This is topic W.H.O. study: Legality of abortion has no effect on frequency [Update: overstated] in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”
And some of the criticism:
quote:Anti-abortion groups criticized the research, saying that the scientists had jumped to conclusions from imperfect tallies, often estimates of abortion rates in countries where the procedure was illegal. “These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington.
The study and article also go into the issue of safe provision of abortion in countries where it is legal versus unsafe provision of abortion in countries where it is not. The criticism of this aspect of the study is that many countries where abortion is illegal have less safe medical systems in general, and that the legality of abortion may not be the causal element in the safety of obtaining one. I would like to think that the researchers accounted for this, but without reading the study itself, neither I nor the study's critics know the answer.
I will say at the outset that I do not expect the study's conclusion to change anyone's mind. This debate invariably plays out along ideological lines and those lines are extremely unlikely to shift. However, if the study's findings are accurate, then those who wish to end or at least reduce abortion rates should consider focusing their emphasis on preventing pregnancies in the first place through contraception, provided their ideology is permissive toward contraception. Note that I say "should consider," not "should do," and also that I do not suggest that abortion opponents abandon their efforts to criminalize it. Rather, it is a question of priorities. Provided contraception is acceptable and the findings are accurate, working to expand availability and understanding of contraceptive methods will prevent more abortions than working to make abortion illegal.
[ October 12, 2007, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I've argued that preventing pregnancies in the first place will lower abortion rates, and I wish that pro-life groups would work to make contraception more easily available. It would be ironic if pro-choice groups pushing for better access to contraception actually made more of a dent in the abortion rate.
I'll reserve judgment on what I think about the accuracy of the study, but if it's true that laws affect the safety only and not the rate, then I suppose the ethical thing to do would be to keep it legal. Also, has anyone looked at the birthrate before and after Roe v. Wade, particularly in states that had abortion bans in place before? I would think that if there were a significant drop in the birthrate afterward (or at least, a slowdown in the increase), that would be evidence that the abortion rate went up. If a drop isn't present, that would be evidence that the abortion rate did not go up. Anyone know of a study on that?
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I would guess that the data doesn't have the resolution to see something like that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also, has anyone looked at the birthrate before and after Roe v. Wade, particularly in states that had abortion bans in place before? I would think that if there were a significant drop in the birthrate afterward (or at least, a slowdown in the increase), that would be evidence that the abortion rate went up
While there are many issues that can be taken with the book, I seem to recall reading in Freakonomics that post-RvW, the birth rate for the demographics most likely to get abortions fell as people (presumably) chose to have abortions.
edit: clarity
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, I'd say there are inherent difficulties in trying to piece together statistics on illegal activities of a quality to compare to statistics where it is just a matter of pulling medical records.
And as you mention, it's a moral matter. We can't make shoplifting legal just because people do it anyway.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I am not impressed by the study, which I have read through (it is available via ScienceDirect, if you have access to that).
The study does not show what the quotation says it does. The study is data gathering combined with a few simple statistics (increases or decreases in various regions). There was no statistical analysis done to even attempt to estimate the effect of legality on abortion.
The person saying the study shows that is blustering.
Additionally, the strong correlation they show between legality and safety is hardly surprising -- any abortion which is legal (in fact or in practice) is considered safe in their study. Look, a correlation! They'd have a lot more credibility if instead of looking at safe/unsafe abortions, they attempted to estimate rates of death of the mother due to an abortion (there are some decent ways to go about that even where abortions are covered up).
The study is useful insofar as it provides better estimates of abortion rates. All the other conclusions I've seen people say about it are unsupported unless enriched with further information, and no such information has been presented.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's too bad. It's a shame the results are being misrepresented. Added: I updated the thread title.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:They'd have a lot more credibility if instead of looking at safe/unsafe abortions, they attempted to estimate rates of death of the mother due to an abortion (there are some decent ways to go about that even where abortions are covered up).
It's actually not that easy to get true estimates of injuries and deaths caused by abortions in a society like ours where it's legal. There's a very simple, obvious reason for it - there's not a category for "abortion injury" on most emergency medical forms. My husband took a lady to a hospital once when she was severely damaged by an abortion doctor and had to check it as an "obstetric hemorrhage," because that's the only option his forms gave him. He specifically wrote in his comments section what happened, and yet still when he received a copy back of the form after it was filed, all that was noted is that she was suffering from an obstetric hemorrhage. In order to report what really happened, he had to initiate a malpractice report against the doctor with the State Medical Board, and fill out hours worth of paperwork, and he wound up testifying in hearings. How many emergency medical personnel are going to go through that effort? How many people treated in emergency rooms for "obstetric hemorrhages" are really people injured by abortion doctors and we, the public, will never know the true number?
Abortion injury reporting to the CDC is voluntary reporting from the state health departments and I know for a fact that it's inaccurate for Alabama. My husband used to cover a territory that included an abortion clinic and had to respond to abortion injuries, and take women to the hospital. He knows of two deaths that he personally was involved with the care of the patient, so he is definitely sure they were caused by the abortion. I'm not sure what year they occurred in, but it was early 2000's. For year 2002, the CDC reported 9 deaths nationally from abortion injuries. I personally don't think that number can possibly be right, not if my husband has taken dozens of women to the hospital who've been injured, and at least two have died that he knows of - the number is probably higher, and he's just one paramedic working one station covering one abortion clinic 1/3 of the time.
I suspect if we knew the true numbers on abortion injury, it would be a lot higher than is reported now.
The Abortion Surveillance report, put out by the CDC, has a form that is filled out by every provider that performs abortions. You can see a copy of it here - link is a pdf and the form is page 19 - and nowhere on that form does it ask the provider to report whether an injury has occurred. To get the injury reports, you have to go from medical records, and as my husband can tell you, there is nowhere on those forms to mark "abortion injury."
You can see the most recent Abortion Surveillance report, including the table 19 where I got that 9 number for 2002 from here Link is a .pdf.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"And as you mention, it's a moral matter. We can't make shoplifting legal just because people do it anyway. "
Considering what your Bible says on the matter, I don't see why you'd think it's much of a moral matter, considering God only made harming an unborn fetus worth a small monetary resitution, while in the same sentence suggesting the harm of the mother should equate eye for an eye.
How arrogant of you to disagree with your God. Surely he knows whether a fetus has rights or not better than you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So "moral matter" automatically means Bible now? I'm pretty sure we've agreed on Hatrack that atheists can also be concerned about morality.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And as you mention, it's a moral matter. We can't make shoplifting legal just because people do it anyway.
This is close to my stance as well*.
I was going to elaborate on this, but I think I'll wait to see of 0Megabyte or anybody else wants to ridicule me first.
*I wouldn't personally use the phrase "morality" in a discussion about laws, but this is similar to my line of thinking. Abortion should be illegal for the same reasons that manslaughter is.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "And as you mention, it's a moral matter. We can't make shoplifting legal just because people do it anyway. "
Considering what your Bible says on the matter, I don't see why you'd think it's much of a moral matter, considering God only made harming an unborn fetus worth a small monetary resitution, while in the same sentence suggesting the harm of the mother should equate eye for an eye.
How arrogant of you to disagree with your God. Surely he knows whether a fetus has rights or not better than you.
Please don't try to advocate for the God of the Bible. He does what he does and says what he says for his own reasons.
Also, taking things out of context is not going to convince anyone that you are right.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Perhaps I went overboard there. Though it might be reasonable to assume a Christian should or would base their morality on the book they hold inspired/written by God... oh well.
Also: out of context? Lovely. What's the context? God can do no wrong? Or shall we talk about the specific book? I may be in error, and I may be overreacting, but the "out of context" thing, as I've seen it a hundred times in the past, is really an arguement I've seen used to retcon all sorts of things, excuse all sorts of evil and madness... especially when the context is "God is infallible, and that's that."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Though it might be reasonable to assume a Christian should or would base their morality on the book they hold inspired/written by God... oh well.
It is not reasonable to assume that a Christian only holds moral beliefs that directly come from the Bible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Belle: while that would increase uncertainty, it would probably be a good thing for estimating the true effect, since then whatever proxies were used for abortions causing harm to the mother would be more uniform across nations.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
In the hopes of not derailing, I will attempt to keep this short.
I retract my previous "out of context" assertion. While it may still be, it seems to be unimportant to the central issue.
It seems that 0Megabyte has referenced Exodus 21:22-25. That passage says that if men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth premature, that the man is to be fined. If the baby dies, then take life for life, eye for an eye, etc.
dkw: Do you happen to know of any hatrack threads that discuss atheists views on morality? I would be most interested in reading on the subject.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I seem to recall a thread titled something like "toward an objective morality," possibly begun by Tom Davidson?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'm miffed that no one commented on my elegant proof that objective morality is impossible. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
My anecdotal experience as someone who has worked shifts in given ERs over a period of >2yrs each, in 3 separate cities [and starting in 1996], is that there are some providers of voluntary abortion procedures that have stellar records, and some that do not. I am aware of at least one stellar provider that has "refused to do any more cleaning up after XXXX" (i.e., agreeing to come in as a consultant when things went wrong during the procedure) on the grounds that XXXX was too inexperienced to be providing such services and had too great a complication rate.
I have seen a marked decrease in the number of stellar providers as many either retired or withdrew from practice secondary to prolonged and vicious threats against their family members. It is also a service that fewer current physicians in training are willing to provide, given in good part the climate providers face. (there are studies of medical students and recent graduates on this)
Thus over the years, I have been seeing more and more complications, although -- notably -- these are not distributed across the board, but have been highly concentrated with certain providers. This includes some itinerant providers (travelling across the country to cover multiple more rural sites) as well as some stationary.
What this means is that safe voluntary abortion procedures are available to some, and only much less safe to others. As the years pass, there seem to be fewer in the former category and more in the latter. I expect this may be either a desired [as in sought as a necessary step to get past on the path to achieve a greater overriding good, interpretable multiple ways (e.g., see dkw's post below)] outcome [edited to clarify as per Icarus' concerns below: this I expect to refer to some such protestors, notably not claimed to be a large or even significant percentage of them, and possibly only a fringe element, although possibly including some who believe this to be an unfortunate but necessary step -- and note, the "necessary" would distinguish them from the following category -- on the path to banning voluntary abortion procedures outright]
-------- [Edited still further to add: if you read on, you will see that this section is still an ongoing area of contention and/or confusion -- my apologies, as I cannot seem to make it workable, but I do wish to alert readers to the situation] --------
or an unfortunate side effect [i.e., unfortunately tied to the necessity of protesting voluntary abortion procedures, although not viewed herein as a necessary step on the path to banning such procedures outright] for those protesting the current climate in which such procedures are still legal. [And, of note, there are surely many many people who both protest voluntary abortion procedures and who fail to fall into either camp, for reasons including (but not limited to) having not considered the issue, or being unaware of the potential side effect of such protests on the quality of procedures still offered, or who would not continue to pursue the objective of banning voluntary abortion procedures if that course were necessarily accompanied by such a rise in complications, or who reject that such a rise has occurred, and -- most certainly -- etc.] Regardless, I expect (myself) the complication rate to continue to rise.
Of course, this does not mean that such a rate is inherrent to the procedures themselves, but more an artifact of who is left to perform them.
[ October 15, 2007, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: . . . safe voluntary abortion procedures are available to some, and only much less safe to others. As the years pass, there seem to be fewer in the former category and more in the latter. I expect this may be either a desired outcome or . . . for those protesting the current climate in which such procedures are still legal.
Wow. I'm kind of surprised at what I think I hear you saying here.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That I think it is likely the anticipated and desired effect of some protestors as well as an unfortunate and regrettable side effect for others (and, presumably, not even known to others, and for others not even cared about)?
Icarus, some protestors have have been quoted saying just this in the mass media. I would take them at their word, but sometimes people say things for effect alone.
I also would not assume that any given category applies to anyone posting here, their families, or anyone they might have ever come in contact with in any possible way (phone, internet, book, what have you) in their own lives. But the Fred Phelps of the world do exist, you know.
Are you implying that I am accusing particular people of having untoward motives? If so, I can assure you that I am not, and I'd appreciate a clarification for the record if you are not meaning to imply that. It's be great, in fact.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm not implying, I'm trying to understand what you meant.
Let me try to elaborate. Saying some abortion protesters are glad to see abortions become less safe while others see it as an unfortunate side-effect seems to suggests that these are comparable in proportion. Let me make some similar statements:
Some men enter the priesthood because they are pedophiles seeking compliant victims, while others enter it because they feel they have been called by God to serve humanity.
Some people oppose gay marriage because they are hate-filled bigots, while others oppose it because they believe it would damage the institution of marriage.
Some people oppose the war in Iraq because they dislike the United States in general and soldiers in particular, while others oppose it because they believe it is misguided foreign policy.
Some people oppose welfare and socialized medicine because they have no compassion for the poor, and others oppose it because they oppose increasing the size of government.
Some people drink alcoholic beverages because they are alcoholics with no self-control, and some people drink them because they enjoy the relaxing effects of a moderate amount of alcohol.
Some people collect welfare because they are too lazy to work, while others collect it because they can't earn enough, despite their best efforts, to live.
I think each of the above dichotomies is arguably true, but each might be objectionable to the group being characterized, be it priests, people opposing gay marriage, people opposing the war, people who drink, or people on welfare, because it puts what most would consider a fringe element on equal footing with the larger group, thus calling into question the motivations of the group as a whole.
The Fred Phelpses do exist, but it probably helps the conversation to assume that they're a loud fringe element, and not representative of most of their cause.
To put it as clearly as I can, threats against abortion doctors notwithstanding, I would say the fraction of pro-lifers who want abortion to be more dangerous, as a goal and not as an undesired side-effect, who actually wish harm on mothers who abort and doctors who perform abortions, approaches zero.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*nods
I do not read the dichotomies you listed the same way you do; this may be because of my technical training, for which "some" does not carry any connotation of size. When I write "some," it means more or less means "at least one and possibly more." I don't think I'd have had any objection to your having posted any of the dichotomies listed, other than (maybe) a comment along the lines of "of course, the former outnumbers the latter," or other clarifying comment for the record.
It certainly wouldn't have even occurred to me that the original poster might have been saying or implying an equivalence, unless it was a poster (and there are a few -- not many, you understand, but at least 2 or 3) I expected to be trolling for disruption. But I might addenedum the written record for clarifications of further, later reading in which the posters might not be known as well.
***--Of note, nobody in this thread [at this point] is someone I believe to be trolling, or to have trolled in the past, or to wish (or be likely to) troll in the future. I only say this to be excruciatingly clear in my implications.---***
However, I understand and accept your reading of both my wording and the dichotomies posted, and I think it's worth a clarification added to my initial post. Please do read it and let me know whether or not it is what you consider to be fully appropriate.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: To put it as clearly as I can, threats against abortion doctors notwithstanding, I would say the fraction of pro-lifers who want abortion to be more dangerous, as a goal and not as an undesired side-effect, who actually wish harm on mothers who abort and doctors who perform abortions, approaches zero.
Hmmm. I think there is a difference in category and number between those pro-lifers who want merely that voluntary abortion procedures become more dangerous (and here I would agree this is a very very very small number) and those that believe it is necessary that this become so in the process of coming to the very great good of coming to outlaw abortions in general, as a sort of regrettable-means-justify-sufficiently-the-very-great-good-ends (I would still consider this to be a small number, but more (in my guess, that is) because the issue had not been raised in their minds than because it had been raised and rejected).
I expect a poll of pro-life persons might be useful to get an idea of this, but it is very difficult for me to figure out how to do this without triggering some (understandably fierce) sense of being attacked. It is a most tense subject in general, even at the best of times.
For example, Icarus, would you accept a significant increase in abortion complications if this led to outright banning of such procedures eventually? And if you would accept that increase, would you be willing to act towards that intermediate outcome (temporarily more complications from the procedures) for the sake of the eventual outcome (no abortion procedures whatsoever)?
Or if you don't want to answer (and surely this is understandable, and your right, and not something I would fault you for or draw any conclusions whatsoever about your beliefs on the matter), might you shed some light on why someone wouldn't answer and how to rephrase or recontextualize in a way that would make it a question someone might be more likely to answer?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:***--Of note, nobody in this thread [at this point] is someone I believe to be trolling, or to have trolled in the past, or to wish (or be likely to) troll in the future. I only say this to be excruciatingly clear in my implications.---***
People who get abortions are all going to HELL!!! People who don't believe in abortion are all STUPID!!!
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. It was such a great setup... *hangs head in shame*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*sigh
It does invite skullduggery and shenanigans, but such is the price of being clear. It is hard to assume charitable intent by others, even those one knows well, in topics that are as tense and emotionally fraught as these. These topics almost necessarily seem to come with drawn-up backs and a disinclination to the Principle of Charity.
It is the nature of the beast, and we all suffer from it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
To put it as clearly as I can, threats against abortion doctors notwithstanding, I would say the fraction of pro-lifers who want abortion to be more dangerous, as a goal and not as an undesired side-effect, who actually wish harm on mothers who abort and doctors who perform abortions, approaches zero.
I think it is also possible that there are people who want abortion to be (or at least be seen as) a more dangerous procedure not because they wish harm to the mother but because they hope that that will discourage women from having one. I would put those people in CT's first category too.
Edit: or maybe have a seperate subcategory for them, since lumping them in with people who actively wish harm on others seems rather harsh. However, that is how I read her initial category -- that the desire was that increasing danger to the mother would prevent women from seeking abortions, not that women who do deserve to be punished with increasing risk of serious complications and death.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Icarus, I have amended the post to which you objected, and if you want further amendment (or just have further suggestions as to how to be more clear), I will happily try to incorporate them as best I can when I get back later today. For those items in the post on which me may disagree as to claims of fact or decidedly firm opinions, I will certainly (at least!) modify further to note your continuing objections, if any.
Additionally, I posed a question to you about whether you would be willing to accept a rise in the medical complications of voluntary abortion procedures if you truly believed it would lead to a ban on such procedures, etc. I'd like to underscore as firmly as possible here that I see no reason you should feel compelled to answer the question, nor that any particular conclusions should be drawn about your beliefs (or character, or even just your current mood) from declining to answer, should you decline to do so. (And I do not presume that you will decline to do so, by the way.)
But regardless of whether you do or don't decline to answer, I'd appreciate an assessment of how to ask such a question in the least offensive way possible, as I would like to ask the question more generally here. On the other hand, you (of course!) may decline to answer that question as well, on the same grounds as for the other.
Many thanks.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: For example, Icarus, would you accept a significant increase in abortion complications if this led to outright banning of such procedures eventually? And if you would accept that increase, would you be willing to act towards that intermediate outcome (temporarily more complications from the procedures) for the sake of the eventual outcome (no abortion procedures whatsoever)?
Or if you don't want to answer (and surely this is understandable, and your right, and not something I would fault you for or draw any conclusions whatsoever about your beliefs on the matter), might you shed some light on why someone wouldn't answer and how to rephrase or recontextualize in a way that would make it a question someone might be more likely to answer?
It's not that I don't want to answer the question so much as that it seems to pose dichotomy where my view is neither of the ones you suggest. I do not view an increase in abortion complications as either a goal or a means to a goal. It's not an "ends justify the means" question at all. So the answer is no, I would not "accept a significant increase in abortion complications if this led to outright banning of such procedures eventually." That sounds coercive to me. As long as abortion is legal, I would want it to be done as safely as possible.
But I worry that this position which is not my own (i.e., viewing a decrease in the safety of abortions as a means to outlawing abortion) is all to easily conflated (by pro-choicers) with things that I do believe. For instance, I don't think that abortion should remain legal simply to prevent botched illegal abortions. Legal abortions should be safe--it's incomprehensible to me to believe that someone's life should be endangered for doing something the law grants them permission to do--but abortions should not (IMO, of course) be legal. I don't believe, in general, that laws should be changed in order to prevent harm coming to lawbreakers. If lawbreakers would not break the law, they would not come to harm while doing so.
Reading your clarification, I see that you're linking the complication right to protesters in general, and not merely to the more militant ones. In that case, I still don't see an increase in complications as a means. Law-abiding protesters are not trying to make abortions more dangerous. If fewer people become abortion doctors because nobody wants to work with nonviolent protesters outside their office, well, I see that as not a bad thing. If this leads to greater complications, I see that as a bad thing, but not a bad thing for which the protesters bear responsibility. People have a right to protest against the things they perceive to be evil.
Protesters outside of a military recruitment office might lead to fewer people joining the military. If fewer people join the military, those serving in dangerous zones might have less backup, and be more vulnerable to attack. Fewer people joining the war is, in the eyes of the protesters, a good thing. People dying in dangerous zones is, in most of their eyes, a bad thing. But war protesters bear no guilt for these increased deaths, and would argue that none of these soldiers would be dying if, for example, we were not occupying Iraq. Their deaths are not intended to be a means toward turning the tide of public opinion against the war. Rather, they're an unintended consequence, but protesters should not cease to protest out of fear that they may succeed.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think it is also possible that there are people who want abortion to be (or at least be seen as) a more dangerous procedure not because they wish harm to the mother but because they hope that that will discourage women from having one.
This strikes me as monstrous, and I'd be stunned if this was more than a tiny minority.
[ October 13, 2007, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: However, that is how I read her initial category -- that the desire was that increasing danger to the mother would prevent women from seeking abortions, not that women who do deserve to be punished with increasing risk of serious complications and death.
Heavens! The latter possibility did not even occur to me. I would certainly suspect that the number of people who would rub their hands in delight at an increasing number of such complications -- for reasons purely as punishment to the women -- would be vanishingly small.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
ClaudiaTherese, I have read your ammended statement, but I don't have a chalkboard handy on which to diagram it, so I'm afraid it is incomprehensible to me at this point. It may be that there is no way to both make it comprehensible and to avoid what I was criticizing in it. So I ask you, in all honesty and not as an attempt to control your post: what was your point? I mean, was breaking down the list of possible views on increased complications on the part of pro-lifers into an incomplete listing of possibilities actually elucidating some point?
I read it initially as pointing out that pro-lifers stand to benefit from the situation. I found pointing that out to be distasteful, as it suggested that they would be pleased at the thought of women dying. Now you have indicated (I think) that you by no means mean to suggest that a significant number of pro-lifers feel this way, just that some small fraction almost certainly do. Um, okay. Does that really mean that much then? I mean, if you think it is a large fraction, then we have a point to debate.
Let me try another analogy. It is plausible to me that some people who favor Zero Population Growth think it's a good thing when a woman has a miscarriage, and see it as a harm averted. Most probably disagree with her decision to have a child, but think it's awful that she would have to go through such a tragedy. Now I could point out the existing of the former group, with the caveat that they're a tiny minority, but what would be the point, really?
CT, I'm genuinely sorry that you seem to feel I have not assumed charitable intent on your part. Would it have been more proper for me to not comment? I actually feel that I have assumed charitable intent, because I have not (in my opinion) been discourteous, and because I allowed, in my original post to you, for the possibility that I was misinterpreting you. When you later said that you didn't understand what I was objecting to, I provided several examples and maintained what I thought was a courteous tone, and took at face value your claim not to have meant to imply that the more extremist pro-lifers are in any way representative of the movement as a whole. I don't believe my tone has been angry. I like you and think the world of you; I'm sorry if it seems otherwise.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: So the answer is no, I would not "accept a significant increase in abortion complications if this led to outright banning of such procedures eventually." That sounds coercive to me. As long as abortion is legal, I would want it to be done as safely as possible.
What do you think about a likelihood of such complications increasing as there are fewer and fewer physicians well-trained to do the procedures?
Given what you said about other analogous situations, I think you might view that as "an unintended consequence," but a consequence that you would be willing to accept even if you thought it likely, no? (Albeit that you would not accept responsibility for that happening, nonetheless you would be willing to go forward even if you have good reason to think this consequence would occur. That is, foreseeable as likely to happen, although not a matter of your responsibility.)
I am not trying to imply anything about that decision, mind you, rather to understand your position. I myself do accept foreseeable negative consequences for policies I advocate, including those situations for which I still do not accept responsibility for those consequences.
---
Edited to add: Have to leave, but I will come back, Icarus. I can do no more than skim your last post -- my sweetie is half out the door and waiting -- but my apologies if I have given offense. Will return, I promise.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
What choices do I have? How can I act to prevent these unintended consequences? If my only means of preventing this unintended consequence is to cease to advocate against abortion, then no, I would not do that, and I see any suggestion that I should as absurd.
Remember that, from my point of view, abortion has foreseeable negative consequences that must not be accepted. Most who favor legalized abortion seem to believe that a fetus, no matter the stage of development, does not have the rights that a born human baby has. Therefore, it's easier to be on that side of this particular divide, because on one side you have an foreseeable negative consequence, and on the other you have none. From my standpoint, there is a foreseeable negative consequence on either side, one of which by far dwarfs the other in scale. It's not fair to me to suggest I am uncompassionate about the other one--or that I don't share your desire to eliminate foreseeable negative consequences for policies I advocate--but I can't help but feel that I am being painted into that corner by these leading questions. I will not decline to answer, because I don't want that to be held up as proof of something about me. But my choice of words would not be your hypothetical choice of what I might say.
You seem to be suggesting that it may be wrong to advocate against the legality of abortion because doing so has this unintended negative consequence. I favor whatever licensing and safeguards are used to make sure other doctors are competent to be applied to doctors who provide abortions. These are licensed doctors we're talking about, no? Then why the heck don't we expect them to be competent? You seem to be attempting an end-around my statement that those who oppose abortions are not responsible for this foreseeable negative consequence, by granting it and still questioning the morality of allowing bad things that are not your fault to happen. (Incidentally, I would suggest that there are probably reasons being an abortion doctor is an undesirable career quite apart from the actions of anti-abortion activists. Like perhaps some of those doctors are themselves morally uncomfortable with performing abortions. It is probably different--at least for some--to perform abortions oneself than it is to speak in hypotheticals about whether they should or should not be legal for others.)
Is it immoral to carry a gun if I am a police officer or soldier? After all, there is a foreseeable negative consequence if I do.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*sigh*
I usually avoid these threads, but couldn't seem to help myself today. I'm interested in the comment below, from CT:
quote:My anecdotal experience as someone who has worked shifts in given ERs over a period of >2yrs each, in 3 separate cities [and starting in 1996], is that there are some providers of voluntary abortion procedures that have stellar records, and some that do not. I am aware of at least one stellar provider that has "refused to do any more cleaning up after XXXX" (i.e., agreeing to come in as a consultant when things went wrong during the procedure) on the grounds that XXXX was too inexperienced to be providing such services and had too great a complication rate.
I have seen a marked decrease in the number of stellar providers as many either retired or withdrew from practice secondary to prolonged and vicious threats against their family members. It is also a service that fewer current physicians in training are willing to provide, given in good part the climate providers face. (there are studies of medical students and recent graduates on this)
Thus over the years, I have been seeing more and more complications, although -- notably -- these are not distributed across the board, but have been highly concentrated with certain providers. This includes some itinerant providers (travelling across the country to cover multiple more rural sites) as well as some stationary.
My question is this. Aside from the specific dynamics related to doctors leaving or avoiding abortion practice, is the situation in regard to uneven quality in medical care really unique to abortion?
I ask because I've been doing a blog now for almost two months. One of the things I've covered is professional accountability in medicine - or rather, the lack of it. (I won't put self-promoting links in here - most know how to look me up through my profile. )
Virtually every state sooner or later has scandals regarding the lack over oversight and accountability that state medical review boards actually provide. It's news for awhile and then everyone forgets.
As a result of the blog, a few mainstream bioethicists are corresponding with me now. They admit readily - in private, anyway - that there isn't much accountability for medical practitioners and groups like the AMA work hard to keep it that way.
I realize this is a partial derailment and I apologize for that. But I am curious as to just how much worse the picture is in terms of abortion than for other aspects of medical practice - and how we can even know.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: (Incidentally, I would suggest that there are probably reasons being an abortion doctor is an undesirable career quite apart from the actions of anti-abortion activists. Like perhaps some of those doctors are themselves morally uncomfortable with performing abortions. It is probably different--at least for some--to perform abortions oneself than it is to speak in hypotheticals about whether they should or should not be legal for others.)
Of course.
There have always been physicians who choose not to provide these procedures because of what they consider to be personal moral conflicts. However, when the choices of medical students and recent graduates have been studied, the drop in number of providers -- that is, the increasing lack of physicians willing to provide this, over and above the ongoing background rate of those who would not have chosen to do so anyway -- has been tied quite closely to concerns about personal safety and the safety of one's family.
[Edited to add: I did specify this in my first post. If it was unclear, my apologies. So, for full clarity (I hope): although there has been an increase in the number of young physicians who decline to provide voluntary abortion procedures specifically because of the current climate surrounding providers, this should not be taken to imply that there are not other reasons -- particularly, perceived conflicts with one's own morality, as well as other reasons -- why young physicians may decline to do so, just as some physicians always have had such reasons in the past.]
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Is it immoral to carry a gun if I am a police officer or soldier? After all, there is a foreseeable negative consequence if I do.
*mildly
I expect that police officers and soldiers accept that there are such foreseeable negative consequences and judge them to be outweighed by the good achieved nonetheless.
I don't think less of police officers or soldiers for making that judgment. Honestly, I don't -- I may disagree with the judgment, or I may think it is not based on a realistic assessment of the circumstances at hand, but the fact that someone would accept foreseeable negative consequences of an action because that action lead to a greater good would not (in itself) lead me to think less of that person.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: So I ask you, in all honesty and not as an attempt to control your post: what was your point? I mean, was breaking down the list of possible views on increased complications on the part of pro-lifers into an incomplete listing of possibilities actually elucidating some point?
My point was this, the conclusion of my initial post:
quote:Regardless, I expect (myself) the complication rate to continue to rise.
Of course, this does not mean that such a rate is inherrent to the procedures themselves, but more an artifact of who is left to perform them.
What you quoted and commented on was just one bit out of what I wrote, and it was not intended as a primary point, but as an aside. When I have commented on this rise in complications in the past here at Hatrack (notably, this was without any comment regarding potential intentions), I have been perceived as saying that this was the intent of the pro-life movement; or, at least, a Hatracker or two has strenuously rejected the [perceived by that/those person(s)] implication that this was his or her intent. (The threads are quite prior -- I haven't found them via search today, but then I have not undertaken an exhaustive search.)
And here again it came to pass that the discussion turned to the complication rate of abortions. Specifically, the discussion turned to anecdotal evidence of a particular provider being one with unreported/unreportable and outrageous complications as a result of the voluntary abortion procedures he or she provided relatively recently.
I was speaking in agreement that I have seen a rise is such problems (anecdotally) myself, and at least in good part for reasons I think are often missed in these discussions. I brought up the same issue I had in at least one or two previous discussions, but this time I tried to ward off being misread with regards to ascribing intent by acknowledging that though it may be the intent for some, it is an "unfortunate side effect" for others -- in my intent and by my assessment, an act towards not being divisive or casting aspersions.
I can see it didn't work. That is a shame. Truly, it is, for both of us.
quote:Would it have been more proper for me to not comment? I actually feel that I have assumed charitable intent, because I have not (in my opinion) been discourteous, and because I allowed, in my original post to you, for the possibility that I was misinterpreting you.
My preference would not have been for you to say nothing, Icarus, but rather for you to have avoided phrasing it this way:
quote:Wow. I'm kind of surprised at what I think I hear you saying here.
and instead just asked whether I was actually meaning to say something "surprising" in this way, or just to have assumed I was not saying something "surprising" (and noted this clearly, out of charitability), even if you went ahead to clarify a potential misread.
However, this is likely a matter of style more than substance. I am sure you did not mean to offend, nor to imply something offensive, and I am sorry to have taken it as casting aspersions on my intent.
As I said, we all suffer from a disinclination to applying the Principle of Charity in these cases.
quote: Um, okay. Does that really mean that much then? I mean, if you think it is a large fraction, then we have a point to debate.
No, it was an aside on my part, and if I had my druthers, it would have remained just an aside. It was far from the central point of my post.
If you were not present for those previous conversations, or if you were but have forgotten them, I can see why that initial aside would have struck you as sticking out like a sore thumb. Again, it was meant as an aside, and indeed as an attempt to ward off a misreading of my general post as casting aspersions on others (not the reverse).
quote:I like you and think the world of you; I'm sorry if it seems otherwise.
I like you too, and I think the world of you. I think you are an intelligent man with great passion and kindness. I do not want you to think ill of me, either.
[ October 13, 2007, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
sndrake, I think that is an interesting and useful topic to pursue. I am not sure I understand the question itself, and I am certain I am not in a position to add much to that discussion at this current time, but I do wish you all the best in pursuing it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
For further reading about this trending down in the number of providers, there is a lay article in The New York Times, Who Will Do Abortions Here?, from 1998. That article also discusses some other reasons why the trend is occurring (such as more mergers of secular hospitals with Catholic hospitals that abide under different constraints) as well as some of the reasons having to do with the current climate of picketing, personal threats, and hate mail -- reasons to decline to provide both for current physicians and incoming students.
[Edited to add, just for clarity: those are not the only reasons (as specifically noted above, this article does bring up several other reasons, including personal concerns about moral conflict) and I do not think those are necessarily the reasons any given person here would have (or not) -- I merely note them as reasons which are playing a disproportionate role in the responses of the students and young residents for surveys published in the literature.]
In 1998, over 1/2 of the voluntary abortion providers in the US were above legal retirement age (65 years old). If I recall correctly, this percentage has only increased. This comes with less training for young physicians in how to deal with complicated spontaneous abortions, as well as therapeutic voluntary abortions (such as when the fetus has died in utero and there is a problem with spontaneous resolution -- not a frequent occurrence, but it happens).
I take this to be a foreseeable consequence of the current climate. I do not think it is untenable to accept that as a foreseeable consequence, nor do I take it as untenable to see that as a consequence for which someone bears no responsibility merely because he or she is pro-life. But it is what is happening, and I think that is worth noting and remembering, even if we individually may find it regrettable (or not).
---
[Edited to add for further clarity: when I say "(or not)" in that last sentence, I do not mean to imply that any given person or percentage of persons does or does not find this situation regrettable but am merely trying to acknowledge the breadth of opinions people might have about such matters, including those in disagreement with my own -- an attempt not to exclude persons, but to include them, and for reasons the opposite of divisive.]
[ October 13, 2007, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Icarus, I am sorry. You made overtures of friendship and I disregarded them quite insultingly.
My husband says that when I am talking about or dealing with medical matters, I become persnickety, abrupt, and condescending, and he is right. This is over and above my devolution into umbrage and ruffled feathers when I perceive I am being attacked.
Dave and I fought about this just tonight, actually, and it brought to my mind that I am behaving the same way to you. I am so sorry.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
If you were abrupt you wouldn't have put in so many qualifiers and provisos CT. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks for the link, CT. It brings up a lot of good points. I'm curious to see what will happen to the people who can't be bothered to think about birth control when the experienced doctors have retired and no one wants to take their places.
As for my question last time if minority mothers have a hard time placing their babies for adoption, AbortionFacts.com seems to support the idea. Surprisingly, it's not that white couples don't want to adopt the babies.
quote: Actually, there are enough couples wanting these [minority] babies, but, sadly, they frequently aren’t adopted. Reasons include unwillingness of the natural mother to release the child, unrealistically high standards for minority parents to meet in order to qualify, and unwillingness of agencies to allow white parents to adopt them. E. Lee, "White Couples’ Obstacles to Adopt Nonwhites," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27, 1987
The article also alleges that agencies tend not to place minority babies because they receive more money for them as they get older. I have no idea how reputable the site is, but it came up high on Google. Be forwarned, the link goes tot he top of the article which is a bit inflamitory, IMO. The bit farther down talking about race and adoption is more neutral.
[Edit: I reviewed the link, and it doesn't go straight to the bit I wanted.]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I have seen a marked decrease in the number of stellar providers as many either retired or withdrew from practice secondary to prolonged and vicious threats against their family members. It is also a service that fewer current physicians in training are willing to provide, given in good part the climate providers face. (there are studies of medical students and recent graduates on this)
Honestly not trying to make a US/Canada point, but rather in order to have as much information as possible (in case the situation comes up to a family member or friend): Would you describe the situation in Canada as being very similar, very different, or somewhere in between?
Thanks
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't have enough experience in Canada, since I am not licensed to practice yet (so I don't work with other providers on a regular basis). I teach medical students, but they are not at a level at which they have much experience in the field -- and even so, I'd be wary of secondhand information.
When I can, I will let you know.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I hate to make posts now because I'm awaiting a new motherboard for my computer at home, so I'm not able to get online much.
I find that I'm coming to discussions very late, which bothers me because I can't respond as quickly as I'd like to things. Therefore, I'm coming in late and I apologize, but I cannot let the following go unsaid.
To the issue that CT and Icarus and others discussed - as someone very active in the pro-life community I find it very hurtful that anyone would suggest people who advocate for an end to abortion would welcome increased complication rates. How monstrous. How insulting.
My husband spent over three years of his life being deposed and testifying against an abortion doctor - he lost time from work, it cost us money and family time together because all the hearings were held a half-day's drive from home and he never received one cent of compensation - it was all voluntary. He did it because he thought the doctor was a danger to women and should have been removed, so he would not harm any more women.
The clinic replaced the doctor when he lost his license. I'm sure not one abortion was actually prevented - anyone who wanted one still got one, because anybody who wanted to go to that clinic while it was shut down was just referred to another one that was open and operational.
My husband was not out to prevent abortions, but to prevent an unqualified monster from butchering and/or killing anymore women.
My experience in with the Physicians for Life group in Alabama - one of our friends is a member and was past president of the organization - is that they advocate for safer conditions and more awareness of the complication rate not to prevent abortion, but to prevent maternal injury and death. See, they're Physicians for LIFE not just unborn life, but they actually do care about the lives of the women too.
As for why there are not that many people going into abortion - my friend told me once that it's not got much to offer a physician. It's not very challenging, there is no intellectual challenge at all - nothing to diagnose - and it's very repetitive and boring doing the exact same procedure day in and day out. He says most doctors actually care about people and want to help patients, and there is little joy to be found performing abortions. Even when you do your job well, the patients rarely think well of you afterward - it's a terrible experience all around.
At any rate, posting this is probably not going to do any good, but I couldn't just let it go. I'm hurt, and angry, and insulted. And it's very upsetting.
Maybe my motherboard dying is a good thing, perhaps a break from hatrack is a welcome thing for me right now.
(No, I'm not trolling for attention - if I ever take a break or leave for good I promise I will just vanish in the night and not make a spectacle.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:as someone very active in the pro-life community I find it very hurtful that anyone would suggest people who advocate for an end to abortion would welcome increased complication rates
I think it's roughly equivalent to suggesting that people who protest the war in Iraq want us to lose.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Belle, of course I have nothing to disagree with in your post, other than that I'd clarify that I am clearly not (of course, I'm certain you did not mean to imply this, although I would like to make it clear for future readers that that you -- in fact -- did not suggest this):
someone [who] would suggest [all, most, or even many] people who advocate for an end to abortion would "welcome"*** increased complication rates
as I clarified above (in, I think, about a gazillion ways) that this is not what I said. Although I am sure there may be persons who will still read it that way, I cannot do anything else about that.
[I am glad, though, to clarify that I am neither monstrous nor insulting in your or anyone else's eyes. ]
However,
quote:some protestors have have been quoted saying just this in the mass media. I would take them at their word, but sometimes people say things for effect alone.
and
quote:I also would not assume that any given category applies to anyone posting here, their families, or anyone they might have ever come in contact with in any possible way (phone, internet, book, what have you) in their own lives.
If you have never seen these comments, well, then that is a good thing, and I am both happy and unsurprised that you neither hang around people with these views or expose yourself to such unsettling views.
And furthermore, as I said previously with regards to the anecdote of your husband,
quote:I was speaking in agreement that I have seen a rise is such problems (anecdotally) myself, and at least in good part for reasons I think are often missed in these discussions.
Given that you note:
quote:As for why there are not that many people going into abortion - my friend told me once that it's not got much to offer a physician.
I am not surprised this is the view of your friend, and I certainly would never doubt that this is true or that you reported it accurately.
If I may repeat that without causing offense: I don't doubt you or your friend.
However, from the 12-page New York Times article I linked above (Who Will Do Abortions Here?) you can see that there are a myriad of reasons that other people than your friend give for not performing those procedures -- namely, some of the ones I mentioned in this thread, as well as others. And surveys of many students and young physicians across the nation also list such reasons.
Of course -- of course! -- this does not mean your friend is inaccurate about his own beliefs, merely that in the wider scope of the matter (beyond this one person), people involved do seem to have other concerns as well.
Does this mean you should not still protest? Of course not! Does this particularly mean you yourself, Belle, are a bad person, or that you yourself bear responsibility for anything at all regarded to this or any other matters related in in way, shape, or form to the subject at hand? Of course not!
It just is -- as a part of the world, apart from you. That's all. I think it's a part worth knowing about, but I am sure other people will continue to disagree with me (maybe you and/or Icarus, maybe not -- I don't know, and I will not assume), and I will not lay fault here with them for that.
----
***Edited to add: I'd also distinguish between "welcoming" this increase in the complication rate and "being willing to accept" this increase in the complication rate. I do think here are more pro-life people who fall in the latter category, especially if it is read as "being willing to accept that rise foreseeably happening without assuming personal responsibility for it."
This in fact does describe my perspective on widespread troop withdrawal from Iraq. (Thanks for the analogy -- broadly speaking! -- Tom). I think this would come with an associated increase in violence, even if temporary. I also think it's important to know about and understand the associated consequences of my position -- actually, I think such problems should be widely covered and in great detail in our mass media. I think they should not be overlooked or forgotten, especially if it is our choices that foreseeably lead to them.
---
Edited again to add: And of course I do not wish to imply that you, Belle, or any other given person here (or anyone he or she may know) does think that any particular foreseeable consequences of a given decision should "be overlooked or forgotten, especially if it is our choices that foreseeably lead to them." In my last paragraph, I am attempting to explain why I think that talking about these matters is important --
-- of course, not that anyone would not want me to talk about them, merely that I think it is important that we continue to do so ---
-- and trying to emphasize that I myself hold positions which I expect will lead to foreseeable but very regrettable associated negative consequences --
-- not in order to suggest that anyone else does or does not do the same, but to underscore that I myself do not consider that to be an untenable or monstrous position. You understand?
[ October 15, 2007, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
To summarize:
A rise in the negative complications of voluntary abortion procedures is foreseeable and almost inevitable as fewer and fewer physicians are willing to perform them. One of the primary reasons identified by both multiple national surveys and individual interviews (see the prior linked NYT article, among others) is the current negative climate raised by certain ways of protesting against providers and direct harrassment against providers. (Of note, these are ways of protesting and harrassment behaviors that are not engaged in by most people who identify as pro-life.)
In the past, when I have mentioned this as a significant reason why we may be seeing more and more such negative complications and, actually, why we may be seeing more and more less-well-trained and/or less admirable physicians who provide these procedures in the US, I have been taken to mean that people here at Hatrack (or others they know) who identify as pro-life are supporting those negative outcomes.
In this thread, I tried to bring up this point again, but this time I acknowledged that although there are people who have stated in the mass media that such an outcome is a necessary step in voluntary abortion being made illegal again, there are others for whom this must be just an unfortunate side-effect of the process. And, as dkw notes, there are additional categories that must hold, too.
It appears I was taken to mean the opposite -- either that there are people here who avidly seek out such an outcome, or at least that there is a a significant number of people who protest abortion and who avidly seek this raise in complication rates. I am not sure why I was read this way. I do find that misreading distressing, but I am sure it was a genuine reaction and not a deliberate action of bad faith.
I have tried to clarify this. Such further posts are very bulky and unwieldy.
Moreover, I have continued to emphasize that I myself hold positions which have negative foreseeable outcomes, and that I do not look down on people merely for holding such a position. In fact, I find it both admirable and important to be aware of the foreseeable negative consequences to one's positions, and to keep those firmly in mind as we carry through on decisions we make for those positions.
I don't see how this adds up to me attacking or disparaging anyone here, but if it still does read this way to someone, I am happy to try to continue the conversation and work through it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Apropos to nothing, but CT, or anyone else, do you know if Medical removal of a fetus/embryo due to a mis-miscarriage added to "voluntary abortion" rates? As far as I know, the procedure at that early stage is the same for both.
-Bok
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There are many differences in the terminology, depending on who is using it and when they used it.
Distinctions can be made between "abortions" and "abortion procedures;" amongst the various qualifiers, including "spontaneous," "elective," "induced," "clinical," "therapeutic," "medical," "voluntary," and "involuntary," amongst others (and these are not necessarily listed as antonym pairs); and regards "hospital," "clinic," and "home" sites.
It's impossible to know which categories were used (and not used) and how they were used unless you note which particular report you are trying to interpret. Any official report will give at least some indication of the specific terminology applied.
However, given that different people will use different terms, and that some people will lump them all under just "abortions" (or, perhaps, just leave out the "medical"/"therapeutic" procedures without even considering that this could mean the numbers are misread, etc.), and that the terminology has changed over time -- well, it makes it very difficult to summarize and compare across different studies and different years. This is true even for the professional literature -- and the mass media is (IMO) hopeless in this regard.
Do you know which study or which reporting agency you are most interested in finding out about? I would be happy to try to tease out what was and was not included.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No particular report, but there have been threads in the past that mentioned the very large number of abortions that happen per year, and how the numbers jumped once abortion was legalized, and wondering how it all jived.
I'm more speaking in light of semi-recent experiences my wife and I have had. "Voluntary", "medical", and "elective" could have all applied in our case, though our options were procedure, medication, or wait (with the possibility of a procedure being required anyway).
-Bok
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*nods
To complicate matters, the other option you list of "medication" may well appropriately be categorized as a "medical abortion" or "medical abortion procedure." [sometimes "procedure" implies implementation, and sometimes it merely implies a process, depending on who is using the word]
Often in the field of medicine a distinction is made between medical (i.e., usually pharmacologic) and surgical. Thus giving a woman a medication in order to cause her to expel a partially developed fetus for therapeutic medical reasons can be (and often is) termed a "medical abortion."
Even more confusingly, the option of "wait" may well be appropriately categorized as a "spontaneous abortion."
Depending on who you talk to and when, any or all or some subset of these might be considered "abortions," or not. I try to be as scrupulously clear when I write about it, in large part because I have had to pour over countless technical articles, policy statements, and surveys while trying to figure out what the writer intended to say.
---
I am so very sorry to read that things likely were difficult for you and your love recently, regardless of the details.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not for decreased safety, but I am for women having accurate information on safety when they go in for a procedure, and I do believe if that information were accurate, that some of the 90+ % of women who abort for socio-economic reasons might make a different choice.
I also think football should be illegal. I don't think it's worth all the injury and occasional death young people go through for the highly questionable result of glorified ritual violence. I'm less certain about ballet dancing, though I'm pretty sure I'd discourage any of my children from going into a sport where eating disorders are fostered. Just so people get an idea of what I mean when I say X should be illegal.
Or a better analogy is that I think SUVs should be illegal. There are some cases where I think ownership of an SUV is justified, but for the most part they are purchased for stupid reasons, considering the negative impact they have on both the environment and the demand (and hence price) of gasoline.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm not for decreased safety, but I am for women having accurate information on safety when they go in for a procedure, and I do believe if that information were accurate, that some of the 90+ % of women who abort for socio-economic reasons might make a different choice.
I, too, wish more women who choose to undergo abortion procedures had accurate safety information, particularly the rate of type of complications associated with the particular provider they will be working with.
If it's bad news, it should be out there, and if it's good news, it should be out there -- so long as it is accurate information. And patients accessing that information should be the default before all medical or surgical procedures, not the exception.
[ October 15, 2007, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, I was very brave about consumerism when I was reading my Bradley method book but my resolve to get figures wilts pretty fast once I've gotten in to see the doctor. (I'm speaking of 8 years ago when I was having my middle child).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You are (I think) both unusual and to be commended.
I think it's particularly difficult to do when you have an unsympathetic physician. I also think some of the training of physicians on how to interact with patients at some medical schools is absolutely horrifying. Did I ever mention how I was trained to deal with "difficult patients" in a role-playing scenario?
(I talk about it often, I may well have brought it up many times here. If not, I will talk about it again.)
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ooh! Me! (I'm interested.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Did I ever mention how I was trained to deal with "difficult patients" in a role-playing scenario?
Cast magic missle?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Not so much magic missle, although power in general played a strong role.
We spent one day working through role-playing scenarios with standardized patients (trained actors) in situations that identified them as "difficult patients." I thought most of these situations were appropriate, incredibly useful, and quite thought-provoking in a positive way: patients with whom we did not share a common language (either verbal or ASL), unconscious patients, patients caught up in overwhelming situations provoking extreme grief or extreme anger.
However, one scenario gave me particular pause, as it did one of my colleagues another year. (We were officemates in the philosophy department, and we discussed the ups and downs of training together through the years.) This was the scenario of the "overly informed" or"overly involved" patient (I can't remember the exact wording).
This patient comes to the office having researched his or her condition very thoroughly and has copies of ongoing research studies, national protocols, etc. in hand. I believe the patient was considered to be "difficult" because he or she was likely to take up a lot of time, challenge the physician on facts, and/or present the physician with information that he or she had not seen before.
The specific advice was something like: "What you should do is take the materials out of the patient's hands a soon as possible and say, 'Let me have my nurse photocopy this so that I can go over it more carefully.' Then, once the written information is out of the room, it is harder for the patient to control the situation because he or she won't be able to remember the details and ask you questions about them in an organized way. And when the patient leaves, then you give back the information into the patient's hands."
Well. I have taken to encouraging people I come in contact with to bring multiple copies of such things to the clinic office, should they wish to ask questions about them.
The construction of the "difficult patient," the one-sided and self-serving deliberate manipulation of power dynamics, the likely long-term effects of such physician behavior on patents' trust and willingness to to seek help and advice -- all of it seems quite nasty to me, especially as a standardized protocol to teach in training.
Mind you, the times when I had this reaction in my training were few and far between: maybe 3 or 4 times, total. But as a standardized part of training, used year after year? We can and should do much, much better than this. Perhaps other medical schools do -- I do not know their details of training in this manner, and I can only speak to the one.
But no wonder that there is sush widespread and growing suspicion and contention in the relationship between physicians and the general public, if this is indeed standard.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ahhh...they told you to cast Dispell Papers.
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:as someone very active in the pro-life community I find it very hurtful that anyone would suggest people who advocate for an end to abortion would welcome increased complication rates
I think it's roughly equivalent to suggesting that people who protest the war in Iraq want us to lose.
Exactly.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I read about a study saying that a woman is less likely to have an abortion if her mother had an abortion while pregnant with said woman. I think it was in The Onion.
Good analogy about Iraq war protesters. Maybe they don't want us to lose, but don't they expect us to lose?
Actually, the more I think about it; don't they want us to lose? I mean, they want us to leave, and that would constitute a surrender, would it not?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
....I'm sorry, but is Resh citing the Onion as a reputable news source?
On another topic, The Claw, I believe I have encountered a similar response from a (very young) psychiatrist! I didn't have papers, though.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
MrSquicky: But they have automatic regeneration abilities.
pH, it's an infection!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
He was pushing a particular medication on me, and I asked him about specific side effects that I, personally, find very unacceptable. I told him that I would be doing my own research before I filled any prescription he gave me. He said the likelihood of that side effect was only 5%. I told him that I was very uncomfortable with even that much of a possibility, but he wouldn't stop pushing this one medication. So I told him that he could write the prescription because he wouldn't be quiet about it.
When I looked up the clinical trials online, it turned out that 1 in 5 patients on the drug experienced that side effect.
I called up that health clinic and told them that I'd never be coming in again.
-pH
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: We spent one day working through role-playing scenarios with . . . "difficult patients." However, one scenario gave me particular pause, . . . This was the scenario of the "overly informed" or"overly involved" patient. This patient comes to the office having researched his or her condition very thoroughly and has copies of ongoing research studies, national protocols, etc. in hand. I believe the patient was considered to be "difficult" because he or she was likely to take up a lot of time, challenge the physician on facts, and/or present the physician with information that he or she had not seen before.
The specific advice was something like: "What you should do is take the materials out of the patient's hands a soon as possible and say, 'Let me have my nurse photocopy this so that I can go over it more carefully.' Then, once the written information is out of the room, it is harder for the patient to control the situation because he or she won't be able to remember the details and ask you questions about them in an organized way. And when the patient leaves, then you give back the information into the patient's hands."
But no wonder that there is sush widespread and growing suspicion and contention in the relationship between physicians and the general public, if this is indeed standard.
Hey CT. As a mom of a medically fragile child, who has been systematically daring to challenge medical practictioners by *gasp -- god forbid* doing my own research, asking the hard questions, pushing the boundaries, and relentlessly advocating for my child, I want you to know what a relief it is to know that medicos are trained to treat us "problems people" so -- and thank YOU for not ascribing to that!!!!
It's relieving because I thought it was just a poor reaction medical personnel had to me personally. *shrug*
I guess what really irks me about it is that everytime I have been sluffed off by a provider about my child's medical needs, I've ended up RIGHT. But because of the extra hoops to jump through to get the what he needs, he gets the short end of the stick.
I'm so very very very tired of it all.
Unfortunately, the same thing seems to happen in the public schools, as well.
Everyone sqwawks about how parents aren't involved enough -- but as soon as we open our mouths we're either "shot down" or branded as troublemakers the rest our kids' natural born days.
*internal growling*
//rant
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
pH, you may want to get your funny bone examined.
I do tend to be an overinformed patient, and I get handled all the time, which is why I just stay away from doctors if I can help it. It's incredibly ironic, since the reason I'm over-informed is because a lot of my relatives are doctors. But it's probably also in my tone of voice and stuff like that.
Though I didn't think having a birth plan was such a revolutionary idea. But this guy was pretty old school. I have not recollection of why I chose him. Probably because we were on this major medical insurance, and even though we'd be paying for everything anyway, if anything major went wrong, we had to be in the plan.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
CT, that's appalling that a medical school would teach that way of dismissing an informed patient.
This YouTube video may or may not be illuminating to the previous discussion of the implications of a pro-life agenda, and how some fraction of pro-life advocates don't know/don't want to know/don't care/refuse to think about some intended and/or unintended consequences of that agenda.
quote: What anti-abortion demonstrators said when asked what the punishment should be for women who got abortions if abortion became illegal.
--from the YouTube page
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This YouTube video may or may not be illuminating to the previous discussion of the implications of a pro-life agenda, and how some fraction of pro-life advocates don't know/don't want to know/don't care/refuse to think about some intended and/or unintended consequences of that agenda.
This is a two-way street, to be sure. There's a whole lot of don't know/won't think about potential unintended consequences going on in both sides of the issue. Honestly, though? The potential not-thought-about consequences on the pro-choice side are much, much bigger than they are on the pro-life side of things. This doesn't mitigate, though, that plenty of pro-lifers seem tied to an easy committment to life, that of being pro-life, and not very much for the long haul.
---------------------
Unsurprisingly I noted in my newspaper an article headlined something very much like the title of this thread, without the appropriate clarification.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The potential not-thought-about consequences on the pro-choice side are much, much bigger than they are on the pro-life side of things.
How so?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm so sorry, Shan. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The potential not-thought-about consequences on the pro-choice side are much, much bigger than they are on the pro-life side of things.
How so?
My perception as a pro-lifer is that just as medical complications of abortion are unreported, there is an agenda to suppress research into psychological impact of abortion.
Unless she meant on a personal level.
The punishments for people in a hypothetical illegal abortion state probably depends a great deal on how people view abortion. Since I see it as an extreme form of child abuse rather than murder, I'd naturally be horrified by those who feel women who abort should suffer as murderers. I'm sure there are those who espouse various "punishments that fit the crime." Considering we have such regularly suggested here on Hatrack for crimes such as rape and drunk driving, I don't take them too seriously.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's what I thought. But I don't think that you can say the potential medical and psychological impact of abortion is much, much bigger than the not-thought-about consequences on the pro-life side.
---
Pretty much an aside, but I think many of the pro-life advocacy groups should consider that there is a distinct possibility that the way they go about things actually increases the number of abortions performed over that of a legal but rare approach.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
Please note that I'm using the word potential here. It's very important to avoid messy arguments.
One potential consequence of a pro-life position is that women will be endangered by desperation to seek abortions that might be more dangerous than they are currently to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
One potential consequence of a pro-choice positon is simply that the aborted fetus is, in fact, alive and human and thus abortion is infanticide.
Simply looking at the numbers involved, the one potential consequence is quite a lot bigger than the other.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:One potential consequence of a pro-choice positon is simply that the aborted fetus is, in fact, alive and human and thus abortion is infanticide.
How is that a not-thought-about consequence? Do you really think that pro-choice groups haven't considered that?
I think you may be mixing up "disagrees with me" with "haven't thought about this".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How is that a not-thought-about consequence? Do you really think that pro-choice groups haven't considered that?
The same can very easily and truthfully be said about pro-life groups and dangerous abortions, Mr. Squicky. That was a part of the point I was making.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Or it could be spinned this way:
One potential consequence of a pro-life position is that women will die from having illegal abortions due to lack of training of those giving abortions.
One potential consequence of a pro-choice position is that the fetus is, in fact, alive and human, therefore we are killing it.
...
I'm pretty sure that a lot of people on both sides have weighed the consequences and both think their side is "quite a lot bigger than the other".
I, personally, have not figured out which is "bigger".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure how. You were responding to a post that showed that people in pro-life groups didn't think about that.
Do you any reason to believe that pro-choice groups haven't thought about their opponents position? It seems extremely unlikely to me.
That they have come to a different decision on whether abortion is killing a human being than is not cause to say that they haven't thought about the issue at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jaiden, I can see people considering that consequences and giving different weights to them. I've got no problem with that.
But here we have a case where Rakeesh is asserting that people haven't even thought about the consequences, which I don't think is warranted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do you any reason to believe that pro-choice groups haven't thought about their opponents position? It seems extremely unlikely to me.
Wait, so we're down to guessing then? Then why is it acceptable for one to guess that pro-lifers (some, obviously) haven't thought about things entirely, but not OK to do the same in the other direction?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because it's not guessing on the part of the pro-lifers. You just saw proof of this.
Also, guesses aren't all equal, especially when you are using them to impute negative characteristics to a group. I don't believe it is reasonable to believe without proof that pro-choice groups haven't considered that consequence. Do you have proof that they do, or are you just speaking from prejudice?
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
MrSquicky:
quote:I'm pretty sure that a lot of people on both sides have weighed the consequences and both think their side is "quite a lot bigger than the other".
...
I think assuming that the other side hasn't thought things through because they disagree with you is presumptuous at best. People can be given the same facts and come up with different views/sides that are both valid.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rakeesh, unless those numbers are clarified as far as what data is included, you could have a heck of a lot of mis-miscarriage procedures included, for instance, making things look much worse.
As CT responded to my earlier post, It isn't SO unlikely that my wife's mis-miscarriage procedure counted. After all, she "elected" to go through the procedure rather than the other options that are available to remove an inviable embryo, one of which includes just hoping nature takes it's course.
Which isn't to say that there aren't more than enough truly elective abortions, but if leaning on the sheer quantity to support your current argument (which isn't to say that is your true, full argument) then the numbers may not be "quite a lot bigger".
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think assuming that the other side hasn't thought things through because they disagree with you is presumptuous at best. People can be given the same facts and come up with different views/sides that are both valid.
I completely agree.
edit: The thought struck me (and then it stole my wallet). Do people think that I am saying that all pro-life people have not considered the dangerous abortion thing or other non-obvious consequences of their position. I'm not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The punishments for people in a hypothetical illegal abortion state probably depends a great deal on how people view abortion. Since I see it as an extreme form of child abuse rather than murder, I'd naturally be horrified by those who feel women who abort should suffer as murderers. I'm sure there are those who espouse various "punishments that fit the crime." Considering we have such regularly suggested here on Hatrack for crimes such as rape and drunk driving, I don't take them too seriously.
I'm not sure if this puts me in the camp of people you don't take too seriously, but I would certain advocate jail time for parents who commit "extreme child abuse".
edit to add: bearing in mind insanity type defenses, and so forth, which might mitigate that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because it's not guessing on the part of the pro-lifers. You just saw proof of this.
What do you mean, proof? You're saying that there is proof that some pro-lifers haven't thought about that, but not proof that some pro-choicers haven't thought about things entirely?
This conversation is getting a bit strange to me. Perhaps I came into it too late and missed something. I'm not saying that all pro-choicers simply haven't thought about what I suggested, I was saying that some of them have not. Just as some pro-lifers have not fully considered the consequences of outlawing abortion entirely.
It's been bandied about in this conversation that some pro-lifers don't think about what would happen if abortions were illegal, and I don't object to that assertion. I don't understand at all why if that assertion is reasonable, mine is not.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Pretty much an aside, but I think many of the pro-life advocacy groups should consider that there is a distinct possibility that the way they go about things actually increases the number of abortions performed over that of a legal but rare approach.
How so?
I don't see how a pro-life person could ignore the coat-hanger shorthand for abortion safety.
Even with abortion being legal, there are still many instances of people being too young, people waiting too long for their jurisdiction, and other situations that force people into desperate measures. And the pro-choice people tell us that it is "our" fault for feeling abortion is wrong in the first place, moreso than it being the fault of what man impregnated her.
I could easily enrage you with my thoughts on how the fathers of aborted children should be dealt with.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(simul-post)
Any discussion of what all pro-lifers and all pro-choicers think or don't think is doomed to be specious and disingenuous. Just sayin'.
P.S.
quote:I'm not sure if this puts me in the camp of people you don't take too seriously, but I would certain advocate jail time for parents who commit "extreme child abuse".
Well, there was a case of a couple whose interpretation of a behavioral intervention resulted in the death of a foster child. One parent was jailed, the other was let off with counseling. I'm not sure if part of the decision included the necessity that the remaining six children not be thrown into the foster care system. I take it from your response that you do not believe women who abort (if it were illegal) should ever be jailed. I'm not sure how it would go.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't see how a pro-life person could ignore the coat-hanger shorthand for abortion safety.
There was just a link to a video posted that established that this occurs.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, well I don't always view video links. I guess I shouldn't be posting at work anyway...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There was a text discussion of the contents of the link underneath it.
And also, you not being able to conceive in something that has occurred I think isn't, to me, a particularly good reason to believe that it doesn't occur.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There was just a link to a video posted that established that this occurs.
Is that really all it takes? Then I have a hard time understanding why you're being critical of me on this, Mr. Squicky.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm being critical because you are trying to characterize pro-choice people as not ever thinking about whether or not abortion is killing a human being without any justification. You are pushing an unjust prejudice.
There are plenty of things that you could reasonably say that many don't consider. That does not appear to me to be one of them. But, hey, if you have some evidence that they don't actually consider it, please feel free to share it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If I implied that I thought all pro-choice people felt that way, it was a mistake. I should perhaps have been more clear.
I don't think that all pro-choice people think that. I do know for a fact that some pro-choicers don't think about it at all, though. I can't speak to large groups of pro-choicers, but I can speak to pro-choicers I have known personally.
So when I say that, I'm not pushing an unjust prejudice, I'm making a statement about what I've observed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do know for a fact that some pro-choicers don't think about it at all, though.
How do you know this for a fact? Earlier, it seemed like you were presenting this as guessing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I know it for a fact as much as one can know anything for a fact when it's based on a conversation and words and expressions. In the past I've discussed/argued about abortion with people. Most people are pretty reasonable about it, whether they agree with me or not. Some, though, have seemed genuinely baffled when I suggested the possibility that a fetus might be alive and a human, and they were pro-choice.
You're saying you've never spoken with anyone like that? It's not a remotely sophisticated opinion about abortion, but it is certainly out there, just as the pro-coathanger opinion is on my side of the fence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I can't come up with a respectful way to continue this conversation, so I'm withdrawing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I don't see how a pro-life person could ignore the coat-hanger shorthand for abortion safety.
There was just a link to a video posted that established that this occurs.
Could you point to the part that video that demonstrates pro-life people not thinking about the possible harm to women from unsafe abortions (which I assume is what the coat-hangar reference is about)?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: There was a text discussion of the contents of the link underneath it.
And also, you not being able to conceive in something that has occurred I think isn't, to me, a particularly good reason to believe that it doesn't occur.
The text says nothing about the coat-hangar issue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Alright. Without being critical (this is just a statement), I'll just note that it's not very common for you to refrain from pointing out flaws in other people's arguments or tone, and point out that I don't understand what was so offensive* to you.
*I'm assuming it was offensive, else you wouldn't be inclined to take a disrespectful route.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Just to clarify: I also think some fraction of pro-choice advocates don't know/don't want to know/don't care/refuse to think about some intended and/or unintended consequences of that agenda.
People who are pro-life have no monopoly on this.
How big are those fractions? I have no idea, and I think it would be impossible to even give good estimates in the case of abortion. Polling cannot answer all questions, and this is such a charged issue I think accurate, unbiased polling of it's nuances is all but impossible.
Also, I agree with CT here:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Moreover, I have continued to emphasize that I myself hold positions which have negative foreseeable outcomes, and that I do not look down on people merely for holding such a position. In fact, I find it both admirable and important to be aware of the foreseeable negative consequences to one's positions, and to keep those firmly in mind as we carry through on decisions we make for those positions.
At least when people acknowledge negative risks in their agendas they have the courage of their convictions, and can be respected for that even when you disagree with specific opinions.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: CT, that's appalling that a medical school would teach that way of dismissing an informed patient.
This YouTube video may or may not be illuminating to the previous discussion of the implications of a pro-life agenda, and how some fraction of pro-life advocates don't know/don't want to know/don't care/refuse to think about some intended and/or unintended consequences of that agenda.
quote: What anti-abortion demonstrators said when asked what the punishment should be for women who got abortions if abortion became illegal.
--from the YouTube page
That was a pretty interesting video. My guess is some of the protesters interviewed would have had a more definite answer if the question had been "Do you think there should be a punishment for doctors who perform abortions?" instead of "women who get abortions." Still, it seems weird to see people say they've spent years working toward making something a crime without ever even considering what the punishment for the crime should be.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'm so sorry, Shan.
I am, too, CT, and mostly for Nathan's sake -- but YOU give me hope that things will eventually change!
I'll just continue advocating, pushing boundaries, and moving in the direction of doctor-patient full partnerships! Knowing that there are those medical professionals out there that recognize the validity of those partnerships.
//derailment of thread
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So, do the other people who have viewed the video agree with the following?
1) It demonstrates that there are a number of pro-life activists who have not thought about what the punishment for pregnant women who have abortions should be.
2) It does not demonstrate anything about whether these pro-life activists have considered the issue of whether "women will die from having illegal abortions due to lack of training of those giving abortions." (the "coat-hangar" issue)
Edited to add a "not" where needed.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think you might be missing a "not" in there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, kat!
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I do that all the time. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I can agree with A.
Factually, your B) is correct. However, that seems to somewhat miss the whole point of the video. It seems to try to indicate (and quite well) that these particular protestors did not think about one of the most obvious consequences of what they are advocating (what are the legal consequences of making abortion illegal). Three of the protestors did not seem to have any logic to their position beyond "abortion is killing/taking a life" and two when pressed further even mentioned that God would punish the women in the afterlife so their would be no need to punish them now
So no, there is no conclusive evidence that the protestors thought about the specific consequence of how their actions are affecting women currently seeking abortion. However, I would not bet one American cent that they thought about *any* consequences of their actions beyond the child-like reasons that they directly listed in the video.
I found myself idly wondering if these people would be as eager to not only push their religious beliefs on others but to enforce them on others as well if they had previously lived in a Middle Eastern society where sharia law had been forced on them.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It seems like it shouldn't be this way, but it turns out treating people badly does NOT inspire kindness and empathy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, that seems to somewhat miss the whole point of the video.
The video was repeatedly misrepresented as "proving" that some pro-life activists hadn't thought about the consequence of more dangerous abortions. It does not do that. And my pointing that out is somehow "missing the whole point of the video"?
Not one other person - including the one who posted the video - called Squicky on his misrepresentations in this regard. I'm glad you've got the time to tell me I'm missing the point when I do so. I wouldn't have bothered posting in this thread if anyone had made this point before I did.
Moreover, those who answered had not thought about only one aspect of "the legal consequences of making abortion illegal." The questioner himself ignored the most obvious legal consequence of making abortion illegal - what happens to those who provide them.
Moreover, he based his question on a faulty assumption - that making something illegal requires throwing everyone involved with it in jail. It doesn't, and there are numerous examples of this. There are also numerous examples of providers and consumers of illegal services being treated differently under the law. It's clear that the answerers had not fully thought this through - something I think you'll find is quite common amongst many advocating to criminalize a particular activity. However, it's clear that the questioner either hadn't thought the whole thing through (we put people in jail when they do illegal things) or was purposely oversimplifying for effect.
Regardless, the video does NOT provide the proof that it was claimed to provide.
quote:I found myself idly wondering if these people would be as eager to not only push their religious beliefs on others but to enforce them on others as well if they had previously lived in a Middle Eastern society where sharia law had been forced on them.
You just witnessed the ones making the most overt religious references explicitly stating that they don't want to punish them with the secular justice system. The essence of the complaints against the sharia is its application of civil punishment to offenses against religion and the harshness of those punishments. Your idle wondering doesn't seem to be based on any reasonable parallel between the two situations.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The video was repeatedly misrepresented as "proving" that some pro-life activists hadn't thought about the consequence of more dangerous abortions. It does not do that. And my pointing that out is somehow "missing the whole point of the video"?
Indeed. Just because Squickly missed the point of the video does not mean that you did not miss the point of the video as well
Squickly indicated that the video proved that the demonstrators did not think about one specific consequence of their proposed policy. This was incorrect.
However, you indicated that the video did not "demonstrate anything about whether these pro-life activists have considered... the coat-hanger issue." Thats factually true, but also not quite reflecting the intent of the video. The video also shows that the demonstrators did not really have any logical basis for their complaints nor any logical thought process for dealing with the questioner, period.
So as for the likelihood that that they had somehow independently come up with some logical thought process for considering the unintended consequences of the coat hanger issue? As I said, I wouldn't bet any money on it.
quote: Moreover, those who answered had not thought about only one aspect of "the legal consequences of making abortion illegal." The questioner himself ignored the most obvious legal consequence of making abortion illegal - what happens to those who provide them.
Thats not really his job. They have a policy proposal and he is free to question it without bringing up every other possible question. The onus is on them to bring that up and they were free to bring it up when questioned as an alternative to punishing the woman.
I would also add that medically, the distinction between the person performing an abortion and the person seeking an abortion could become pretty thin in the case of the abortion pill or the day after pill.
quote: Moreover, he based his question on a faulty assumption - that making something illegal requires throwing everyone involved with it in jail.
Thats not true either. Usually the first question in each series of questions is about jail. The following questions are not necessarily about jail. For example at 1:28 the question is "if its illegal, so you do not think there should be any punishment under the law?"
quote:]You just witnessed the ones making the most overt religious references explicitly stating that they don't want to punish them with the secular justice system. The essence of the complaints against the sharia is its application of civil punishment to offenses against religion and the harshness of those punishments.
That may the essence of *your* complaints. However, it is not the essence of *my* complaints
No. Personally, I'm fine (as in, I don't like it, but I do not realistically see a way around it) with Muslims defining whatever punishments they want for each other, *if* given that theoretically any Muslim can convert to a different religion or atheism to avoid that defined punishment.
No, my big issue is that in many Muslim countries, sharia law is also applied to non-Muslims and is especially brutal to Muslims that convert to other religions. In many cases, the defined punishment for apostasy is death(!).
Thats the essence of *my* complaints and that has a clear parallel.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It seems like it shouldn't be this way, but it turns out treating people badly does NOT inspire kindness and empathy.
Yeah, on second thought you may very well be right. Once again, it appears I am as yet too optimistic about human nature Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, you indicated that the video did not "demonstrate anything about whether these pro-life activists have considered... the coat-hanger issue." Thats factually true, but also not quite reflecting the intent of the video.
The intent of the video was to pick one non-central portion of their agenda and quiz them on it.
quote:The video also shows that the demonstrators did not really have any logical basis for their complaints nor any logical thought process for dealing with the questioner, period.
It most certainly did not demonstrate that they lacked a "logical basis for their complaints."
quote:So as for the likelihood that that they had somehow independently come up with some logical thought process for considering the unintended consequences of the coat hanger issue? As I said, I wouldn't bet any money on it.
I've talked to hundreds of pro-life activists on this issue, many of whom have thought extensively about the coat-hangar issue and have not thought in depth about the punishment schema for those who have abortions. How many have you talked to?
Moreover, many - possibly most, but certainly close to half - pro-life people view the culpability of the doctors who perform abortions to be far greater than the mother.
Your conclusion relies on the unstated premise that their not having thought about the punishment that should be levied on the mothers means they unlikely to have thought about consequences of illegal abortion providers.
It reveals a disconnect from the way many or most pro-life activists think - you are assuming that the punishment aspect is as important to them as the coat-hangar aspect. It's a faulty premise.
quote:Thats not really his job. They have a policy proposal and he is free to question it without bringing up every other possible question.
That's not his job if he's an activist. He represented himself as a journalist.
quote:Thats not true either. Usually the first question in each series of questions is about jail. The following questions are not necessarily about jail. For example at 1:28 the question is "if its illegal, so you do not think there should be any punishment under the law?"
Then reword the faulty assumption to "making something illegal requires punishing everyone involved with it under the law." It's still faulty, and it's still peripheral to the larger issue.
quote:No, my big issue is that in many Muslim countries, sharia law is also applied to non-Muslims and is especially brutal to Muslims that convert to other religions. In many cases, the defined punishment for apostasy is death(!).
Thats the essence of *my* complaints and that has a clear parallel.
You just watched a bunch of people state that they don't think a criminal penalty is needed for a crime that derives from their religious beliefs. How is that parallel to law that is "applied to non-Muslims and is especially brutal to Muslims that convert to other religions."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
Moreover, many - possibly most, but certainly close to half - pro-life people view the culpability of the doctors who perform abortions to be far greater than the mother.
Just out of curiousity (not an attack) but why? I would think that in all but bizarre cases of kidnapping, women are not only complicit in the abortion but are initiating it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's applying the force where it will create the most effect.
Not only are doctors likely to be complicit in far more abortions than the woman is, but they are far less invested in it. Not only would the doctors be more likely to react to legal pressure, but their reaction will have a greater effect on the abortions they participate in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...so it is mostly practical rather than ideological. That makes sense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bear in mind that that's just my take on it. I have not talked with many anti-abortion folk about it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Drunk driving is one specimen of an illegal activity where there is a wide range of interventions and differing responsibilities. Another is sexual harassment where the Employer is more likely to be punished than the actual perpetrator- though I think in practice this is because the Employer has more money.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The intent of the video was to pick one non-central portion of their agenda and quiz them on it.
If that was all that was intended, the journalist could simply have asked the one question and proceeded to the next person. Clearly he asked multiple questions to gain insight into their thought process (or lack thereof).
quote:It most certainly did not demonstrate that they lacked a "logical basis for their complaints."
Ok, to be pedantic, it is possible they had a logical basis for their complaints but they certainly did not articulate any when asked.
quote:I've talked to hundreds of pro-life activists on this issue, many of whom have thought extensively about the coat-hangar issue and have not thought in depth about the punishment schema for those who have abortions. How many have you talked to?
None, as I mentioned before I'm Canadian and this issue is fairly theoretical for me However, I did explicitly mention that my judgement was based on quote "these particular protestors." I'll accept your word on this, although I'm not sure if I find this more or less flattering to the movement as a whole.
quote: Moreover, many - possibly most, but certainly close to half - pro-life people view the culpability of the doctors who perform abortions to be far greater than the mother.
As I said, modern medical technology is coming close (or at least for the first few weeks *has*) to eliminating the distinction between the people that perform abortions and the people receiving them. Any punishment scheme that relies on this distinction would be relatively easy to work around unless the proposal is to also outlaw the pharmaceutical distribution of the drugs in question.
quote:Then reword the faulty assumption to "making something illegal requires punishing everyone involved with it under the law." It's still faulty, and it's still peripheral to the larger issue.
Thats still not quite true, at least for the example at 1:28 that I was referring to. The question was whether "any" punishment should be applied, mother or otherwise. The respondent replied that they believed that taking a life was enough punishment already and that God would deal with the rest in the afterlife.
This reasoning applies equally to the mother or the doctor. If anything, the assumption is that "making something illegal requires punishing *someone* under the law."
quote:You just watched a bunch of people state that they don't think a criminal penalty is needed for a crime that derives from their religious beliefs. How is that parallel to law that is "applied to non-Muslims and is especially brutal to Muslims that convert to other religions."
The parallel is that a law is created based on a religion and then applied to people outside of that religion (or even people inside that religion with a different interpretation). Just because the harshness of the punishment is different (actually the protestors also suggested praying, mandatory counselling, or "allowing society as a whole to decide") does not mean that that there is no parallel.
Edit to add: I noticed a possible miscommunication. My comments so far have focused particuarly on as I said "these particular protestors" and do not necessarily (and hopefully not) apply to any other people with the same proposal. You seem to be taking this a bit personally, so perhaps you're conflating my criticism of these people with criticism of the movement as a whole.
[ October 17, 2007, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have some questions for those people who support are anti-abortion. Please don't take offense. I consider myself to be anti-abortion although I oppose most laws that would prohibit it.
1. If it were certain (stretch your imagination if necessary) that laws prohibiting abortions would not reduce the number of abortions but would increase injuries and deaths among women who received abortions, would you support such laws? If so, explain why?
2. What types of laws prohibiting abortions would you support?
3. Who (mother?, father?, doctor?, clinic administrator?, counselor?, grandparent?, . . .) should be legally punished for an illegal abortion and what punishments do you think are appropriate?
4. What measures would you support, other than legal prohibition, which are likely to decrease the number of abortions?
5. To what extent is your position influenced by directives from your church? Does your church have a specific stance on the legality of abortion?
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: 4. What measures would you support, other than legal prohibition, which are likely to decrease the number of abortions?
That's an easy one (for me). Our family helped to start and maintain a crisis pregnancy center. They give pregnancy tests, befriend and care for women and their babies. They also provide counseling and help the women to talk through the options that they have in regards to their babies. All services are 100% free. I am not familiar with all the details of what services are provided, as I am not on the staff, but that is the general idea.
I see it as being way more effective than just arguing about the legal issues and picketing abortion clinics.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:5. To what extent is your position influenced by directives from your church? Does your church have a specific stance on the legality of abortion?
What kind of directives are you talking about? Are you only talking about directives about the legality of abortion, or about anything at all?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
mph, I'm talking about any directives that influence your position on abortion laws.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
6. If abortion were made illegal, would you support any initiatives to help the women affected? If so, what kind?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In that case, I'd say that yes, the teachings of my church influence my position on abortion laws, just like they influence my thinking about most things.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I was hoping for something more specific.
For example, my church teaches that abortion is morally acceptable under a very limited set of circumstances. It also teaches that laws which give advantage to one religion over another are unjust and has directed members to become involved in the communities and governments. But to the best of my knowledge, they have never given any direction specifically regarding whether or not abortions should be legal. I can see how those directives could influence members to have various positions on the legality of abortion.
I'm curious about what directives other people have received from their churches regarding abortion and how they have influenced their position on the legality of abortion.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'd support us looking closely at Western Europe to figure out how they keep their birthrate low while having the lowest abortion numbers in the world. How do we get people to pay attention to what they're doing before they have to make a decision like that?
As for laws, I think we're hypocrits if we outlaw abortion. We as a nation don't want to raise other people's children as our foster care system already proves. We've got no business adding over a million children a year to it. We have to attack the demand side on this one. Getting women to stop getting pregnant if they don't want the kids is the only way to fix the problem, IMO.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The question was whether "any" punishment should be applied, mother or otherwise. The respondent replied that they believed that taking a life was enough punishment already and that God would deal with the rest in the afterlife.
This reasoning applies equally to the mother or the doctor. If anything, the assumption is that "making something illegal requires punishing *someone* under the law."
That's not pedantic, it's recognition of the context, which was an unexpected interview of people not used to speaking on camera.
quote:The question was whether "any" punishment should be applied, mother or otherwise. The respondent replied that they believed that taking a life was enough punishment already and that God would deal with the rest in the afterlife.
This reasoning applies equally to the mother or the doctor. If anything, the assumption is that "making something illegal requires punishing *someone* under the law."
The context was still clearly punishment for the mother.
quote:You seem to be taking this a bit personally, so perhaps you're conflating my criticism of these people with criticism of the movement as a whole.
No, I'm taking it as unjustified generalizations about these particular protesters based on a highly edited presentation by someone with an axe to grind.
quote:1. If it were certain (stretch your imagination if necessary) that laws prohibiting abortions would not reduce the number of abortions but would increase injuries and deaths among women who received abortions, would you support such laws? If so, explain why?
Yes, for reasons I cannot truly articulate in a post. In fact, the underlying philosophy is complex enough that I've considered writing a long journal article about it. The essence is that society is complicit in crimes (used in the moral sense) which it does not criminalize. It also has to do with a duty toward people not to deny them the protection from private violence that is the fundamental justification for criminal law.
quote:2. What types of laws prohibiting abortions would you support?
A ban with some sort of physical health of the mother exception. I don't have time to hash out the details in this post.
quote:3. Who (mother?, father?, doctor?, clinic administrator?, counselor?, grandparent?, . . .) should be legally punished for an illegal abortion and what punishments do you think are appropriate?
Doctor for sure, with significant jail time. I would apply standard accomplice liability analysis with respect to the clinic and associated workers. Despite what Mucus has said repeatedly on the subject, the same type of analysis would easily be applied in pill situations - the prescribing doctor and the pharmacist might have culpability, depending on their knowledge and intent.
I haven't fully formulated lay persons who assist (the person who knowingly drives the mother to the clinic or pays for it, for example) or the mother. I tend to lean toward leniency for first-time offenders.
quote:4. What measures would you support, other than legal prohibition, which are likely to decrease the number of abortions?
Programs that ease the economic difficulties - prenatal care, day care, etc.
quote:5. To what extent is your position influenced by directives from your church? Does your church have a specific stance on the legality of abortion?
My Church's teachings on respect for life, including when human life begins, influence my belief that an unborn child merits the protection of the criminal law. The specifics are based on an application of legal principles that are not directly related to my Church's teachings, except insofar as my Church teaches that the civil authority has a moral obligation to outlaw the killing of human beings.
quote:6. If abortion were made illegal, would you support any initiatives to help the women affected? If so, what kind?
I'm not sure how this is different from 4. Could you please elaborate?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
As I was thinking about the drunk driving thing, some more things occured to me.
A. Drunk driving is a crime that came to be more strictly prosecuted within my lifetime. It was never totally legal, but it used to be the case that drunks were "given a slap on the wrist" and sent on their merry way when they woke up in the morning.
B. The change in prosecution of drunk driving has resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs. Even if you're in a Union, being in jail is not an acceptable excuse for failing to show up an work.
C. The prosecution of drunk driving disproportionately harms lower class individuals, both those who cannot afford good defense, and the socioeconomically vulnerable problem drinkers. Some see the channelling of these people into mandatory rehabilitation as a benefit to society, though research suggests that such rehabilitation efforts are decreasingly successful.
D. Accountability of purveyors for drunken driving pushes the determined drinker into his car to either drink serially at multiple establishments or to buy liquor from a store and drink it in his car, potentially increasing the number of drunks on the road.
If vigorous prosecution of drunk driving exacerbates the problem, is it wrong to keep it illegal?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: 5. To what extent is your position influenced by directives from your church? Does your church have a specific stance on the legality of abortion?
Coming from the other perspective, I was most impressed with the stance taken by former Prime Minister's Chretien and Martin when the Church attempted to intervene in our same-sex debate.
Martin was notified of these consequences:
quote:He's putting at risk his eternal salvation. I pray for the prime minister because I think his eternal salvation is in jeopardy. He is making a morally grave error and he's not being accountable to God.
and responded as:
quote: On Wednesday, he said that while he has certain religious views, "I have responsibilities as a legislator and those responsibilities obviously must take in a wider perspective."
I remember that Chretien had a more memorable response, but I cannot find it right now. link
However, my point is that if even a tiny bit of you believes that your immortal life may be punished for eternity for a couple decisions that you make in your relatively short mortal life, then it takes guts to go up against that and do the right thing for everyone else involved.
Thats what I was impressed by in relation to the question.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: A. Drunk driving is a crime that came to be more strictly prosecuted within my lifetime ... If vigorous prosecution of drunk driving exacerbates the problem, is it wrong to keep it illegal?
I'm not sure I buy this chain of reasoning, at least in Canada I believe that the trend of impaired driving is actually significantly decreasing with improved enforcement, not increasing. link
That indicates that the frequency of incidents has dropped by about half since 1977.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Despite what Mucus has said repeatedly on the subject, the same type of analysis would easily be applied in pill situations - the prescribing doctor and the pharmacist might have culpability, depending on their knowledge and intent.
For the record, when I said that "medically, the distinction between the person performing an abortion and the person seeking an abortion could become pretty thin in the case of the abortion pill or the day after pill" I really meant "medically" and did not mean legally.
For example, emergency contraception has often been targeted by anti-abortion groups and pharmacists have sometimes refused to sell it, citing that they believed it was a type of abortion. However, interestingly the pill is really just a heavy dose of the chemicals normally found in regular birth control pills.
e.g.:
quote: Can you use several birth control pills at once for emergency contraception?
It's possible to use standard estrogen-progestin birth control pills for emergency contraception, but check with your doctor for the proper dose and timing of the pills.
Currently, this knowledge is not widely known. However, in the case of an upcoming ban in my jurisdiction I would feel almost compelled to find out the details beforehand and then make it widely available. Judging by the case of the HD-DVD encyption key incident, I really doubt I would be the only one either, especially since you can buy birth control pills without a prescription,
Thats what I meant about the line becoming relatively thin.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't think you can buy BCPs without a prescription in America.
My point about drunk driving is not whether the frequency would be changed, but whether the change in prosecuting it harms perpetrators. I would hope that abortion would become less common if it were illegal, despite the thread-originating story, for the simple reason that in American in 2002, over 90% of abortions were for economic reasons. If one factors economics into the frequency of abortion, it has to be considered that America is one of the richest nations on earth. It is "cheaper" to have an abortion than to have a baby.
Another reason that I am pro-life, even though I don't ever think it will become illegal in America, is I believe dissent needs to persist so that people don't assume that because it is legal, it is moral. I hope we never become a country where it is not unheard of for a woman to have had 10 abortions in her lifetime (as is reportedly the case in China or Russia). I don't have links, that's information I learned when I was taking the languages in college.
P.S. Well, quite depressing as it turns out, Russia has fewer abortions per live birth than California or Virginia. But China has more abortions than live births.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
pooka: Looks like you're right, its often confusing for me to jump between jurisdictions.
It looks like (and someone can correct me): Birth control pills require a prescription on both sides of the border. Emergency contraception is over-the-counter here but requires a prescription in the US.
Pharmacists sometimes refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception (AND birth control pills) in the States.
Thus my workaround would only work in the case of a ban on emergency contraception for a woman that previously managed to fill a prescription for birth control pills. I stand corrected.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I once lived on a military post where one of the doctors refused to prescribe birth control pills for unmarried women. There was only two doctors. I think that's going too far. I'm conflicted on the pharmacist matter, because while my pro-life stance isn't that strong, I can see where if someone really believes prescribing something is going to result in the death of someone they feel is a person, I would hope they would stick to their principles.
I think I'm remembering now a debate over whether emergency contraception should be OTC in the U.S. Considering the recent withdrawal of cough medicine for babies, I'm not so sure Americans are ready for OTC emergency contraception.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I have no conflict on the pharmicist and birth control pills question. Birth control is used by many women as an actual theraputic drug. I expect a pharmicist to know at least that much about the drug (without the pill, I am in agony- like on the floor writhing in pain, bawling). I also expect a pharmicist to know that it is my dr and I's decision on the best treatment, not his. The day after pill, I can understand the conflict. But for a drug with a clear medical benefit, the pharmicist doesn't get a say.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It may be that there is no way to both make it comprehensible and to avoid what I was criticizing in it. So I ask you, in all honesty and not as an attempt to control your post: what was your point? I mean, was breaking down the list of possible views on increased complications on the part of pro-lifers into an incomplete listing of possibilities actually elucidating some point? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
As a mom of a medically fragile child, who has been systematically daring to challenge medical practictioners by *gasp -- god forbid* doing my own research, asking the hard questions, pushing the boundaries, and relentlessly advocating for my child, I want you to know what a relief it is to know that medicos are trained to treat us "problems people" so -- and thank YOU for not ascribing to that!!!!![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)