Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Abortion 54

Journal by pudge

It had to happen eventually: I'm writing about abortion.

Today, President Bush signed a ban on partial birth abortion. Yes, it is true that in some sense this is the beginning of an assault on "a woman's right to choose." But the opposition to this bill is almost entirely a reaction not to the bill itself, but to that assault it represents.

Tonight on News Hour, a doctor, Paula Hillard from U. of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said this bill is "chilling" because it represents the government getting in between a doctor and patient. "The law will limit the physician's judgment in an individual situation, a situation in which they might judge this particular procedure, or any other abortion procedure, potentially, to be appropriate for that individual woman, and I think that's a chilling effect on the practice of medicine, and I think that effect is and should be viewed as chilling to American women."

OK, let's start with the easy part first: this bill does not potentially have any effect on any other abortion procedure. The opponents of this bill say this, but it's a lie. The bill outlaws one abortion procedure, period.

But more outrageous than that lie is the proposal that this is chilling because the government is taking away a choice from a doctor and patient. This is said as though the government doesn't already have hundreds, thousands, of laws that take away choices, whether they are doctor-assisted suicides, or types of medicine, or types of medical procedures. The medical industry is very highly regulated by the government, and to say that it is chilling because it does something -- takes away choice from doctors and patients -- that is done all the time, in the same way and in different ways, is absolutely ludicrous.

There's only one other argument I've heard against this bill, and it is that there is no provision for the "health of the mother." That argument is a non-starter. The proponents refuse to define what "health of the mother" is, and they could easily say the mother needs to have an abortion for her mental health, thereby making the bill absolutely useless, which is the point of having that provision. And the bill does have a provision for the threatening of the life of the mother. But since that doesn't make the bill useless, it is not good enough for opponents.

When asked when this procedure is necessary, Hillard would not answer. She said, "that is between the doctor and the patient." She couldn't even provide a hypothetical example, or a past actual example.

It's a shame that the opponents of the bill will not argue the text of the bill itself, in an honest way, and instead argue lies. I understand it, as they are reacting to the assault on abortion itself. But I guess that there is no real argument against the text of this bill says something about how good the bill is.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Abortion More

Abortion

Comments Filter:

  • What do you think it is the significance of the bill? Why is it important? Why is it useful? And, especially, what is its relevance?

    You know, watching the comings and goings of the current administration from the other end of the hemisphere sometimes leaves me baffled (not that my side is any more sensible). I'd appreciate your point of view, either pro or con, however succint.

    • Here's my (not particularly informed) take on it.

      1) Abortion politics in the US is fought between the two extremes. There are factions of significant size who make either an outright ban of abortion or entirely unlimited abortion their single overriding political concern. In almost all other developed countries, the law follows some rough compromise and no one on the right or left gets that worked up about it. Most Americans would favor a similar compromise, but the issue is driven entirely by the fringes.
    • What do you think it is the significance of the bill? Why is it important? Why is it useful? And, especially, what is its relevance?

      Twofold. First, it makes illegal what is widely recognized as a horrific procedure. That's good enough. Second, it is a symbolic gesture to the voters that legal abortion is under attack. The opponents of this bill are far more concerned about the latter than the former, which makes their arguments against the bill extremely weak.

  • Health (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 ) *
    Wow, you want legislators to define what health is?

    Is this another way the GOP is going to get government off our backs?

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has issued a Statement of Policy declaring [acog.org] that intact dilatation and extraction (the medical term for the procedure) "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." Do you think you know better than 45,000 health care providers?

    That webpage also ex

    • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has issued a Statement of Policy declaring that intact dilatation and extraction (the medical term for the procedure) "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." Do you think you know better than 45,000 health care providers?

      Pudge's question still stands unanswered, and it's what I've always wondered since I first heard about it years ago: Under what "particular ci

      • Partial healing [salon.com], by Viki Wilson: "Thankfully, the Supreme Court has struck down a law banning the procedure that saved my life and ended my daughter's suffering."

        In her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/17/1995, she said this too (I can't get a permanent URL on thomas.loc.gov, so you'll have to search for it yourself):

        ...all the experts concurred. Abigail would not survive outside my womb. And she could not survive the birthing process, because of the size of her anomaly her head would be

        • Jamie, sorry, the bill contains an exception when the life of the mother is threatened. This woman would have been able to have this procedure done under the new law.
          • The law contains an exception for "a mother whose life is endangered." In this case it sounds like the woman would simply have been rendered sterile (the "danger" of the C-section is not explained).

            So the GOP would force her uterus to rupture.

            • The law contains an exception for "a mother whose life is endangered." In this case it sounds like the woman would simply have been rendered sterile (the "danger" of the C-section is not explained).

              Well, first, she says " the Supreme Court has struck down a law banning the procedure that saved my life," which sounds like her life was endangered. Second, the doctor said, "A c-section is dangerous for you and I can't justify those risks," and when a doctor refuses to use a procedure because of the risks, t
    • Wow, you want legislators to define what health is?

      No, I don't. But since it is not legally defined, including it as part of a bill such as this makes no sense.

      The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has issued a Statement of Policy declaring that intact dilatation and extraction (the medical term for the procedure)

      FWIW, the National Institutes of Health and the National Library of Medicine recognize the term "Partial Birth Abortion" and do NOT recognize the terms intact D&E, D

      • the National Institutes of Health and the National Library of Medicine recognize the term "Partial Birth Abortion" and do NOT recognize the terms intact D&E, D&X or intact D&X.

        Source please?

        A Google search on site:nih.gov "partial birth abortion" turns up only six hits, four apparently regarding the political debate, and two with the phrase in quotes indicating its questionable provenance.

        You know the NLM is part of the NIH right?

        • Source please? ... nobody less than the National Institutes of Health and the National Library of Medicine both list online in their dictionaries the term partial birth abortion and define it as it's been defined by the government in this legislation. They do not however include the terms intact D&E, D&X or intact D&X, so as far as the medical terminology goes, partial birth abortion is the only recognized medical term.

          -- Dr. Curtis Cook, assistant clinical professor at Michigan State Universi

          • "the National Institutes of Health and the National Library of Medicine both list online in their dictionaries the term partial birth abortion"

            Heh, "both" -- again, the NLM is part of the NIH.

            It's in their Merriam-Webster dictionary online; the point is that it doesn't occur in the (thousands of?) medical papers they have online. So that's pretty misleading.

            It's also not in the first real medical dictionary I checked, the starred entry on dmoz.org's list at "Reference: Dictionaries: By Subject: Medici

            • Yeah, it's incredibly misleading. Go to the NIH/NLM dictionary at:

              http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionar y .html [nih.gov]

              Search on "chocolate."

              Here's the page I get back:

              Medical Dictionary

              2 entries found for cacao.
              To select an entry, click on it. (Click 'Go' if nothing happens.)

              cacao
              chocolate tree

              Main Entry: cacao
              Pronunciation: k&-'kau, k&-'kA-(")O
              Function: noun
              Inflected Form(s): plural cacaos
              1 : the dried partly fermented fatty seeds of a So. Ameri

              • Well, just so we're clear, that term IS in the dictionary (though is spelled "partial-birth abortion"). I was never sure why the term mattered, and wasn't making a big deal out of it, just repeating what I'd heard.

                • Re:Health (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by jamie ( 78724 ) *
                  Well, just so we're clear, the dictionary in question is NOT a medical dictionary, as the speaker implied. He's either deliberately trying to deceive or is parroting propaganda he heard from some right-wing organization that happened to discover that the NIH dictionary is down and redirecting to Merriam-Webster for the time being.

                  Either way, he shouldn't be called as an expert again on a quality national talk show.

                  Here's the letter I sent to Newshour:

                  In the discussion of the "partial-birth abortion"

      • [The opponents of this bill] just believe that "forcing" a woman to go through a late-term pregnancy is damaging to her
        mental health, but they don't want to come out and say it.

        Your source on this information, please?

        • Your source on this information, please?

          Their refusal to say in what way their health is actually endangered, such that "life of the mother" is insufficient, or that a more narrowly tailored "severe physical debilitation" provision, or somesuch, would not be offered. If they were really interested in physical health, they would work on language for that.

          But I think they may be worried about such things as sterilization, but they know that if the law contains such a provision, they will lose any reasonab
          • So you don't have a source, and you're just attributing to these people, whom you have never met, motivations based on your own assumptions.
            • Well, they are free to dissuade me of my assumptions by actually giving the absent reasons and examples. *shrug*
  • I can't really tell, if you are against abortion or for it. It seems to me you are pro choice, and pro partial birth, yet partial birth is so hideous I didn't think anyone could be for it. While, I am not for it, I am for pro choice. I think abortion shold be regulated a lot more and I think partial birth should be illegal.
    • In simplistic terms, I am pro-life, or anti-abortion. But really, what I am is for a recognition that the life in the womb is a person, with the same right to life and liberty as anyonen else. This would not result in abortion being banned, only that abortion could only be done if there is some exceptional reason for choosing to destroy that life, such as the life of the mother.

      And for this reason, I cannot be pro-choice. As I believe the life in the womb is a person -- or at the very least, that if we
  • This is not a slippery slope issue for me. My concern has nothing to do with chilling effects. My concern is that there are some women who will not want to have anyone exploding bloodily out of their genitals, but may be forced to do so under this legislation.

    It is beside the point whether there is another life involved. If my life were dependent on exploding out of your genitals, Pudge, I don't think that the government should force you to submit. There are many cases in which our society has decided that
    • I don't understand "exploding bloodily out of their genitals." What do you mean?

      As to which methods are better, I prefer all abortion be delegitimized, except in the case of significant threat of severe physical damage to the mother.
      • I don't understand "exploding bloodily out of their genitals." What do you mean?

        I'm just talking about giving birth.

        I really hate it when pro-lifers use unnecessarily gory language to describe abortion procedures, as if that is going to be more persuasive than reason. I'm doing the same thing here, and I shouldn't. I'm sorry. Bad rhetoric.

        There is something about the color of the debate that indicates to me that pro-lifers have no consideration for the imposition they are advocating into the life and bo
        • I'm just talking about giving birth.

          Then I have entirely no sympathy for your position.

          It is beside the point whether there is another life involved. If my life were dependent on exploding out of your genitals, Pudge, I don't think that the government should force you to submit.

          So what about a father who leaves his family, should he be forced to submit to paying child support? Or parents who choose to simply not feed their child, because it costs too much, should they be forced to care for their chil
          • Yes, in some cases, sex is forced upon women. But when it is not, to call pregnancy an imposition is to take away responsibility of the intentional act.

            You say that you make no distinction between those cases. So, assume I'm talking about rape. I'd consider the subsequent pregnancy an extreme imposition. I'm sure we agree.

            I reject anything that says that you get to decide the value of someone else's life.

            I thought we weren't going to debate this, so I didn't bring out any of my points. I was trying to
            • You say that you make no distinction between those cases.

              No, I say YOU do not.

              So, assume I'm talking about rape. I'd consider the subsequent pregnancy an extreme imposition. I'm sure we agree.

              Yes, it is an imposition. "Extreme" is too subject to be useful, and I am not sure what you mean by it, so I can't agree to that. I will say, however, that it still is not justification for abortion. It can only be justified if you consider the woman's quality of life to be more valuable than the child's right
              • As to whom distinguishes between rape and intentional pregnancy as it relates to abortion: You are right, I definitely don't make a distinction. It seems from your positions, that you don't either. That's all I was trying to say. Since we aren't making any distinction, assume I'm talking about rape.

                And the reason that you can't kill a born baby is because it is no longer making any kind of imposition on it's mother. (At least not without the mother's consent.) Once they're out of your womb, they can be ado
                • Since we aren't making any distinction, assume I'm talking about rape.

                  No. Since you aren't making distinctions, I'll only accept arguments from you that apply to all cases. If you are arguing a woman may have an abortion at any time, then it is nonsense for you to argue that she can have an abortion because the pregnancy was forced on her, and I won't accept such an argument.

                  For the record, I do see rape as a distinct case, though I won't discuss in what way, at this point, because it is beside the poi

                  • It's not a part of your body anymore.

                    Says who? These distinctions are so utterly arbitrary. Biologically speaking, the baby in the womb, early in the first trimester, is a distinct entity that is not a "part of" the mother's body. It's a symbiotic relationship, not a single organism.

                    I'll restate: It's not physically inside your body anymore. I'm not trying to argue that it's a single organism. Once the baby is outside of the womb, its life is no longer dependent on remaining attached physically to its mot

                    • Once the baby is outside of the womb, its life is no longer dependent on remaining attached physically to its mother.

                      My daughter's life was as dependent on being physically attached to her mother for many months after birth as it was before birth. Sure, breast feeding was not required. But neither was being in the womb. She could have been removed in the second trimester and survived. It would not be advisable for the sake of her health, but then, neither would bottle feeding instead of breast feeding
                    • My daughter's life was as dependent on being physically attached to her mother for many months after birth as it was before birth. Sure, breast feeding was not required. But neither was being in the womb. She could have been removed in the second trimester and survived.

                      Agreed. I would not be opposed to providing life support for second and third trimester fetuses, if that was what you felt the state should mandate. I am only opposed to forcing their mothers to carry them to term.

                      That's not true. The mo
                    • According to this article [religioustolerance.org], my description of the medical procedures available in the second and third trimesters was totally wrong.
  • Where would you draw your line?

    If "birth" is an arbitrary distinction, what distinction would you prefer?

    • Re:Also (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      Well, what does it mean to be human? We grant rights to human beings; the line should be drawn at that point when the life becomes human. Is it at the moment of birth? No, that's ludicrous. Is it prior to conception? Of course not. It's somewhere in between.

      If you think that being a human is simply biological, then you cannot justify the belief that all human beings have rights. including the right to live, with a belief that "abortion on demand" is acceptable once that brain starts sending out its s
      • If you think that being a human is simply biological, then you cannot justify the belief that all human beings have rights. including the right to live...

        I agree completely. I don't believe that all human beings have the right to live.

        We're not going to get anywhere with that kind of a disagreement.

        • Re:Also (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          So you disagree with the thoroughly American ideal that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If so, what are you complaining about? These women you're supposedly defending don't have rights either. :)/2
          • If you believe in the death penalty, war, or any number of other things, you don't believe that the right to life is inalienable. Clearly.

            That's all I mean. It's not an absolute right. Neither are the rights of those women I'm defending. The right to life can be abdicated even in cases where another person's life is not at risk. So when people start arguing that the fetus' right to life automatically trumps any other rights, I go a cold wet one. My right to life shouldn't limit your ability to control what

            • Re:Also (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              If you believe in the death penalty, war, or any number of other things, you don't believe that the right to life is inalienable. Clearly.

              That doesn't mean I don't believe people don't have the right to life, only that under some circumstances, that right may be taken away.

              That's all I mean. It's not an absolute right.

              But that is not what I was talking about. "Abortion on demand" doesn't merely take away the right of the child in the womb, it denies it has those rights to begin with.
              • "Abortion on demand" doesn't merely take away the right of the child in the womb, it denies it has those rights to begin with.

                I guess. We never really got to my argument for "Abortion on demand" and my position on abortion isn't exactly standard. I'm for choice in a myriad of cases where I think it's morally correct for the mother to kill her baby, and I'm for choice in all the other cases as a practicality. Because I don't think the government can tell the difference. When in doubt, leave it up to the pe

                • Re:Also (Score:2)

                  by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                  and I'm for choice in all the other cases as a practicality

                  Exactly. This denies the child has rights, because "practicality" is certainly not more important than are rights.

                  When in doubt, leave it up to the people.

                  That cannot be a valid option if the child has rights. The point of the government is to protect rights of the people. That is its primary purpose. To say the government should not be involved is to say the child has no rights.
                  • This denies the child has rights, because "practicality" is certainly not more important than are rights.

                    No, it doesn't. Killing an innocent to protect the lives of thousands is also a practicality. Maybe I'm using that word wrong.

                    You keep acting as if you are correct by definition. I simply don't see it that way. One of us will have to approach the discussion differently if we're going to get anywhere.

                    The point of the government is to protect rights of the people. That is its primary purpose. To say t

                    • Re:Also (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      No, I'm saying that the government would fail to protect the rights of the people.

                      No, you are saying it should not even have that job. That is what you actually said.

                      The child has rights. Those rights are entirely trumped by the mother's right to determine what happens inside her body.

                      No. That is illogical. That is the same as saying the child has no rights. If your right to live can be abridged in this way, then you have no meaningful right to live.

                      That would be like me saying you have the right
                    • No, you are saying it should not even have that job. That is what you actually said.

                      I don't follow at all.

                      No. That is illogical. That is the same as saying the child has no rights. If your right to live can be abridged in this way, then you have no meaningful right to live. That would be like me saying you have the right to free speech, and then saying you cannot be allowed to speak ever again because it is giving me a headache. That's nonsense.

                      No, it isn't. I don't see how you could possibly come to

            • If you believe in the death penalty, war, or any number of other things, you don't believe that the right to life is inalienable. Clearly.

              There is a massive difference between abortion and the death penalty.
              People are sentenced to death for crimes - they have chosen to give up their right to live once they commit that crime. Often, the death penalty is used because the person has taken someone else's life against their will.

              Unborn humans have done nothing to give up their right to live. When they are a

              • Re:Also (Score:2)

                by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                The right to life is inalienable unless someone has chosen to give their own life up.

                I think the point may have been that unalienable means that not even YOU can choose to give up your life. OTOH, it is not an unalienable life, it is an unalienable RIGHT to life. So you cannot give up your right to life, but that doesn't mean you can't give up your life.
                • Yep, I misspoke.

                  inalienable [m-w.com]: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

                  And especially considering the laguage in the Declaration of Independence (which I really don't want to contradict):

                  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

                  So, yes, I see your point. Instead of giving up a certain right, they are giving up that which

                  • oops, typo:
                    choice the crux of the matter (someone ironically)
                    should read
                    choice the crux of the matter (
                    somewhat ironically)
                    D'oh.
              • Yeah. Totally. The death penalty is one special case where we've decided that people no longer have the right to live. I don't really care what the reason is in that case, because it's obviously not the same case as an unborn baby.

                My point is simply that there are already many special cases, and the general pro-life argument that all human life is somehow sacred is obviously bullshit. Murder is fine with me in many, many cases.

                I'm sure that most all survivors of abortion are happy to be alive. Suggesting

                • Re:Also (Score:2)

                  by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                  My point is simply that there are already many special cases, and the general pro-life argument that all human life is somehow sacred is obviously bullshit.

                  Your appeal to bullshit is bullshit. You disagree with it, but it is logically consistent, whether you like it or not.
                  • All life is sacred, but the state can revoke the right to life of some innocent Iraqi? All life is sacred, but the state can kill people in vengeance for crimes they've committed?

                    • Re:Also (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      All life is sacred, but the state can revoke the right to life of some innocent Iraqi? All life is sacred, but the state can kill people in vengeance for crimes they've committed?

                      Yes. How is this not logically consistent? Perhaps you presume, incorrectly, that "sacred" means "cannot be taken away by man." It doesn't, at least, not in the usage of most people who hold the position, which is all that matters. The lives of Americans are sacred, and to save lives, you end up killing innocent Iraqis. If y
                    • The problem comes with when people say that the saving of other lives is a higher purpose, which seems fine to me, but then you say that someone's mere convenience is a higher purposes, which seems entirely ludicrous.

                      This is a disagreement I'm perfectly comfortable with. I mean, I don't think that it's acceptable to characterize this as "someone's mere convenience." I'm happy to argue over what the trade is, and whether it's worth making.

                      When folks say abortion is wrong because killing is always 100% wro

Slashdot Top Deals

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please see Big Brother.

Close