How the Christian Right Fights Women's Reproductive Health
When Planned Parenthood applied for permits in Aurora last year, it used the name of Gemini Office Development, a subsidiary, hoping to keep the project quiet for as long as possible. When pro-life activists learned of the building's true purpose in July, they were furious, claiming that Planned Parenthood had committed fraud. One protest in August drew more than 1,000 people. Activists asked the city to review whether Planned Parenthood had broken any laws during the permit process. The lawyers found no wrongdoing, however, so the clinic opened just two weeks late.
Source: The Economist
Planned Parenthood planned ahead because of the problems they've experienced elsewhere:
Planned Parenthood's outfit in Austin, Texas, held a public groundbreaking in 2003 and chaos ensued. A pro-life construction boss, Chris Danze, organised a boycott among subcontractors and publicised the phone numbers of any plumber, electrician or carpenter working on the project. The clinic's main contractor pulled out, so Planned Parenthood assumed this role itself. The company that poured the building's concrete foundation had to do so in the middle of the night.
A new clinic in Denver may face similar problems. Construction is scheduled to begin in November; activists are already protesting at a construction executive's house, and Mr Danze plans another boycott.
How many other medical clinics — or indeed any business of any sort — have to install bullet-proof windows to protect from snipers and reinforced walls to protect from bombs? How many Christian organizations have to take such precautions? Such construction might make sense in Baghdad, but we're talking about Austin, Denver, and other communities in America. No one in the media will use the label, but what we're dealing with here is Christian terrorism.
It's important to keep in mind that Planned Parenthood exists to help women make informed, practical decisions regarded their sexual activity and reproductive health. Planned Parenthood provides the tools, means, and knowledge necessary for women to make the choices they need and to lead autonomous, equal lives. This bothers religious authoritarians who believe that women's role is to submit to male leaders of the family, to male leaders in the church, to male leaders in the government, and of course to a male deity.
The essence of Islam may be "submission," but Islam is simply making explicit what is inherent in similar traditional religions the world over.
Comments
…and publicised the phone numbers of any plumber, electrician or carpenter working on the project.
I’m stunned that this is even legal. It seems as though malicious intent as clear as this should at least be worthy of a civil court case.
“This bothers religious authoritarians who believe that women’s role is to submit to male leaders of the family, to male leaders in the church, to male leaders in the government, and of course to a male deity.”
Well said indeed! This, of course, is the real motivation behind the wacko christian terrorist right’s actions against birth control and abortion. Out of the other side of their mouth they will condone killing children by dropping bombs on them if America’s patriarchical political leaders say it’s necessary to do so. They can’t handle it when women have power over their own bodies, and have the power to make their own decisions.
That is so frustrating! I plan on doing what I can to further show my support for Planned Parenthood. I had an ex-friend throw a fit because I said my donations will go to PP.
“It’s important to keep in mind that Planned Parenthood exists to help women make informed, practical decisions regarded their sexual activity and reproductive health. Planned Parenthood provides the tools, means, and knowledge necessary for women to make the choices they need and to lead autonomous, equal lives.”
All ex-friend could think about was the “evil” abortions and not the entire picture of what PP does (as Austin describes above).
Perhaps Planned Parenthood does more than the say they do.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - A Planned Parenthood clinic was charged Wednesday with providing unlawful abortions and other crimes by a county prosecutor who had engaged in a high-profile battle with the clinic when he was Kansas attorney general.
Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline charged the Overland Park, Kan., clinic with 107 counts, 23 of them felonies. Besides 29 misdemeanor counts of providing unlawful late-term abortions, the clinic is charged with multiple counts of making a false writing, failure to maintain records and failure to determine viability.
Case documents have been sealed, according to a court order. The first hearing is set for Nov. 16.
How frustrating that in the contemporary U.S. an institution must fight so hard to protect a woman’s right to reproductive health safety and information. Reading that a medical institution must fight to obtain a permit under an alias, and install bullet proof windows to avoid harm from protesting religious groups, is unbelievable.
To learn more Go here http://atheism.about.com/b/a/163804.htm
Or Google Phil Kline. As Paul Harvey always said: And now, the rest of the story.
“protect a woman’s right to reproductive health safety and information”
I haven never come across any statistics in medical or scientific journal or even any anecdotal information that lends any credance to the above statement. Most if not all studies show just the opposite — with 2-5% of women having abortions are left sterile by the abortions. Those that do become pregnant have a significant incraeased possibility of having miscarriages or an ectopic pregnancy.
Reproductive health?
Do you really think that Planned Parenthood gives out the above information to the women who come into their clinics?
“Do you really think that Planned Parenthood gives out the above information to the women who come into their clinics?”
Yes.
I’m sorry Shaun you are wrong. You can go the the Planned Parenthood web-site read for yourself what a mother may be told at a clinic and definitely will not be told.
Note the qualifying statements. When questions are asked and then answered verbally at a clinic they can be even less specific.
Note also the statement about Emotional Problems after an abortion. They are more likely to occur when “having an abortion is related to serious problems in a relationship or other disturbing life events” That fits most abortions - male partner doesn’t want the child or having a child will hurt/disturb the mother’s career or education plans. What that means is the mother’s world will turn upside down if she goes ahead and has the baby. That my friend is a lot of emotional stress and even according to P.P. it can lead to “serious, long term emotional problems”. — No Shaun, women are not told that in the clinic. They are never told that their emotional health will most likely be better if they have the baby and not the abortion.
>
Did you even bother to go to the Planned Parenthood website before you started spouting your rhetoric? Just curious, because every bit of information you claimed was withheld from patients can be found there: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/risks-and-side-effects.htm
>
And your support for this assertion is…?
>
So most abortions are due to the selfishness of the mother? HAR! I don’t see any of those reasons listed here:
http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion
>
It sure could, especially if the mother’s world is turned upside down. Those searching for an abortion usually didn’t PLAN for the pregnancy, which is why PLANNED Parenthood exists. It is a very good possibility that the mother would undergo sever mental distress if she carries the baby to term.
>
Again, assertions without support. Just more rhetoric from the anti-choice crowd - big surprise. I suggest you read up a bit more before spouting your meritless claims. Where is there evidence that having an unwanted child will be better emotionally for a mother than terminating the pregnancy?
By the way, you do know that abortions account for less that 10% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood.
>
Did you even bother to go to the Planned Parenthood website before you started spouting your rhetoric? Just curious, because every bit of information you claimed was withheld from patients can be found there: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/risks-and-side-effects.htm
>
And your support for this assertion is…?
>
Funnily enough, I don’t see any of those reasons listed here: http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion.
>
If the reason for the abortion was any of the ones in my link above, I’d bet it WOULD be turned upside down.
>
Where is your evidence that carrying an UNWANTED fetus to term and then caring for the baby would be less emotionally traumatizing than having a WANTED abortion? Those seeking an abortion usually didn’t PLAN on the pregnancy, hence the reason places like PLANNED parenthood exist.
Again, assertions without support. Just more rhetoric from the anti-choice crowd - big surprise. I suggest you read up a bit more before spouting your meritless claims. Also, you do realize that abortions account for less thatn 10% of the treatment provided by PP.
My aren’t you getting a little testy; feeling a little emotional trauma.
Yes Shaun I did go to the site that is why I referred you to it. It is also why there are quotation marks in my post. Perhaps if you would read rather than react, you would have noted that.
Again Shaun if you would read my post carefully you’ll see that the quotes from P.P. give you the evidence you are seeking about the emotional trauma of an abortion.
Your webmd link gives the over arching reasons
(1) failed contraceptives,(does that not lead to reason (2) - unwanted pregnancy (wow, that’s a new one) (3) can’t afford it (yep, I am in school. I would have to quit my job. Seems like the reasons I gave in my post.
Do you realize that the Planned Parenthood in Kansas has felony indictments against it for doing illegal abortions..that is they are charged with killing viable babies. For their criminal activity they may loose over 100 million dollars because they cared so much for women and their children.
>
Your snark is duly noted.
>
Then what is your point?
>
No - they’re NOT the reasons you gave in your post.
>
Speaking of overarching… That was, what - one PP facility? It’s also the one that has been accused by an overly emotional anti-choice district attorney, even after the Attorney General has reviewed the allegations and found no wrong-doing. Hardly the “boogie man” you’re trying to make PP out to be.
**My aren’t you getting a little testy; feeling a little emotional trauma.**
Your snark is duly noted.
**Again Shaun if you would read my post carefully you’ll see that the quotes from P.P. give you the evidence you are seeking about the emotional trauma of an abortion.**
Then what is your point?
**Your webmd link gives the over arching reasons
(1) failed contraceptives,(does that not lead to reason (2) - unwanted pregnancy (wow, that’s a new one) (3) can’t afford it (yep, I am in school. I would have to quit my job. Seems like the reasons I gave in my post. **
No - they’re NOT the reasons you gave in your post.
**Do you realize that the Planned Parenthood in Kansas has felony indictments against it for doing illegal abortions..that is they are charged with killing viable babies. For their criminal activity they may loose over 100 million dollars because they cared so much for women and their children.**
Speaking of overarching… That was, what - one PP facility? It’s also the one that has been accused by an overly emotional anti-choice district attorney, even after the Attorney General has reviewed the allegations and found no wrong-doing. Hardly the “boogie man” you’re trying to make PP out to be.
Full information. Complete transparency. Is what women (and men) need to make their choice in the confusion that often surrounds an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.
Shaun, are you aware of any Planned Parenthood offices that offer the new 3-D ultrasounds (or any ultrasounds)to the women who come to their clinics seeking information that will help them make choose between the difficult options brought on by an unplanned pregnancy? I’m not. I’d be interested if any readers of this blog are.
Until P.P. does, I think that we the public should be slow to believe their claims that they want to help the pregnant woman make “the best decision” for herself.
**Full information. Complete transparency. Is what women (and men) need to make their choice in the confusion that often surrounds an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. **
Again, where is your evidence that Planned Parenthood is WILLFULLY withholding any information from their clients?
**Shaun, are you aware of any Planned Parenthood offices that offer the new 3-D ultrasounds (or any ultrasounds)to the women who come to their clinics seeking information that will help them make choose between the difficult options brought on by an unplanned pregnancy? I’m not. I’d be interested if any readers of this blog are.**
Why does it matter whether the ultrasound is 3D or not?
**Until P.P. does, I think that we the public should be slow to believe their claims that they want to help the pregnant woman make “the best decision” for herself.**
How does a 3D ultrasound have any effect on what the “best decision” is? Keep in mind that 2D ultrasounds have been the standard and have proven to be more than useful in making decisions in the past.
Information helps people make informed choices and withholding information can lead to poor choices.
3D ultrasounds provides mothers and fathers with better information. 2D are good 3D are better. I am not aware that P.P offers either. After an abortion they encourage the mother to get an ultrasound to make sure that none of her baby remains in her womb. They don’t encourage her to see her baby in her womb before the abortion.
If you want to see some of the information a mother can gain from a 3D ultrasound go to the link below.
http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/ultrasounds/l/bl3dusindex.htm
**Information helps people make informed choices and withholding information can lead to poor choices. **
Keep dodging the question - it lends tons of credibility to your argument. Again, where is your evidence that Planned Parenthood is WILLFULLY withholding information from their clients?
**3D ultrasounds provides mothers and fathers with better information. 2D are good 3D are better. I am not aware that P.P offers either.**
Considering P.P doesn’t offer any services that would REQUIRE an ultrasound, I don’t see how this matters.
**After an abortion they encourage the mother to get an ultrasound to make sure that none of her baby remains in her womb.**
Uh, yeah. That’s because Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform abortions. This happens after a spontaneous abortion as well (also known as a miscarriage). The mother could experience septic shock if tissue remains in the womb, so many women will undergo a D&C after a miscarriage.
**They don’t encourage her to see her baby in her womb before the abortion.**
Why would a women looking to have an abortion want to?
By the way, have you heard what actually goes on at a P.P facility - I mean, besides from your paranoid, delusional supporters?
The range of services provided include all kinds of information including FREE contraceptives, annual exams, and pap smears. You can find more here: http://www.grahamazon.com/2007/10/planned-parenthood-aint-abortions/
I look forward to you providing solid medical, scientific data which demonstrates that 3D ultrasounds provide people with “better information” with respect to their decision to terminate a pregnancy. Don’t just make the assertion, support it.
Jaquie
What is wrong with personal autonomy? The option should open. I am not a woman, but I would think that womens life situations would differ the same as a mans. what might be right for you might not be right for another woman. I assume that you are an adult and are prepared to make your own decisions about whatever comes up in your life. As a man, the closest parallel I can think of in my life was when many years ago I wanted to have a vasectomy. You wouldn’t believe the obstacles I encountered. I came out of that experience convinced that the Pope should focus on making the catholics toe the line, and leave the rest of us alone!
Shaun, go into your local Planned Parenthood office or call them on the phone and ask the questions….ask about the risks and possible negative side effects. You won’t hear 2-5% of women become sterile because of the abortion. You won’t hear that there is increased risk of tubal pregnancies. You won’t hear about how many women need the post abortion counseling etc…. You hear more of possible negative side effects from the little blue pill than you do of an abortion.
Again Shaun you are wrong, many P.P.’s offer abortions. Google the one nearest you and check it out.. if your’s doesn’t try Washington D.C. they have several which do. What do you think the felony charges in Kansas are all about? Not because they did a pap smear or gave out the pill.
Again your information is partial at some of the clinics they do offer ultrasounds, but only after the abortion to make sure everything was removed….that way the risk of infection is minimized and death won’t occur.
The reason they don’t encourage her to see her baby in her womb before the abortion is that she might change her mind. Why wouldn’t they want her to change her mind? I thought we all wanted to minimize the number of abortion?
Does P.P. Do any good? Of course Shaun, who said it didn’t?
Austin: I would like to give you want you request, but unfortunately the ones that can best do such a study won’t and can’t. Those who perform abortions won’t provide ultrasounds and the Federal government by law can’t pay to have them done. The information that is available comes through the clinics which are “pro-life” and offer ultrasounds to those who are considering abortion, and although I may be wrong, I think you may view any information coming from those clinics as suspect.
Anyway, below is a link that mentions NARAL and their opposition to requiring an ultrasound. I guess seeing the baby may chance some women’s minds.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2958249&page=1
Ron, who lives an autonomous life? I really don’t think anyone does. If you drive a car you aren’t autonomous you can’t drive as you please. You aren’t free to yell fire in a crowded building. If you interact with anyone in anyway you effect their autonomy. (Maybe poor examples, but no one can be their own king and still live in community with others). A woman does not have sovereignty over her body. Just let her put a gun to their head and people will try to stop her. Anyway, she is carrying a baby which is another human being and therefore what she does affects others. We have 850,000 abortions a year…that means several million lives have directly been affected. The choice is not autonomous
Jaquie,
“I guess seeing the baby may chance (sic)some women’s minds.”
Wouldn’t it be more likely to cause trauma to women who have already made the decision to have an abortion? Is anyone stopping women from receiving an ultrasound if they want one?
Why do you think they should be forced to have an ultrasound?
If you think there needs to be an organization that foists shame and guilt on women who choose to have an abortion, perhaps you should start one. I don’t think you’ll ever convince Planned Parenthood that their mission statement should include heaping shame and guilt on women with unwanted pregnancies.
**Shaun, go into your local Planned Parenthood office or call them on the phone and ask the questions….ask about the risks and possible negative side effects. You won’t hear 2-5% of women become sterile because of the abortion. You won’t hear that there is increased risk of tubal pregnancies. You won’t hear about how many women need the post abortion counseling etc…. You hear more of possible negative side effects from the little blue pill than you do of an abortion.**
Clearly you have no idea how to support an argument. This is merely assertion. One that I HIGHLY doubt is close to being true.
**Again Shaun you are wrong, many P.P.’s offer abortions. Google the one nearest you and check it out.. if your’s doesn’t try Washington D.C. they have several which do. What do you think the felony charges in Kansas are all about? Not because they did a pap smear or gave out the pill.**
I never said that don’t OFFER abortions (i.e. they cover the cost), I said they don’t PERFORM the abortions. There is a difference, and I suggest you learn it. Secondly, the Kansas lawsuit is meritless. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hGbh0nl95kGm2q0x_IrZiMjy1tbwD8SB7KPG0 “Attorney General Paul Morrison previously reviewed all of the allegations upon which Kline’s criminal charges are based and found no wrongdoing, Morrison spokeswoman Ashley Anstaett said.”
**Again your information is partial at some of the clinics they do offer ultrasounds, but only after the abortion to make sure everything was removed….that way the risk of infection is minimized and death won’t occur.**
Which is it, Jaquie? Previously you said that Planned Parenthood DIDN”T offer ultrasounds and told their clients to go to a doctors for one. Now you’re saying they do. You have to choose which position to take and support it.
**The reason they don’t encourage her to see her baby in her womb before the abortion is that she might change her mind. Why wouldn’t they want her to change her mind? I thought we all wanted to minimize the number of abortion?**
Minimizing the number of abortions != forcing mother to carry pregnancy to term. We need to place emphasis on education. Educating young women about the risks of unprotected sex, such as prenancy and STDs.
**Does P.P. Do any good? Of course Shaun, who said it didn’t?**
Then stop your railing against them! They do plenty more good than “bad” (I don’t consider abortions “bad”). If you recall, providing coverage for abortions account for less than 10% of the services they actually provide.
Who is not for education? I certainly am. Give women and men full information.
Shaun, if abortions they are not “bad”, are they “good”? “Good” when desired by the mother? “Good” when it gets a boy friend our of a predicament? “Good” because it keeps undesired children from being born.
Neither “bad” nor “good” because it’s not a moral issue? What is it then, is
it kind of along the line of getting a liposuction. You know, removing unwanted tissue.
Austin: The intent of my original post was not to take the discussion this far into the arena of abortion. I know there are a lot of hurting women and my posts may have caused unnecessary caused pain for some of them and for that I am sorry.
**Shaun, if abortions they are not “bad”, are they “good”? “Good” when desired by the mother? “Good” when it gets a boy friend our of a predicament? “Good” because it keeps undesired children from being born.**
They’re good to the mother who wanted it performed, yes. Your other instances are just loaded questions not worth addressing.
**Neither “bad” nor “good” because it’s not a moral issue?What is it then, is
it kind of along the line of getting a liposuction. You know, removing unwanted tissue.**
It is a moral issue, I’m not denying this. Your morals, however, may not be compatible with mine. Your morals are not necessarily “better” than mine, either. So who gets to decide what a mother does with her own body? You brought up suicide earlier. I also believe that if a person wants to end their life, they should be allowed to do so. Personal autonomy is of utmost importance - if it doesn’t affect you directly, who are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do with/to themselves?
I have spoken with a young woman who survived a saline abortion ie. her mother aborted her and she survived. The doctor wanted to let her die in a back room. The attending nurse didn’t let it happen. She is permanently disfigured, but alive.
It may be the mother’s body but the “procedure” it takes a life that is not her own. Who speaks for those pre-born children?
Even if, for the sake of argument, it’s a life that deserves all the same rights as a fully grown adult, that can’t outweigh the right of a person to determine what happens to their own body.
**I have spoken with a young woman who survived a saline abortion ie. her mother aborted her and she survived. The doctor wanted to let her die in a back room. The attending nurse didn’t let it happen. She is permanently disfigured, but alive.**
Anecdotal and irrelevant.
**It may be the mother’s body but the “procedure” it takes a life that is not her own. Who speaks for those pre-born children?**
Define “life.” While we’re at it, define “rights” and explain why an unborn fetus which is not viable prior to 2x weeks should have them and have them trump the wishes of the mother.
All the arguments of abortion “rights?”.
Does anyone ever think of the child after it is born, if not wanted all the horrors that it faces. Having it is one thing - wanting it, and taking care of it afterwards is quite different.
Medical expenses for a child are expensive. Not one of those anti-abortionists ever thinks beyond a present. I have yet to hear about anyone helping out a child after it is born.
I could not agree more with DavetheWave.
Well said.
As I said earlier this is going way beyond the original intent,
* Austin, taking given assumption, human life is worth more that physical discomfort, emotional stress, gained weight, lost wages etc.. or at least all societies have determined it to be so. Hence greater punishment for a murderer than for a thief, personal assault, slander, liable, etc…
* Shaun, abortion survival happens. Viable life taken happens. Look at the 3d ultra-sound pictures. It’s not irrelevant.
* tr, You are speaking out of ignorance. There are thousands of people who are ready willing to take care of the medical expenses and to adopt the babies. If you want a list of the organizations in more than 100 cities who can point the expectant mothers to agencies who will take care of that for them I can give it. The reality is that many women would rather kill that pre-born children rather than let someone else raise them.
Outside of pregnancy, I”m not aware of any society determining that the value of one life so outstrips the value of another person’s body that that second person can be forced to provide the use of their body for the maintenance of the life of the first. For example, no society that I am aware of can force one person to donate a kidney or part of a liver to maintain the life of another… not even blood donations can be forced, regardless of the value of the life of the person needing the donation. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that the only example of this sort of thing happening is with women — that half of the human species which has consistently been treated as second-class at best throughout recorded history.
Ergo, I have to reject your implication that because of the relative value of the above items, one person can be forced to provide use of their body to another. I don’t think you should, either, unless you are willing to be consistent and apply your principles broadly. If a person does not have personal bodily autonomy, such that the state has the authority to require them to provide that body for the maintenance of the life of another on pain of murder charges, then that principle must be applied beyond just cases of pregnancy. When you support forced blood donations, forced organ donations, and similar measures, then you’ll be able to support criminalization of abortion in a manner that is intellectually and ethical consistent.
I would just like to tell Jacquie that I had an abortion 23 years ago. I have never regretted my decision, nor have I felt guilty about it. It has not caused me any emotional distress. It did not make me sterile. I have children, a loving husband who supported my decision and live a happy family life.
And for the record, Jacquie, the doctor was FORCED by the State of New York to give me all kinds of NEGATIVE information about the possibility of sterility, emotional distress, infection even DEATH. And that was 23 years ago way before the intolerant conservative religious movement started bombing clinics and killing doctors.
Jacquie, my advice to you is let go and let live. It takes a big girl to realize she can’t be right 100% of the time.
I understand your point and your examples support your point, but let’s go to something a little more basic. A nursing mom says, “Look, it’s my breast I can withhold it from my baby if I want to…and I am also tired when I get home from work so I’d rather not open up a can of formula. Nobody can make me use my hands for purposes I don’t want to. They are my hands I’ll use or not use them how I will. The baby can starve.
Seems to me to be same principle– body autonomy.
Or to uses one of your examples, if a mother was the only one who could feed the baby or if the mother was the only one who could donate the liter of blood which would give her baby life and she said, “No , I’d rather not. It will interfere with the plans I made today.”, would society be outraged? I think so.
Another parent may say “I have a right not to carry my baby into the store with me. I’ll just leave her in the car while I run an errand in the mall.” That parent will be arrested. Body autonomy cannot be used as a defense. Therefore in my mind it may be just a matter of degrees as to where we draw the line a body autonomy thing.
The mistreatment of women in the past and present is spurious to your argument, so also is the legal charges of murder. You have earlier said that it would be good for abortions to be reduced. Most if not all people agree with that, and I’m sure it is not for the same reason why most people desire that most medical procedures would be reduced.
Anna, I am not sure what you think I was wanting to be right about. My original post had to do with Planned Parenthood of Kansas being charged with felonies and the subsequent posts have to do with reality that they do not make it clear concerning the risks of abortion nor do any offer or recommend ultrasounds until after the pregnancy is terminated. What you and others have said doesn’t contradict that, nor the reality that they are the nation’s largest provider and promoter of abortion.
The only bad thing about the state of New York forcing your doctor to give you full information was that he wanted to keep the information from you. The government tells doctors to tell their patients about the danger of anesthesia and the government also forces drug companies they have to tell us about the risks of the drugs we take, so what’s the big deal? Why bash New York?
Yes, it is an evil thing to blow up clinics and to kill doctors and others associated with abortion and since abortion was legalized in the United States, the violence directed toward abortion providers has killed 7 people.
Let’s compare the numbers: 40,000,000 abortions since 1973 ……. 7 abortion providers. Seems kind of one sided, don’t you think.
Want a sobering statistic?. As of November 3rd, there have been 3160 American combat deaths in Iraq since the war began on March 19, 2003. There have been 100 times that number of American babies aborted during the same time period. Where is the more dangerous place to be, Iraq or the womb?
Yes, it is, and so long as she gives the infant over to someone else, she has the legal right to do so. A person can’t be forced to feed a child, but they can be prevented from keeping a child they won’t feed.
Oh, sure, people would be upset - but there would be no legal basis for forcing her to donate her blood. This isn’t a debate about what would or would not be the most popular choice, but rather about whether there is any basis for forcing people to provide the use of their body to sustain the life of another. It’s is important that everyone - and especially you - recognize that you are unable to provide a single example of any such precedent. You can identify absolutely no basis in the law for state having any such authority over people.
I’ll repeat what I wrote before, because is it critical here: “If a person does not have personal bodily autonomy, such that the state has the authority to require them to provide that body for the maintenance of the life of another on pain of murder charges, then that principle must be applied beyond just cases of pregnancy. When you support forced blood donations, forced organ donations, and similar measures, then you’ll be able to support criminalization of abortion in a manner that is intellectually and ethical consistent.” Since you also don’t seem to be willing to endorse the idea that the state should have such authority, it is clear that you cannot defend your anti-choice position.
Bodily autonomy is in fact the base line against which all your arguments must work against - it’s the starting principle which you must be able to overcome. In this case, you don’t seem able to.
The reason is simple: women have an abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancy and it would be better if the unwanted pregnancy didn’t happen in the first place. Better to stop a problem before it starts than to correct it afterwards.
>“Oh, sure, people would be upset - but there would be no legal basis for forcing her to donate her blood. This isn’t a debate about what would or would not be the most popular choice, but rather about whether there is any basis for forcing people to provide the use of their body to sustain the life of another. It’s is important that everyone - and especially you - recognize that you are unable to provide a single example of any such precedent. You can identify absolutely no basis in the law for state having any such authority over people.”
Maybe not
If one doesn’t first succeed,try try again.
If we are moving into the legal realm then it is important to note that until 1973 most abortions were indeed illegal. The state had the authority to forbid a woman from aborting her unborn child. The Supreme Court then miraculously made an abortion a “right to privacy” issue. I use miraculously purposely because they created it ex nihilo. In that sense they acted as though they were gods creating something out of nothing. Those who have a morale objection to the wholesale abortions that are now taking place at the rate of 3700 / day would like for society to return to where we were since our nation was formed and thus have the legal as well as the objection. Many of society’s laws are based up morality. We have no elevated “privacy” over human life or in this debate “bodily autonomy” over human life which in the eyes of many, immoral.
Bodily autonomy: back to an earlier example, when a person is standing on a bridge threatening to jump what do “law enforcement” officers do? Do they say, it is his body he can do what he pleases or do they seek to prevent him from doing himself harm? If they prevent him, are they violating his legal rights?
Morally, not legally, how do you, if you do, justify abortion? Is that true for all abortions; meaning for any maternal reason? Does that extend up to the actual natural delivery time?
Btw – I am not aware of any, although there may be some, who would like abortive mothers to be put on trial for murder. Can you point me to any mainstream pro-life groups that are calling for such? Do you know of any case pre-1973 where a mother was convicted of murder because she aborted her baby? If not, then it really isn’t much of an issue in this debate and maybe a red herring or straw man.
They were not, however, classified as murder.
No, actually, the conclusion in that case followed logically from numerous other cases decided over the course of many years.
That’s not a relevant example because it doesn’t involve the state forcing a person to use their body for the maintenance of another’s life.
Morally, a person has a fundamental right to decide what happens to their body, including whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
If abortion is murder, then that is a necessary consequence of the anti-choice position. Almost no anti-choice organizations or activists call for murder trials of women and doctors, but that can only be because they have not thought seriously about their position or because they don’t want to publicize just how absurd their position is.
If a fetus is the moral equivalent of an adult human being, and if abortion is murder, then it’s logically, legally, and ethically impossible not to support charging women, doctors, and all involved with complicity in first degree murder.
On the contrary, the absence of such case is evidence that people didn’t consider abortion to be murder. If it wasn’t murder, then it wasn’t the deliberate, premeditated taking of an innocent human life. So, if that’s not why abortion is wrong, then why is it really wrong? If abortion isn’t wrong because it’s a case of murder, what is it?
By pointing out that women weren’t charged, tried, and convicted of murder, you undermine your own case that abortion should be outlawed as murder now. By pointing out that anti-choice activists and organizations don’t currently call for the arrest, trial, and conviction of people for murder in cases of abortion, you underscore the absence of integrity and consistency in the position you are promoting here.
>If we are moving into the legal realm then it is important to note that until 1973 most abortions were indeed illegal.
>They were not, however, classified as murder.
That really isn’t the issue, abortions were against the law, and the number done per year were far less than today and the percentage of abortions to live births are much higher today.
The Supreme Court decision may have followed logically from numerous other cases, but the reason is the original case decisions were errant (based on the flawed belief that “original intent” is not important. The activist judges believe that the Constitution should be a dynamic document which can change as society changes which in this case lead to a trajectory which was wrong which led to the Roe v. Wade decision and in other cases will lead to judgments at which that the framers of our Constitution would be shocked.
Bodily autonomy: were are restrained by law all the time and forced by law all the time to do what we would rather not do therefore, to use your own argument it is a logical step to prevent a woman from harming someone else even if it inconveniences her. If prisons force feed prisoners on a “fast” in order to save their lives then they can “force” a mother to sustain the life of her child.
> Morally, a person has a fundamental right to decide what happens to their body, including whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
That may be your personal moral standard, but you are part of a community and it has been determined by the community that the public good often trumps personal rights. As I said before just because you want to extend bodily autonomy to the abortion arena doesn’t mean that it should be so.
>If abortion is murder, then that is a necessary consequence of the anti-choice position. Almost no anti-choice organizations or activists call for murder trials of women and doctors, but that can only be because they have not thought seriously about their position or because they don’t want to publicize just how absurd their position is….If a fetus is the moral equivalent of an adult human being, and if abortion is murder, then it’s logically, legally, and ethically impossible not to support charging women, doctors, and all involved with complicity in first degree murder…etc…
Or it may be that they are willing to compromise to get rid of what they believe is a great evil. Kind of like the government giving criminals partial immunity in order to get a different conviction. There is indeed sympathy for mothers who “feel” that they have to choose between several bad options, but there is little to non for the doctors….
I can’t speak for any anti-choice activists and organizations because I am not first nor do I belong to the second, but I do have an opinion – I believe it is morally wrong for a women to purposely end the life of her unborn child. If I were a legislator would I be willing to settle for a rape and incest exemption? Yes because it would prevent 800,000+ abortions a year. Lack of integrity, no. It is called making the best of a bad situation.
Questions: If an intruder breaks into a home and assaults a pregnant woman and forces her to drink something which kills her 28 week unborn child, but does her no other harm, what do you should he be charged with?
Are you against abortions of viable fetuses? If so why. If not, why not?
Whether or not abortion is murder is precisely the issue because if it is not, the major rhetorical basis for making abortion illegal is lost. I haven’t seen any arguments on behalf of criminalizing abortion which don’t amount to the claim that it’s murder, even if that label isn’t used.
Well, feel free to demonstrate how.
That does not, however, necessarily involve violations of one’s bodily autonomy. Feel free to actually provide examples of violations of bodily autonomy which are analogous to forcing a person, on pain of charges of murder, to use their own body to sustain the life of another.
What you say is true. Feel free, though, to actually provide examples of how a personal rights are violated in that people are denied the ability to determine the fate of their own body in the sense that they are forced to use their body to sustain the life of others.
It’s not a “compromise” if you believe two opposite positions — that’s just intellectual and moral incoherence. So those anti-choice organizations and activists must believe that women, doctors, and all involved should be charged with murder, but don’t call for it out of a desire to “compromise.” Where, though, do they acknowledge this?
Do you believe it is murder or not? If not, why not — and what’s the basis for criminalizing it?
Assault.
No, because the viability of the fetus is not a reason to force a woman to remain pregnant.
>Whether or not abortion is murder is precisely the issue because if it is not, the major rhetorical basis for making abortion illegal is lost..
..Are you against abortions of viable fetuses? If so why. If not, why not? — No, because the viability of the fetus is not a reason to force a woman to remain pregnant.
Some abortions are done on babies can could be delivered alive at that moment, but the mother is given drugs to kill the baby or the womb is injected with a saline solution which burns the baby and it is then delivered naturally dead. Why is that not morally wrong when the mother could deliver the baby alive?
> The Supreme Court decision may have followed logically from numerous other cases, but the reason is the original case decisions were errant ….Well, feel free to demonstrate how.
I, for the sake of discussion, gave you your premise that it was consistent with previous decisions, but I really don’t think it was so,I’ll ask you to demonstrate how it is consistent with previous decision the High Court has made. The only thing it was consistent with is a dynamic view of the Constitution and finding things not there.
However, Roe v. Wade is a violation of the 14th Amendment unless you want to say that because a baby who is still in the womb is a non-person. However,it is a person which is why some crack mothers have been imprisoned…they have harmed their babies taking the drugs while pregnant. Do they have the right to harm themselves? Perhaps, but the courts have said they have no right to harm their babies…. But then the Supreme Court strangely says you can however killed them because it’s a privacy thing. How’s that for logic?
>Bodily autonomy: were are restrained by law all the time and forced by law all the time to do what we would rather not do ..That does not, however, necessarily involve violations of one’s bodily autonomy.
Sure it does. It forces me to use my body in a way that I do not desire to do so and if I don’t comply I will be thrown into prison. The government has broad powers and uses them at times rightly and other times wrongly. Do you realize that a failure to pay a parking ticket can result in life imprisonment. Yep. Get a ticket and refuse to pay it. Eventually they will put you in jail and will only let you out if you pay it. If you refuse, you will stay there.
Bodily autonomy is just a thing of degrees. Today, like in the past, Uncle Sam can if he so chooses, tell a woman she has to support her baby’s life.
>Morally, a person has a fundamental right to decide what happens to their body, including whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
Bodily autonomy, as you apply it, is your own personal moral standard and society is not governed by what you deem to be moral or immoral, right or wrong. Just or unjust. Sorry.
>If abortion is murder, then that is a necessary consequence of the anti-choice position. Almost no anti-choice organizations or activists call for murder trials of women and doctors, but that can only be because they have not thought seriously about their position or because they don’t want to publicize just how absurd their position is….If a fetus is the moral equivalent of an adult human being, and if abortion is murder, then it’s logically, legally, and ethically impossible not to support charging women, doctors, and all involved with complicity in first degree murder…etc…
As I said earlier, seek to stop future wrongs. That is more important than punishing past wrong doers.
> Do you believe it is murder or not? If not, why not — and what’s the basis for criminalizing it?
It is the taking of innocent life; a life which in some cases could be birth at the moment of the abortion and live without the assistance of the mother. You label it.
Some of those babies are indeed birthed – all but the head, and then a pair of scissors is stuck into the base of the skull and opened, the brains are scrambled and then vacuumed out. Label it?
Why is it morally wrong? What is the moral imperative to not kill a fetus? More importantly, what is the legal basis for criminalizing it (not everything immoral is also illegal, or should be)? The burden of “proof” or “argument” lies with those who would govern, not with those to be governed, so if you want to criminalize some action and put people in jail for doing, it’s up to you to justify why. That’s why the question about a “legal basis for criminalizing it” is most important — in theory there could be good reasons for criminalizing it even though it’s moral and no good reasons for criminalizing it even if it’s immoral. So, if it’s your position that the state should have the authority to jail people who participate in abortions and prevent women from obtaining abortions, then you will have to justify why.
The only adequate justification I’ve found is the argument that abortion is murder - I don’t agree with the argument, but at least the conclusion follows from it if the argument worked. Unfortunately, a lot of other very undesirable conclusions would also follow from that argument and thus far I’ve seen few if any anti-choice activists and organizations actually accept those conclusions. I must conclude, therefore, that either they haven’t thought through their own position very well (there is evidence of this on the part of some), that they have thought it through and are in denial, or have thought it through and agree with those conclusions but don’t want to speak out publicly in order to avoid scaring people away. Perhaps there are other explanations, but these are the only ones that preserve a shred of intellectual and moral integrity for the activists.
Fair enough, but it would have been more reasonable if you had asked this originally; now, it simply looks like you have no idea even what the decisions in question are — much less how they are or are not invalid. Tell me, do you know what they are? I’ll be honest here and say that I don’t think you do - and that you also don’t know the legal background of Roe v. Wade. If you don’t know it, though, how can you have an informed opinion about it? If you literally don’t know what you are talking about, how can your conclusions be given any positive weight?
I don’t regard it as a person.
That’s not the same as forcing you to use your body, organs, or fluid to sustain the life of another. Thus far, you have offered no arguments in defense of giving the state the power to force people to do that; the existence of state power to enforce parking fines is not only not a credible analogy, it is in fact suggestive of desperation on your part.
I know that society is not governed by what I deem to be moral or immoral; bodily autonomy is not, however, simply my personal moral standard. This is demonstrated by the absence of any authority in the state to force me to use my body, fluids, or organs to sustain the lives of others. It is also demonstrated by laws against things like forced sterilizations. The integrity and autonomy of the body is a bedrock principle of law.
We seem to have a miscommunication here, since I haven’t written anything about “punishing past wrong doers.” When I talk about treating abortion as murder, I mean doing so going forward: today abortion is criminalized and classified as murder; tomorrow a woman undergoes an abortion; the next day… what? If abortion is murder, then all involved should be charged with murder. Yes or no?
That’s murder; ergo the answer to my previous question has to be “yes.” Now, what justification is there for not forcing people to donate organs and blood on pain of murder charges?
I forgot to address this:
The only justification for permitting abortion in cases of rape, where the fetus has the exact same moral status as every other fetus, is on the basis for strong claims of bodily autonomy which you consistently reject.
It occurs to me that you don’t quite understand what “bodily autonomy” means. It’s not a right to simply behave however you want; in common law, it’s the principle that the state and other authorities have no authority over the integrity and workings of your body as a biological system.
It is on the basis of bodily autonomy that the state cannot forcibly remove tissue samples for experiments, sterilize you, and forcibly impregnate you and carry to term a fetus of the state’s own design & choosing (if the state can force you to carry a pregnancy to term, why can’t it also force you to carry to term a pregnancy of the state’s own choosing? Only a strong right to bodily autonomy and choice protect you from both forced pregnancy and forced abortion.). It’s on the basis of bodily autonomy that there are laws protecting patients’ rights to not have unnecessary surgical procedures done on them, why doctors must reveal all risks associated with any treatment, why patient consent is required at every stage of treatment, and why doctors cannot conduct experiments at will.
If there were a man in Tornto who needed a bone marrow transplant in order to survive, and it were determined that you were the only person on the planet with a match that would allow them to live, the right to bodily autonomy is why you could not be forced to donate that marrow. It would be great if you did, and it’s certain that many people would think less of you if you didn’t. It would not, however be a crime for you to refuse — and when the man dies after not receiving the transplant, you would not be charged with murder.
Whatever rights any other being has to exist, they do not trump your right to not have your body used — especially in a parasitic fashion — against your will in order to sustain that existence.
Jaquie,
“The activist judges believe that the Constitution should be a dynamic document which can change as society changes which…will lead to judgments at which that the framers of our Constitution would be shocked.”
Who made you spokesperson for the framers of the Constitution? The men who wrote the Constitution were revolutionaries who changed the world. They most likely would be opposed to those who demand rigid interpretation of 200 year old documents.
John, Put it this way, would you want people on this blog to misrepresent what you believe and what you have said, and to find hidden meaning in what you have written — things which you did not write or intend? If not, don’t assume the writers of the constitution and Congress who has added the amendments want what they wrote to be changed. Or maybe you are so post-modern that words mean only what you want them to mean today, but that may change tomorrow….and no truth or reality outside of yourself.
Austin, today is a very busy day. I hope to respond to what you have written sometime before my head hits the pillow
.
>Why is it (abortion) morally wrong? What is the moral imperative to not kill a fetus? …Bodily autonomy…mother’s protection of her unborn baby…
I said that it was the taking of an innocent life. That is also one of the reasons why the Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade decision made fetus viability as the time when wholesale abortions were not allow. The court said after viability then it could only be done for the health of the mother. That was the “self defense” exclusion. If an abortion is performed after that time then criminal charges can be brought hence the criminal charges against Planned Parenthood in Kansas.
The Supreme Court has ruled that “[T]he State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman … and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.” That right does indeed at time supersede bodily autonomy hence the present restrictions on abortion and on other things such as bigamy. Therefore bodily autonomy is not absolute in the abortion arena nor in other areas as well.
If the State has already determined that it has the right to protect “the potentiality of human life” and has thus outlawed most abortions post viability then it is, in my view legitimate to restrict abortions earlier in the pregnancy. Which also goes to the reason why “crack mothers” are at times punished for not rightly sustaining the life of her unborn child. The State wrongly says, “mom, you are free to kill your unborn child, but you can damage it with drugs.” Nor will the State let the mom kill her unborn baby (still birth) with drugs either.
One of the core issue of Roe v. Wade and the abortion “mess” has been the term used to describe the unborn child. Fetus, product of conception, potential human life, child…etc If the Court had called it a child then it would be automatically protected under the 14th Amendment. The Court wrongly chose otherwise like it did when it said that slaves were non-persons. Society has come to see the error of the High Court in that decision and it is my hope that society will see the error in the 1973 decision as well
I see abortion as the taking of innocent life. Would you explain why you feel that a viable baby still in the womb who is aborted rather than birth (at the same hour) is not the taking of life? Why is that baby not a person? Why is it not morally wrong to take the life of a viable baby?
Although attempting to speak for most which is of course dangerous, I suppose why most pro-life people aren’t calling for the punishment of women who have abortions for perhaps two main reasons: 1) it clouds the issue – get the State to outlaw it first then work on punishment
2) they haven’t been forced to deal with that ramification of outlawing abortions. — But that is true of most things that are considered illegal such as drunk driving Most will say a drunk driver should be punished, but few have thought about to what degree. As I said earlier most are in favor of going after the providers and punishing them. A law against abortion will reduce most. The State can outlaw it and then let the states determine the level of punishment.
Summary: Most pro-life people would be quite satisfied going back to pre Roe v. Wade
Well, I wanted to establish whether you seriously believed it was murder or not. So, you do. Now, could you please do me the courtesy of answering the many questions I asked? It’s very rude to ignore them all like you have been.
That is false. The Supreme Court merely permitted states to ban and/or regulate abortion after the point of viability; the Court itself did not such thing and thus also left open the possibility that there was nothing necessarily illegal about abortion after that point.
In other words, the Supreme Court explicitly denies that the fetus is an actual human life.
I never said it was; it is, however, a bedrock principle of the law and one which places the burden of proof on those who seek to override it in the name of something else. I’ve provided a wide variety of examples of how personal bodily autonomy creates a barrier to what others, especially the state, can do to us, but you don’t seem to have any opinions about any of them. Do you think that any of them are wrong — that the state and other authorities should have more authority and freedom to act on your body and do things to you against your will? Or is it, coincidentally, only abortion where this comes up for you? Do you happen to support strong bodily autonomy rights in every area but abortion?
Interest, not right.
Feel free to construct a logical argument which establishes the truth of that conclusion.
Maybe there are good reasons why the Court didn’t — like perhaps it isn’t a child?
I didn’t say that it wasn’t a life; I explicitly stated, however, that even if it is human life with all the same rights as an adult human being that this doesn’t give it a right to use the mother’s body to sustain itself. It’s up to you to construct a viable legal argument demonstrating where, when, and why abortion should be prohibited. Simply saying “it’s an innocent life” or “it’s a life” isn’t sufficient. That’s not an argument, it’s just an assertion.
It’s implausible that people who regard abortion as murder — and thus that legal abortion is a holocaust causing the murder of millions of babies — and one of the greatest tragedies in modern America without giving some thought to what should happen to people involved with abortion. These same people don’t seem to have a problem with thinking about how murderers and rapists should be punished. Saying that they haven’t thought about it much suggests that the issue just isn’t as serious as they claim.
Furthermore, it doesn’t cloud the issue because the nature of the punishment is directly related to how serious of a problem people think it is. Can you cite any other movements to outlaw something where there was no discussion or thought given to how the behavior should be punished?
Perhaps you should consider just speaking for yourself — I asked you several questions about your own position and you ignored every single one of them.
When abortion wasn’t murder? People can’t call abortion murder and be happy for a situation where abortion is not treated as murder.
Jaquie,
“…would you want people on this blog to misrepresent what you believe and what you have said, and to find hidden meaning in what you have written — things which you did not write or intend?”
It would be very gratifying to me to know that 200 years from now people are finding value in what I write, even if their interpretation differs because of the changes in culture that must occur over the span of two centuries.
But, you don’t have to find hidden meaning in the Constitution. The ninth amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated, such as the right to privacy and a woman’s right to an abortion.