of my morality, and neither should it be the basis of yours. The Supreme Court has the authority to say what the law is, but it has never had the right to dictate the moral conscience of the nation. Did Dred Scott make slavery "completely acceptable"?

Webwench:

Okay you aren't a heartless monster! I give!!

UNCLE!!!!

See the other post -

BTW, I gave birth 6 years ago to a 10lb 4oz little boy. (by emergency C-section) Darn kid got stuck!

One more thing:Intact dilation and extraction is the medical term for Partial-Birth abortion

Here is some info I found.

D&X

Intact dilation and extraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Intact D&X procedures are extremely rare, carried out in roughly 0.2% (two-tenths of one percent) of all abortions. They may be performed during the third trimester of pregnancy if:

The fetus is dead.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is alive, but the woman wishes to end her pregnancy for non-medical/psychological reasons.

Some of the fetuses which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus. Approximately 1 in 2,000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb; this is about 5,000 a year in the United States. The defect is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester of pregnancy.

If a fetus develops hydrocephalus, the head may expand to a size of up to 250% of the radius of a newborn skull, making it impossible for it to pass through the birth canal. In such a case, the physician may elect to perform an intact D&X procedure by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus.
However, a caesarian section delivery would allow the safe delivery of a hydrocephalic fetus without danger to the mother.

Rosemary,

Is there any data that you are aware of that breaks down that list by percentages? The last item on the list is essentially covers every circumstance not covered by the other criteria. A fairly important piece of data would be whether the catch-all represents a tiny fraction or a significant proportion of the total.

My previous comment has several questions for you. Please consider them; I'd be happy to see a response at your leisure.

Sam:

Similarly, I believe that a pregnant rape victim who chooses abortion is making an immoral choice, one that ends the life of an innocent person. Even if she does not find her own choice to be immoral, why should that fact, in and of itself, be any counterargument to my position?

I guess it doesn't. If you think that she is making an immoral choice - I wouldn't be able convince you otherwise, nor would I want to really. I am merely trying to explain why I can accept it. Just like if that rape victim killed her attacker in an attempt to escape her attack. Killing is wrong but I could understand and not blame her for it.

What is this act or acts that cause damage independent of the lingering effects of the original rape?

Oh, Sam are you trying to trick me ? Forcing a woman against her will to continue a pregnancy that was a result of rape would qualify. How about the pregnancy itself? That may be a lingering effect but it is a separate issue with long term results. A pregnancy that results from rape can be more damaging than the rape itself.

Now you have a woman forced to make a choice that she might never have had to before. Or, live with the result and try to parent a child that is a constant reminder of a trauma. Or, go through a pregnancy and all that it entails and give up that child for adoption and possible have to face that choice many years down the road - when said child comes back to ask why? Then we have the child to consider.

What if abortion was completely outlawed? Rape victims are forced to have their children. Some of those children would suffer and we don't know how many. Why? Child abuse, mental abuse or lack of care. Some of those women could turn on their children, not love them - perhaps even hate them. No, not all but some. Of course not all rape victims would choose to terminate either. But if they had no choice we could be condemning some of those children to a fate worse than death but at least our morals would be safe.

Roe vs. Wade is not the basis of my morality, and neither should it be the basis of yours.

It's not. It was a tongue in cheek response. The question was whether it was acceptable and unfortunately since it is still legal. It is currently acceptable in this country

Did Dred Scott make slavery "completely acceptable"?

Nice one Sam! To paraphrase you a bit, you aren't gonna like my answer. At the time, slavery was acceptable. As you well know slavery was an accepted practice for thousands of years. Luckily, we became enlightened enough to outlaw it because it is an abhorrent thing, like abortion.

Look, I wouldn't cry a river if abortion was illegal. I would hope that any problems that arrose because of making it illegal could be solved but we can't ignor the fact that making it completely illegal wouldn't create other problems. We don't live in Utopia.

My solution to the rape thing would be this: All victims of rape upon being examined by a doctor are given an immediate D&C. If said exam happened withing 48 hours. Thus eliminated the possibility of conception and implantation which can take up to 3 days.

That way the woman has no choice to make. Conception doesn't occur and therefore killing an innocent life is irrelavent.

Is there any data that you are aware of that breaks down that list by percentages?

Not that I can find. I wish.

Sam, you present the perfect example of why the extremist pro-choicers fought this ban so hard. Not because there was no merit in a compromise position, but because they know that there are people on the far side of the issue that will never give up until abortion is banned in all cases and forms, starting from conception. Since that eventuality is completely unacceptable to them, they couldn't afford to ever willingly give up a single inch of territory.

I am not saying that I think your position is in any way irrational, in fact I find it completely rational. I truly do not understand how anyone can reconcile the belief that personhood starts at conception with permitting abortion for the result of incest or rape, or even for cases of profound fetal misdevelopment. Killing a person is murder, no matter what physical or psychological disabilities that person struggles with.

Furthermore, I too have a strong instinct to never compromise on my moral principles. What is the point of having principles if you don't live up to them?

However, I do not share your beliefs. My beliefs do not bring me to the same conclusions as yours. And my principles force me to the position that it cannot ever be right for me or any disinterested agency to require a citizen to comply with a policy that is inevitably based on a non-universal set of beliefs.

(By disinterested I mean anyone who is not aware of the exact details of a specific situation, and responsible for and directly affected by the consequences of that situation)

(And by non-universal I mean that persons of good will with a common dedication to the ideals of freedom, liberty, and civilized society, can reasonably disagree)

But I am coming to realize that this refusal to compromise is a very anti-democratic position. Democracy requires compromise. Freedom itself requires compromise. I submit this for your consideration: I can live with Rosemary. I can even compromise my principles to live in a civilized accord with people like Rosemary.

I can only fight with you.

"What if abortion was completely outlawed? Rape victims are forced to have their children. Some of those children would suffer and we don't know how many. Why? Child abuse, mental abuse or lack of care. Some of those women could turn on their children, not love them - perhaps even hate them."

But wouldn't the ones that hate them give them up?

"No, not all but some. Of course not all rape victims would choose to terminate either. But if they had no choice we could be condemning some of those children to a fate worse than death but at least our morals would be safe."

I will believe that someone is suffering a fate worse than death when that person commits suicide. Otherwise, it seems clear that from his own point of view, his fate is not worse than death, because he has the power to choose death at any time and refuses to do so.

But wouldn't the ones that hate them give them up?

If that were true, would child abuse exist. Would women be going to jail for killing their own
children by drowning them? Putting newborns in dumpsters?

I mean there are many cases of women killing their kids.

Otherwise, it seems clear that from his own point of view, his fate is not worse than death, because he has the power to choose death at any time and refuses to do so

Would a 5 year old commit suicide to escape beatings and abuse? Young children that can't get their own cereal or tie their shoes are they gonna know how to escape abuse?

Rosemary,

"Oh, Sam are you trying to trick me ? Forcing a woman against her will to continue a pregnancy that was a result of rape would qualify. How about the pregnancy itself? That may be a lingering effect but it is a separate issue with long term results. A pregnancy that results from rape can be more damaging than the rape itself."

Well, I wasn't trying to trick you, but on reflection, I think my line of argument there doesn't really go to the central point, so I'll rephrase. I had an argument good to go, but then I realized there was a tangent, etc. I'm sorry.

Ok, back on point. We've got a pregnancy, and the facts and circumstances of that pregnancy are their own source of trauma to the rape victim. I think your argument here is that the abortion ends the trauma caused by the pregnancy, and therefore anyone who bars the abortion acts as an accessory to the trauma caused by the pregnancy itself. I find this argument plausible, BUT incomplete in crucial ways.

It ignores the life of the unborn child. In order to justify the abortion, you have to claim that either the child is morally culpable for the trauma of the pregnancy OR that the right of the mother to be free of this trauma outweighs the right of the child to live. I do not view the first position as intellectually serious, since I don't think you can be morally culpable for situations that you did not cause and could not prevent. I don't think you can square the second view with a belief that the right to life is obtained at the point of conception.

Rosemary,

"Some of those children would suffer and we don't know how many."

But they would be ALIVE. Life is often unpleasant (believe me, I know), but how can you say to someone, "There is a large chance that your life would have been painful and awful, so I decided to free you from that pain." I know people who have been abused HORRIBLY, but I would NEVER make this argument to them.

It goes to the whole "quality of life" question. I think it's bad enough to try to determine if a given person's quality of life is sufficient to justify continuing it, but to make the criteria their EXPECTED quality of life?

Rosemary,

Regarding Dred Scott--you left out a sentence in my response, which was the following:

"The Supreme Court has the authority to say what the law is, but it has never had the right to dictate the moral conscience of the nation."

I think that should make it perfectly clear that I was talking about the MORALITY of the case, not the LEGALITY. However, you are responding within a legal framework--I'm pointing out that I don't think that's what Ken meant.

Pro lifers (as opposed to us anti-lifers) What are your respective positions on birth control?

What are your respective positions on birth control?

Use it !!!!!
Birth control is great as it prevents conception.

Yeah for birth control!!!!

Well, I believe that life begins at the point of conception. If your form of birth control prevents conception, then what's the big deal? I ascribe no particular rights to egg or sperm cells (and I'm not Catholic, so I don't have to care what the Pope says).

That said, the advent of birth control has been a part of some substantially negative sociological trends that ought to be better investigated. I don't know whether birth control could be considered one of the causes, or merely one of the aggravating circumstances, but it has enabled the trend of irresponsible, destructive sexual practices that the 60's were best known for. So I'd call birth control not inherently bad, but sociologically suspect, pending more information.

This is all a tangent, though. Does anyone want to address "quality of life" issues?

Sam:

I honestly don't think I can answer that question.
I think it's fairly obvious that I am struggling with this issue as it is.

I can on one hand understand why a woman could want an abortion due to violence(rape/incest). On the other, destroying an innocent life for any reason makes me ill.

I've explained why I can ***tolerate*** abortion in rare cases. I will NEVER accept them. That goes beyond the scope of my head and my heart.

Rosemary,

I respect the fact that the issue is hard, and no option is without pain. I think struggling with it is worthwhile, because at some point, you may reach the position that you are most comfortable with, and the knowledge that you have examined all the other options will give added strength to your convictions. This, to me, is one of the major benefits of thrashing out tough issues--you get a much better feeling for where you are, and also why.

I'll respond with this: I think there is a difference between a woman being justified in desperately wanting an abortion (rape/incest), and a woman being justified in actually getting that abortion. I support all manner of counseling, therapy, and emotional support, but I think it would be better to encourage the woman to see her child as a partner in pain, another innocent victim of the crime, rather than an accessory after the fact.

I care very much about healing the immediate damage, but I'd also like to avert as much long-term pain as possible at the same time. If this woman believes that life begins at conception, and yet chooses an abortion in response to her pain, what will she think of that choice, years down the road? I think she will regret the decision, once she is further removed from the hell of that moment--but better counsel could preempt that regret.

Best wishes in your continued struggle with the issue. It is difficult, but I think there is much to be gained.