Should women own the debate on abortion…
I read Connie Schultz’s column in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on a regular basis, her column today raises some thought provoking points on the topic of abortion, entitled, Sorry, boys, but abortion is a women’s issue. The abortion discussion is one we don’t normally have here, but with part of the presidential focus being a discussion on a man versus a woman president, abortion has been raised in the presidential campaigns. For some voters this will be their “one” key issue that a position for or against abortion is one of their primary deciding factors of support or non-support of a candidate.
I recommend reading the column in full, but a small portion of it that I found especially thought provoking:
Recently, two photos ran with an Associated Press story about Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion 35 years ago today. In the first photo, pro-choice women rallied on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the second, men picketed an abortion clinic.
The gender divide suggested by the photos is overstated. Many women oppose abortion rights, and plenty of men support them, but the photos did reflect a historical fact: Women’s reproductive rights have always been legislated and adjudicated primarily by men, not one of whom will ever have to face the physical consequences of any pregnancy.
The older I get, the more wrong that feels.
As a Roman Catholic, who has faced the decision involved when a doctor advises that a pregnancy be terminated twice, it’s a difficult decision to make. I opted to continue, one time the doctors were correct, the twins I carried did not survive, once they were wrong. I know men who have felt they deserved a voice in the decision since it was also their child, some who would have supported an abortion, some who would not. With the underlying reality that it would be the woman who does carry or not carry a child to term, the argument that it should be up to the woman to decide on the face of it holds merit. Yet, men do not have another option. While my faith is clear when it comes to abortion, I do not feel I have the right to demand the tenants of my faith be observed by others.
From a legislative point, Connie Schultz is correct, decisions that involve women when it comes to reproductive rights are generally decided by men. As more women become legislators will this issue change as far as how it is addressed is something I have thought about in the past and still wonder today.
Lisa,
I can find no flaw in your logic.
The man should have some say so in the matter, but it is ultimately the woman who makes the final decision.
In a perfect world, hopefully both would agree.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pmThat is one of the things that have always bothered me about the debate about abortion, that it is mainly men who have the final say so when it comes to the law. And even though I don’t think I could personally ever terminate a pregnancy, it irritates the snot out of me when I hear men saying that abortion should be illegal.
I really don’t think it should be a political issue at all. It’s a medical procedure, that a decision should be made by a woman, her husband/boyfriend and doctor.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pmAgreed Hooda, in a perfect world most of the disagreements would not exist.
Robin, I believe the main reason why this became a political issue is related to funding. If no tax dollars were used to provide abortions then it would be hard pressed to make this a political issue. There are many who do not believe that tax dollars local/state or federal should be used to assist payment for abortion or birth control.
From a cost factor alone though it could be stated that providing assistance for abortion funding or birth control outweighs the cost of a child receiving health coverage when the parents are not financially able to provide it. Typically it’s such an emotionally charged subject that portion of the discussion is not often publicly had. The line between where should personal responsibility start and end and where government assistance should start and end is a part of this that is not often agreed on.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 pmIt has always bothered me to see men leading marches against abortion clinics.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pmNo, abortion isn’t a women’s issue. It’s a woman’s issue. It’s not something that women should decide collectively. Rather, it’s something that each individual woman should decide for herself. An abortion ban enacted by a matriarchy would be just as bad as one enacted by a legislature composed mostly of men.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:34 pmWhat bothers me most about all of the Roe VS Wade protests lately is how much it feels like our country is moving backward rather than forward. This decision was made in the courts 30 years ago and it gave women the right to choose what is best for them. Yes, there are many that morally feel this is something that is wrong. But the fact of the matter is this is not a religious or moral issue, it is a legal issue. Religion and/or morals as well as personal feelings MUST be kept out of the decision as to whether or not abortion is legal. Would people rather see women going to back alley doctors and having abortions done illegally or under improper conditions? This just makes no sense! Why is our country retreating backward and taking away more and more of the things that people have been legally allowed to do for many years? What’s next? Another prohibition?
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:58 pmIt is a great article. Unfortunately, I don’t see women getting to “own the debate” any time soon. The SCOTUS’s decision on the partial birth abortion ban is a horrible example of how we, as a nation, are going backward on this issue.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 am“Why is our country retreating backward and taking away more and more of the things that people have been legally allowed to do for many years?”
We have a vocal segment of the country that holds that if we return back in time, all things will become better and if we believe in one guiding principle, all will be better and yet what they fail to understand is that all of which they object too has been with us since humans were put on this earth.
Some are just simply intolerant of some matters, no matter what.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 amLisa,
As I see it, there are two issues here:
1) Do women own the only right to decide on abortion? In other words, do only women have the right to decide what is right or not right for other women. This smacks of the same division being made about racial issues – would anyone say that only blacks can decide what laws are made regarding blacks? In fact, right now women hold a significant power over men regarding abortion right now: abort the child, or force the man to support the child. Perhaps the man should have the right to pay for half the abortion, and then be release from all future fiscal committment (and rights towards raising the child).
2) Is Roe v. Wade settled law? I find it interesting that this case is the only one that is to never, ever be overturned. Anyone remember Dred Scott? I didn’t hear this same segment declaring that Bowers v Hardwick was settled law. Roe is a bad decision, because it takes away laws that were settled by the states, and without a debate or vote, the Court decrees “it will be thus.” Here’s a radical idea: Overturn Roe, which will send the matters back to the states where it belongs (per that pesky 10th Amendment). Let the matter be decided by the elected legislators – or put to a direct vote. Or, if the concept turns your stomach – arrange for a constutional ammendment.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 amIt’s funny, the 10th. Amendment is cited, yet, the Supreme Court held that is a violation of a persons rights under the 14th. Amendment, with regards to privacy.
“3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. ”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html
If the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected, then how can a state supercede the right?
Is any law settled?
There are challenges to laws each and every day.
Should a court, charged with being above, public influence and other sources of influence remain neutral and not subject to the personal morals of its members?
“I didn’t hear this same segment declaring that Bowers v Hardwick was settled law.”
Has there been a challenge to the law?
And what right is it of the state to be so concerned what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home?
We tend to decry Big Brother but then again we want intervention by Big Brother.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 amBowers v Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence v Texas. My point is that Roe is the only case that is immune to overturning, in the minds of the left.
As to the 14th Amendment, there is no mention of the word “privacy.” Furthermore, the Court overstepped the bounds of the 14th Amendment, as Section 5 reads:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (Emphasis mine.)
Note that the Supreme Court has no power to enforce, by means of statue creation, under this amendment. Not that this is anything new, the US Supreme Court has been violating the seperation of powers since Marbury v Madison Nullifying the Roe decision simply returns the decisions to the states, where according to the doctrine of Federalism (as described in the Constitution) the decision belongs.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 am“My point is that Roe is the only case that is immune to overturning, in the minds of the left.”
Which begs the question, why are people on the right so worried about and influenced by what people do in private and make decisions for themselves, want less governmenbt intervention and less government in general but want government to regulate private matters, do the private goings on of people really have an effect on us?
“As to the 14th Amendment, there is no mention of the word “privacy.” Furthermore, the Court overstepped the bounds of the 14th Amendment, as Section 5 reads:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (Emphasis mine.)”
Ah, the literal reading of something, about something that makes the claim that the Judiciary cannot over see and mediate disputes about legislation and its application.
If the world was only, so literal, which it’s not.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am“Robin, I believe the main reason why this became a political issue is related to funding. If no tax dollars were used to provide abortions then it would be hard pressed to make this a political issue. There are many who do not believe that tax dollars local/state or federal should be used to assist payment for abortion or birth control. ”
It seems those are the same people who don’t want to pay taxes for schools and for health care for the children who are outside of the womb.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 amNC,
I’d say that Section 5 of the Amendment is pretty specific. And, considering that this was written post Marbury, it doesn’t say “The Congress, and the Supreme Court – if it so decides to legislate from the bench…” In fact, this section declares that Congress and Congress alone has the power to legislate this issue – and that’s not open for interpretation. Otherwise, even the Constitution could be declared unconstitutional by the courts, and once that happens the government changes from a republic to an oligarchary.
Why is the left so afraid of putting the issue in the hands of the legislators of the states, or up before a public vote? And more importantly, why won’t you engage my point: What about Roe makes it untouchable?
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm“NC,
I’d say that Section 5 of the Amendment is pretty specific.”
Sure, if taken literally but we all know that the law is interpreted and applied to circumstances. The Justices on the court, some of the finest minds in the country know that there are interpretations to the law.
“And, considering that this was written post Marbury, it doesn’t say “The Congress, and the Supreme Court – if it so decides to legislate from the bench…” In fact, this section declares that Congress and Congress alone has the power to legislate this issue – and that’s not open for interpretation.”
Sure, the Legislature legislates and the courts interpret what the Legislature intended, been that way for 200+ years.
“Why is the left so afraid of putting the issue in the hands of the legislators of the states, or up before a public vote?”
Is a left versus right issue or one of national importance and one of constitutional rights?
“And more importantly, why won’t you engage my point: What about Roe makes it untouchable?”
Untouchable?
Someone needs to petition the court with a strong enough argument to get the court to review the case, at least that is how it works. But what does it matter what I think? Get the decision reviewed in the courts and let our impartial court system decide.
But then again that raises the other question, why do we need interference in the rights of people to make decisions for themselves, with regards to an abortion.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pmI too, have experience with an abortion of sorts.
A son was born with no kidneys or urinary tract and was not going to live after birth.
We had to go to another state to deliver the son early because of regulations about premature induced delivery, which was considered an abortion.
Because of governmental involvement in a personal matter the process was made harder than it needed to be.
The states or fed, in my opinion, should not be involved in the decision process or decision making process when it comes to a matter like this.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:47 pmAs they say “there in lies the rub” once the decision was made for the government to enter the abortion debate created the scenario for Roe V Wade. If you believe that the government should not have been involved in the abortion debate then you would view Roe V Wade should remain in place. If you believe the government should have the ability to prevent a woman from being able to obtain an abortion then you would feel differently.
There will always be a difference of opinion on this one by many, should a man be forced to pay child support on a child if the woman refuses to have an abortion? Statistically it appears that men who do not want to pay child support don’t, or they do the bare minimum that the court requires and decide to not play a role in that child’s life, just as on the flip side some women are rightfully accused of not allowing a man to be a father to their child. Considering the historical time period when women were more under the control of men it should also be understandable why many would strongly protest the ability of a man to decide what they do with their own body.
Wanting women to own the debate on abortion is not designed to make women merely replace men as the decision makers from the context I understand it being presented, it’s suggested because it is felt that women would better understand the decision faced when you are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Many times that aspect is lost in the argument on abortion. It’s clear as Connie’s article pointed out that not all women support abortion, just as some men do, but when you take the discussion down to it’s most basic point, who should have the final say over such a personal decision? The woman, the man or the government? I believe it should be the woman.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:43 am“it’s suggested because it is felt that women would better understand the decision faced when you are faced with an unplanned pregnancy.”
The debate is more about unplanned pregnancies. That is but one part of the whole ball of wax.
I also beleive it should be the woman or couple depending on the circumstances. But because people have sought to deny the procedure on many grounds, the government has become involved and now there are some that want the decisions over turned on religious and spiritual grounds and some want the decision to be over turned because of literal rendering of the founding documents and the whole matter gets so messy and confused.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:41 amWhen Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, liberal liberal justice on the Supreme COurt backing partail-birth abortions, calls Roe bad judgment, something might be wrong.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:54 amTom, she took issue because she felt the way the legal decision was done created more problems than it solved.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am“Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify.”
Such intervention can never be justified. The legal theory behind Roe isn’t being glorified as a wonderful legal decision or debated as a difficult decision to make because the legal theory is bunk. Justice Ginsburg just said there was no legit legal theory backing it. As much as one might be for or against something, it doesn’t matter if it can’t be backed up in the Constitution. Abortion should be left to the States. Roe is junk legal theory.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:58 amThe problem with abortion being left to the States is the constitutional issues that were raised. I’m typically an advocate for home rule as opposed to federal rule but the federal constitution over-rules the State when it comes to some issues which in this case is due process. The basic question of should a state or any form of government have the right to deny abortion in all situations is the main issue.
Roe stated she was raped, and her ability to have an abortion was denied.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:16 pmSo go to a different state! I hav a problem with income taxes in Ohio so should I take it to the Supreme Court or move to Florida?
January 24th, 2008 at 12:27 pmThe beauty of States rights. One has a problem, move! If the Court oversteps its Constitutional bounds, you’re screwed either way.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pmI generally support the position of trying to make things better where I live rather than to just move away. Though living in Florida this time of year would be tempting.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pmOf course. I believe the same – you should know that!
SO push for what you want in your state instead of the gov. just making a blanket policy for the entire country. It’s like minimum wage. I know states can set theirs higher, so why does Washington mess with it. Can you see someone in Southern Cal. or NYC living on 7 bucks an hour?
January 24th, 2008 at 10:56 pmLisa,
I too try to make things better where I live (we may disagree on the exact defination of “better” – but that’s the beauty of America). And yes, if Roe get repealled, you would have a hodge-podge of laws. Just like the states have a hodge-podge of tax rates. Then, folks could vote either at the ballot box, or with their feet. Folks don’t seem to have a problem crossing a state line to pay less sales tax, what makes anyone think that they would have a problem crossing a state line to get an abortion?
January 25th, 2008 at 8:59 amWow – amazing how much these posts have strayed sooooooo far from the heart of the matter.
Try looking at it this way….
1) Is the baby in the mother’s womb the mother’s property – or a free, independent person?
2) Should anyone (man or woman) be allowed to harm such an innocent being – for any reason?
3) If you allow abortion – especially for the reasons of financial or emotional hardship – as is often done in today’s arguments – then what is so special about the first 9 months of the baby’s life (in the womb) as opposed to the first 9 months of the baby’s life (outside of the womb)
4) If you support abortion-in-the-womb – do you also support the mother’s (or father’s) right to kill the baby post-birth if they decide – after say a month – that they really can’t support/love/nurture the baby?
5) If you support abortion in-the-womb but not killing the child out-of-the-womb – what changed in your mindset?
The abortion question is really quite easy – is more black-and-white than most people want to believe it is. Is it a life or not – and if so – how can we justify taking it – for any reason?
We just tend to clog the argument with such ideas as constitutionality, rights, male-domination, etc. – when that does nothing but distract us from the real truths…..is the baby a life…..or not….and shouldn’t we act accordingly?
January 25th, 2008 at 7:11 pm“We just tend to clog the argument with such ideas as constitutionality, rights, male-domination, etc. – when that does nothing but distract us from the real truths…..is the baby a life…..or not….and shouldn’t we act accordingly?”
How would we act accordingly?
I had a son who was not going to life and we decided to deliver him prematurely and not carry him full term, knowing that he was destined to die.
Was it a decision to be made by others or ourselves? We had to go to another state for the premature delivery, because it was considered an abortion in the state in which I lived at the time.
It seems we want to regulate aspects of our lifes, that are really quite personal and should not be left to a group decision.
“Is it a life or not – and if so – how can we justify taking it – for any reason?”
So, true in some many other ways.
Some consider life to be sacred but then come up with lots of reasons why it should end with justifications of all sorts.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:18 pmNC – first – I’m sorry for the pain I’m sure you went through – and may still go through for this. These comments are not meant to demean that in any way.
But the point is this – Every life has a time frame – and we aren’t the ones to decide when it should come to an end. I’m not sure that you or others should have made that decision. Your son would have lived as long as his life was destined to be in that situation.
That may sound cold coming from someone who was never in your situation – but as I was trying to say – it is the one consistent way to treat life that applies in all situations….
I”m not sure what you are getting at with your last statement – but I certainly do agree that life is sacred – and I can’t think of too many justifications for taking it. I’m against the death penalty….against unjust wars….against euthanasia….against any form of taking innocent life in any way….and even against the taking of non-innocent life really….it isn’t our decision when one person’s life ends….nor should it ever be.
And – finally – if we can set aside your particular situation – what about the other 98% of abortions that are NOT about extremely dire life consequences…..even if you and I agreed on how to handle abortions in the extremely dire life consequences – can’t we still come to an agreement on how to handle the 98% of abortions that are not due to life-threatening situations…..but then again – who gets to decide what IS and what IS NOT a life threatening situation….which just gets us back to the crux of the matter…..should we be the ones to decide that or should we let life run its natural course…
January 25th, 2008 at 9:37 pm‘We just tend to clog the argument with such ideas as constitutionality, rights, male-domination, etc. – when that does nothing but distract us from the real truths…..is the baby a life…..or not….and shouldn’t we act accordingly?’
The debate about abortion’s morality should be saved for the States when they are enacting their laws regarding abortion. The Supreme Court should not be making blanket laws to cover the entire country. If it’s not included in the COnstitution, it should be left up to the States.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:54 pmThe saddest part of the abortion “debate” is that women have already been legally granted the right to an abortion. Now that right must be defended constantly from those who view a woman’s right to choose as some sort of mistake made by “activist” judges. The only activist judges I see are those who are actively trying to take away that right. It is well documented that Alito crafted the Reagan-era plan to restrict “Roe” and now he sits on the Supreme Court. I wonder which way he’ll rule if he gets the oppotunity to overturn it?
January 26th, 2008 at 3:09 amThe latest ruling on partial-birth abortion from the court allows doctors to rip a fetus to shreds and endanger the mother’s life and future ability to have children in the process. Forgive me if I don’t see any actual concern for human life in that decision.
“NC – first – I’m sorry for the pain I’m sure you went through – and may still go through for this. These comments are not meant to demean that in any way.”
Thanks and I did not and do not take the comments personally. I illustrate conversation as some also do, with personal experiences.
“Your son would have lived as long as his life was destined to be in that situation.”
His life ended when the umbilical cord was cut.
“But the point is this – Every life has a time frame – and we aren’t the ones to decide when it should come to an end.”
Sometimes we are. In the case of terminal diseases and so on. We can decide to not sustain life and let it go, I think we also should have that right, also.
“I’m against the death penalty….against unjust wars….against euthanasia….against any form of taking innocent life in any way….and even against the taking of non-innocent life really….it isn’t our decision when one person’s life ends….nor should it ever be.”
Ditto on the death penalty and wars, but if I want to end my life, I feel that I should be able too.
Acually there are spiritual passages that tell the readers when the taking of life is acceptable and justified, so it is very confusing.
“should we be the ones to decide that or should we let life run its natural course…”
Let the person decide.
While I do agree that all life is sacred, I also know that the only life I can control is mine and not the ones around me.
January 26th, 2008 at 6:25 am“Now that right must be defended constantly from those who view a woman’s right to choose as some sort of mistake made by “activist” judges.”
The courts are slowly loosing their independent stance are the judges are being picked for idealogical stances and not the prudence to remain neutral.
The smoke screen is easily seen through, when a ruling does not go someones way, the judges are activists.
What would we classify Solomon as, in todays world.
January 26th, 2008 at 6:29 am“The only activist judges I see are those who are actively trying to take away that right.”
Federalism and States rights belong here. Please see above posts. ABortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so it is a State issue.
January 26th, 2008 at 11:22 am“ABortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so it is a State issue.”
There are many things that are not mentioned in the constitution and yet they happen and when some decision is made that some do not agree with, the literal reading of a document is the fall back position.
Abortion is also not mentioned in state constitutions.
Abortion is a medical procedure. Do we want or need either a state of federal agency involved in medical issues?
Reading things literally is not what the legal system is based on and I chuckled earlier this week, when others in other forums held to that line of thinking and I thought back to the old story of saying exact words and sticking by them.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pmNC States – “Abortion is a medical procedure” as well as “The only life I can control is mine – not those around me”.
First – abortion is a medical procedure – but so would be cutting off someone’s arm, removing their heart, and a thousand other procedures – but it is the intent behind the medical procedure that is at question here. My contention is that abortion is a “medical procedure” whose intent is to kill another person – even for the most humane of reasons.
There have been lots of replies since my first post – and yet no one has even tried to tackle my questions. Here they are again – in a shortened form:
1) Is the baby in the womb the “property” of the mother (or father)?
.
2) If not property – but a free person – how can we decide to kill the baby (even NC agrees he shouldn’t be able to kill “someone else”
3) If we can kill the baby for medical/financial/emotional reasons before birth – why not after?
4) If OK before birth – but not after – what changed?
Anyone care to try to respond to these questions?
I contend that they are at the heart, the very heart of this debate – way before we get to stuff you are debating above.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm“1) Is the baby in the womb the “property” of the mother (or father)?”
People are not property.
“2) If not property – but a free person – how can we decide to kill the baby”
Has a baby the same rights as another, some would say yes, the basic right to life and then lump all abortions and use some statistic to prove the point. How can we decide? Simple the decison is made on the grounds before the people.
“3) If we can kill the baby for medical/financial/emotional reasons before birth – why not after?”
It happens, doesn’t it? How many stories do we read that show us how people or parents act.
“4) If OK before birth – but not after – what changed?”
“(even NC agrees he shouldn’t be able to kill “someone else”).”
I should not be able too, quite, but I can if I want too and I would live with the decision and when the time came to atone for my past actions I would have to deal with it.
Just as I came to terms with the premature delivery of a son, it was our decision and not a matter for others to decide.
Is it really okay at any time to terminate a life? That is decision, in my opinion as it relates to abortion to be made between the couple or single person and a doctor and the persons own mind to make up.
It is not for me to tell others what they can or cannot do, as I can only control what I do and am responsible for.
As to the intent, one should be aware that not every abortion procedure is for nefarious means or corrupt means.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pmTShank,
The basis to your question surrounds another basic question, when does life begin. If life is not considered to yet exist or the life could not exist on it’s own it’s felt that the decision is with the host – the mother.
When life begins at the actual moment of conception or the actual moment of viability where the baby would be able to survive on it’s own or the moment when the baby would be considered to have a “soul” which is also biblically debated is part of what makes the abortion issue so difficult. If you ask 20 different people when they feel life begins, you could very well get many different beliefs.
January 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm“There are many things that are not mentioned in the constitution and yet they happen and when some decision is made that some do not agree with, the literal reading of a document is the fall back position.”
The literal meaning as far as the 10th amendment?
“Abortion is also not mentioned in state constitutions.”
Becuase the SC made their blanket judgment, out stepping their legal boundaries, ignoring the 10th amendment.
January 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm““Abortion is also not mentioned in state constitutions.”
Becuase the SC made their blanket judgment, out stepping their legal boundaries, ignoring the 10th amendment.”
A state is free to alter its constitution to address an issue.
If a state constitution is silent on the issue, some take it to mean that something cannot be done.
Reality shows us that there are actions in states that have no amendment or clause and laws are made and when conflicts arise a court decides the matter. If there is no clause or langauge then the court uses the intent of the language of the law to decide and precedent to on the ruling.
Oh, but, what would it look like if we applied such strictness to all around us.
I mean heck there is nothing in the constitution about me picking up a gun and shooting someone, is there? So, I should be free to pick up a 9 and blast away, but we have laws against that.
The courts look at the issue of abortion and the question revolves around the right of a person to have an abortion.
Is it my business if my neighbhor decides to have an abortion? To me, no, it is none of my business.
Point of reference,
“Ohio
The State of Ohio requires a mandatory 24 hour delay and provision of state-directed counseling prior to obtaining an abortion. This information must be obtained in person from a physician at least 24 hours prior to an abortion.
This law also requires patients to get copies of two state-mandated publications at least 24 hours in advance of the abortion procedure.
The Law: Requires that one parent/guardian has to sign a consent (or the minor can try to get a judicial bypass. For the correct information on Ohio go to: http://www.plannedparenthoodcentralohio.org
\Judicial Bypass – If a parent will not consent to an abortion, the minor must:
• convince a judge that she is mature enough to make her own decision without involving a parent
or
• that the abortion is in her best interests.
If a minor is interested in obtaining judicial bypass, Planned Parenthood will offer assistance with the court bypass procedure. The judicial bypass process is completely confidential no matter what the judge decides.”
http://www.coolnurse.com/abortion_laws.htm
There are those want all these laws overturned to suit themselves.
January 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pmIf the baby is not our property – I contend we don’t have the right to kill it.
We could perhaps start to agree that we shouldn’t at least kill the baby “just because doing so would make our life easier” – as is done in 98% of the cases – NC’s case not withstanding. If we said that we could remove the abortion cases that are not medically necessary – how many lives would we save. I agree not all are done strictly as birth control measures – but we should all agree that most (98% if I read the statistics right) are. What’s 98% of 1.2 million abortions a year? Quite a lot.
“When does the baby have life?” Right – we can’t know that FOR SURE – but I think most have to agree that “at conception” is the basic standard that would apply. Any other answer seems to cause more debate than answers. And – viability outside the womb is moving closer and closer to conception time if we used that as a measure….
And – if we don’t know FOR SURE – why don’t we apply the same litmus case we do in court systems – and side on the side of LIFE. It is amazing to me that if we don’t know FOR SURE – BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in our court systems – we all agree we should not convict. But – where a newborn baby’s life is at stake – we can easily say …..”well – we don’t know when life begins, so we think it is OK to just kill it – if the mother decides so”. Talk about your double standards.
Same argument goes for a soul….gee…if we don’t THINK that the cells in the petri dish have a soul – so it is OK to run experiments on them….because we really don’t know – so maybe we have plausible deniability!!!!
Again – if we choose to come down on the side of life – which we do in all sorts of other – less dire decisions – why not when dealing with life-and-death issues of our babies?
We seem to have this misguided notion that a baby’s “life” doesn’t start as a separate entity until birth – when – medically – scientifically – we know that the baby is separate at the moment of conception. Calling the mother the “host” and the baby a “parasite” just seems to cheapen the meaning of life – but it does help us ease our conscience when we want to think about whether abortion should be OK or not.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:23 am“but we should all agree that most (98% if I read the statistics right) are. What’s 98% of 1.2 million abortions a year? Quite a lot.”
To agree on the stats, one needs to understand who’s stats they are, and what purpose do they serve.
Here are some stats from the CDC,
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
The underlying point of the contentious issue, seems to be does the woman have the right to make a decision about the choice of an abortion.
Some quote religious text, as saying this or that, the language is vague at best and some quote the frame work of the country and the wording is vague at best and some people kill people to stop people from killing other people.
I cannot understand why the issue is so contentious when it really, to me, is a matter that is between the mother or couple to make and we as a nation of freedoms seem to want to restrict freedoms.
And yet we want less government interference on all levels.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:35 amNC,
Yes – I know – statistics are easy to fudge, etc. In the pro-life community we know to add 20 to 30% to any numbers coming out of Planned Parenthood, the Guttenmacher Institute or the CDC just because they don’t like to report these things accurately – or they use other terms for the medical procedures that don’t alway get reported as “abortions”.
And don’t get me started on the number of abortions through the use of the birth-control pill alone. Those numbers aren’t reported by ANY agency. Heck, most people don’t even know that the 3rd line of defense for the birth control pill (altering the lining of the endometrium) is an abortion – coming 5 to 7 days AFTER conception. With the huge use of the birth control pill – the number of chemical abortions that happen this way can rival the number of reported abortions through the other medical procedures.
So – yes – I agree – this issue can be complex when we don’t rely on the most basic of human tenants – do no harm and do not kill others. When we add to that – we get all sorts of complexities – and then we claim it is too hard to solve so we try to ignore the issues….
January 27th, 2008 at 11:06 amNorma McCorvey aka Jane Roe of Roe v Wade wrote in her book Won By Love:
“I was sitting in O.R.’s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. “Norma,” I said to myself, “They’re right.” I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that’s a baby! It’s as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth–that’s a baby!
I felt “crushed” under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn’t about ‘products of conception.’ It wasn’t about ‘missed periods.’ It was about children being killed in their mother’s wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.”
In 2005, she petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, and supports Ron Paul for his anti-Roe v Wade position.
Didn’t know about her until tonight.
January 27th, 2008 at 9:22 pmTough topic. You know there is more than one set of circumstances that a woman finds herself pregnant in – so I think the question is larger than a simple yes or no.
A woman who has a loving partner or a young woman who has loving parents is in a far different situation than a young woman who was – oh say – date raped. Or one who isn’t in a relationship and her birth control failed her. Oh yeah – that .0031% or whatever the failure rate is on those contraceptives translate into women with names and lives.
If the father isn’t involved and isn’t interested in being involved – why shouldn’t the woman own that situation?
If the family isn’t supportive and her parents don’t care about supporting their daughter and grandchild – leave them out of the conversation as well.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:06 pm