Senate Approves Bill to Prohibit Type of Abortion

Frankly, I doubt that anyone who has an abortion past the 12 th week is using abortion as birth control.

There have been a few court cases where there was planned "dragging of feet"; and then there is lack of medical attention -

But, yes plainoldme, I couldn't agree more. So the question is why ahhhh, slippery slope............hmmmm

Tart, i don't understand why you would say that our constitution would make it impossible to leave this matter to women. Could you clarify?

Don't blame you for the confusion, Set! What I meant was, only the closely concerned -- the pregnant woman and concerned father -- should have a "vote" on this issue, but we can't have votes which include or exclude specific groups!

Thomas -- we don't indeed know for sure about the foetus feeling pain. But that's not what I was saying I was responding to the "if the foetus could choose" contention with the obvious: foetuses don't have the capacity to choose. Also it's worth noting that many anti-choicers are anti-contraception.

I think we also have to ask ourselves why there are groups so vitally concerned about the morality of killing a near-human, an unborn human, who are so blind to or cavalier about killing of the healthy environment into which many humans are being born. Look at the general alignments on those issues -- they are interesting.

But, you digress Tartarin

Bill W -- I believe in the slippery slope as an active and ready tool of the right.

Well, if I hit you in the face and you run away, I don't know you're feeling pain either, strictly speaking. But I observe your demonstrated willingness to avoid it, and conclude that you are -- and I will usually be right. The same logic applies to the embryo. If he doesn't feel it, how else do you explain that he's making an effort to avoid it?


As I said above, the same logic can apply to mentally handicapped people, many of whom don't have the capacity to choose either. Applying your argument to them, I have to conclude that it's okay kill them, or let them die, too. This strikes me as a reason to believe that there is a flaw in your argument


Sure, but the presence of bad reasons for being anti-choice doesn't prove the absence of good reasons. And if there are good reasons too -- again, 'if' -- there is still a decent case for holding the anti-choice view.


They are -- but first of all, this generalization doesn't hold outside America. Fundamentalist Christians tend to be very pro-environment in Europe, especially northern Europe. Second of all, there is no reason to believe that people who are wrong about the environment cannot be right about abortion, so I don't see the relevance to our topic. And third of all, I'm here to defend my own view, not the view of anti-abortion activists.

My view happens to be that a woman's right to choose trumps a fetus's right to live early in the pregnancy, while the fetus's right to live trumps the woman's right to chose late in the pregnancy. I don't accept the shared opinion of both pro-choicers and pro-lifers that a fetus should have the same status no matter what stage of development he's in. I appreciate your comments on the pro-lifers' opinion, but I'd appreciate your comments on my own opinion even more.

I think Tart makes a good point. Expanding on what i replied to Thomas about religious motivation, i would point out that it would be ridiculous not to take notice of the extent to which opposition to abortion is religious in nature. I would add to her comment about a lack of concern for the world into which the "saved" baby is to be born, that there is not only a noticeable lack of concern for how the mother and newborn will fare for the succeeding 18 years, but that many religiously conservative people are equally as vociferous in condemning social welfare, the source of the only institutions in society which might reliably provide support for the mother and newborn. I have often heard religious conservatives tout all the help they offer to pregnant women, will those women simply eschew abortion. But if you question such people about how they intend to help for the succeeding 18 years, you will be frequently told that this a responsibility of the mother and the putative father, and no concern of theirs. You will frequently get a very hostile response. I gave up discussing this topic in public about 20 years ago. On-line discussion groups are the only place i'll discuss this topic now.

But note that it's a reasonably consistent view if you assume that embryos are people. A conservative might argue that he cares enough about other people -- including embryos -- to fight against them being murdered, but not enough to fight against them being neglected. It's a logical and not obviously wicked view to hold -- though I happen not to hold it.

I have read that the ancient Chinese avoided saving lives because they felt it made them responsible for those whom they had saved. I can't assert this is true, but it is an interesting point of view. Logic is not something i esteem--just as statistics can be shown to be the leading cause of cancer, so logic can be shown to be the leading cause of wrong-headedness. In the thesis you have advanced, Thomas, on behalf of the religious who oppose abortion, there is a logical trap. To argue the point as you've presented it, one must accept that abortion is murder, and that the religious abortion opponent is acting altruistically to prevent that murder. This is by no means a certainty, and my remarks specifically addressed those religious opponents of abortion who preen themselves on the help they offer to pregnant women, but who offer nothing thereafter, and oppose those institutions of government which do offer support. It is only by casting the issue in specific terms, and ignoring the current legality of abortion, that such a case can be made. Given that abortions are legal, if anyone convinces a woman not to abort, and then turns their back on the mother and newborn, i care not one whit for their "logical consistency." They are mealy-mouthed hypocrits in my estimation, and, in their own language, "whited sepulchres, full of rotting flesh and dead men's bones."

Very partisan of me, which is my point.

Yes, I think the discussion should be held country by country, culture by culture. Luckily, in the US, there is nothing to prevent a religious group from setting its own standards and forbid wives and daughters from having abortions. Luckily, that is, not for the wives and children and/or those who believe differently, but for the guarding of freedom(s) in our country. To spread the argument beyond the culture (as Thomas does) is to confuse the issue. Because this is indeed a cultural/moral argument and cultures and morals differ from place to place. (Fundamentalist Christians in my area are now right out there selling environmental products and promoting conservation...) From bullfighting in Spain to widows throwing themselves on funeral pyres in India, we well-informed folks in America, where many of us think we are superior, are forced to to (and I mean have to) understand that the world will present us with customs we abhor, don't understand, would love to change, BUT we need to be very careful about pointing fingers. It's tough but it does make us realize that the things which we countenance in our culture are often abhorrent to other civilizations which in turn makes us a little more humble (present admin to the contrary notwithstanding!).

But taking the abortion issue alone and within the context of the diverse cultures of the US, keeping the legal doors open while understanding that some of those diverse cultures will set their own standards FOR THEIR OWN GROUP AND THEIR GROUP ALONE makes the most sense to me.

PS -- I use capital letters not to shout but because I'm in a hurry and haven't opened up the larger reply box which offers italics etc.!

I don't buy that for a minute -- you come across as a very clear and consistent thinker to me!


Or you can assume that embryos are people, in which case the assertion that abortion is murder (or manslaughter, or ....) follows naturally. I agree we don't know if the assumption is true. I don't even believe it is knowable, and that Tartarin is right: Each of us has to decide this for themselves with their own conscience. My opinion happens to be somewhere in the middle between the two American extremes.

I find logic helpful in understanding the two extreme positions. If you believe embryos are people, it makes sense to campaign against them being killed, but do nothing against them being neglected. And the pro-choice position seems terribly cynical because they would rather kill a human now than let it grow up in a substandart environment later. If you assume that embryos aren't people, it's fair game to abort them, and the pro-choice position seems hypocritical: They prefer human suffering over killing a non-human. I think there's too much name-calling in the abortion debate (same in Germany btw), and I prefer to think each position through as I make up my own mind


I like partisanism! As Winston Churchil once said, if two people share the same opinion, one of them is superfluous." I'm happy to see that none of us is superfluous in this thread.

Once one gets away from the self-esteem trap (love yourself no matter what), one's conscience makes serious demands. Somewhere along the line one starts to take others into consideration. I'm not a fulltime fan of James Q Wilson, but his theory about little crimes being important in the whole picture of crime (broken windows theory) is right on target. If you choose abortion as an outcome of having been careless, you know (and you should know) what that makes you. If you have far better reasons for choosing it, you and your community will be much healthier -- even though the abortion remains a private matter. All the cruddy, dishonest things we do spread out from us. If we have to do awful things for good reasons, we're often surprised at the support we get from our society.

I think that the portrayal of abortions as careless is merely one attempt by fundamentalists to get laws passed. Abortion is expensive, painful, and a traumatic experience. Women don't get them to have fun, it is a serious choice which they bear the burden of making and taking. Birth control is by far the best option, but sometimes that fails, sometimes people get raped, sometimes people make mistakes. I think children should be wanted and loved, and if someone has a fetus they know they cannot support as a child, that may have injuries due to drugs, may have serious mental problems, may injure the mother, I say by all means, give the woman who's responsibility it is to carry and care for the child control over her body. Abortion is a serious choice that is hard to make, and it is not the place of the government or religious fundamentalist groups to make that choice for the individual. Not to mention the dangers and negative health implications outlawing abortion would result in.

If there were a careless abortion, thank goodness now there is the 72 hour pill, still painful but less so than surgical abortion and right after the zygotes meet. Unfortunateley, they passed a 24 hour waiting period and force abortion seekers to sign a paper saying they have read the pamphlets they've been given (which are christian pamphlets - they call the fetus and "unborn child" and warn about breast cancer and depression. They also show pictures of the fetus at every week.) between visiting the clinic and when abortions may be performed in Texas. I worry what effect this will have on rape victims.

I think that the portrayal of abortions as careless is merely one attempt by fundamentalists to get laws passed. Abortion is expensive, painful, and a traumatic experience. Women don't get them to have fun, it is a serious choice which they bear the burden of making and taking. Birth control is by far the best option, but sometimes that fails, sometimes people get raped, sometimes people make mistakes. I think children should be wanted and loved, and if someone has a fetus they know they cannot support as a child, that may have injuries due to drugs, may have serious mental problems, may injure the mother, I say by all means, give the woman who's responsibility it is to carry and care for the child control over her body. Abortion is a serious choice that is hard to make, and it is not the place of the government or religious fundamentalist groups to make that choice for the individual. Not to mention the dangers and negative health implications outlawing abortion would result in.

Portal Star is right when (s)he writes about how opponents portray abortion as an easy, cavalierly done way out. A tactic used by less-than-honorable people is to defame your opponent -- this is not, strictly speaking, an argument ad hominem but it is akin to that tactic. By representing abortion as the easy way out, the so-called right to lifers make women electing to have abortions look like callous villians.

My youngest son and his then girlfriend had an abortion which her mother, then living on the other side of the country objected to on religious grounds. This woman is highly religious but I felt in my conversations with her that there was in her insistence that her daughter give birth to the child -- only to give it up for adoption -- an element of wishing to punish the girl for being sexually active. I think punishing the would-be mother is an element in the insistence upon carrying the pregnancy to conclusion by many fundamentalists.

Yes, POM, it's a complicated business, and control plays a huge role in it. On both sides, unfortunately.

Just read in today's newspaper that this bill doesn't consider the health safety of the mother, and if any doctor is 'caught' doing partial birth abortions, will be slapped with two years in prison.

I read somewhere that the reason for the restrictions against Partial birth abortions is because it is an inhumane procedure. In addition it need not be used since there are other ways to abort at that late stage. Whether that is fact or fiction I have no idea and I am sure neither are the legislators. However, it it were would that mean it is legal under this legislation to perform late stage abortions as long as they are not performed "PBA"?
Of course not this is just another shot by the right to life advocates in their war against abortion. For any reason and by any method.

Yeah, the fetus is more important than the mother according to this ruling. I'm hoping this one gets slapped down in court, and quickly. I think there is a difference between a partial birth abortion and say, a very early abortion, and I wouldn't mind a partial birth abortion ban as long as it left leeway for partial birth abortions when there are negative health implications of the mother and child. If it weren't for medical science, most of these children wouldn't be born and live anyway, and to sacrifice the health and well being of the mother is unfair. It is also unfair to neglect the future implications of having a child who, thanks to science, we know would be unable to care for themselves when born. It is interesting how they put the burden on the doctor, leaving little potential for civil disobedience.


Might I also add that anyone reckless enough to have a partial birth abortion because they were too lazy to do it earlier or changed their mind at the last minute, or did drugs late on in the pregnancy that would screw up the child is probably not the kind of person we want to force into reproducing.

You should read the legislation. You might not be so sure of yourself. Every medical professional and representative of professional medical groups that went before the Congress on this bill testified that there are other methods of perfoming late-term abortions.



Correct. There are currently at least 5 methods of performing late term abortions. If/when this legislation is signed into law the number of options will be decreased by one (at least until the USSC rules the law unconstitutional.).