quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm not sure this is a bad thing. I think the folks in South Dakota may have just bought themselves a new confirmation of Row v. Wade. They've come up with such a draconic law that the Supreme Court may very well slap it down. And that'll give pause to the next fanatics who step up to the plate.
Egad! I agree with starLisa.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there anyone on Hatrack other than me who see's this as wrong?! I mean come on! The government is about to take away womens right to control their own bodies!
Yes, because women do not have many many many many many many many options to completely avoid pregnancy that are inexpensive, effective, and widely available, right?
Wait, that's not right at all. If the government were restricting women's access to these things and outlawing (attempting to outlaw) abortion, well then your point would be accurate.
It's only accurate insofar as rape is not included as an option for a legal abortion in this law, but of course you went much further in your villifying.
I don't blame you, though. I loves oppressing me some wimin.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Hmm, I think starting on the legalistic aspect would be most suiting.
Okay. Please tell me what part of Roe v. Wade provides for federally subsidized abortions.
We all know that the majority of abortions performed in this country are subsidized by tax dollars.
In my opinion, if we removed the tax dollars from the equation abortion would cease to be a public issue. The government(us) shouldn't be too involved in what a woman does with her own money and her own body, unless what she does results in the spending of tax dollars or insurance money.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where does this information come from, skillery? I'm honestly floored by the assertions.
quote:Please tell me what part of Roe v. Wade provides for federally subsidized abortions.
Of course, it doesn't. Also of course, the U.S. Congress barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of endangermant of the woman's life and in cases of rape or incest. This is not a circumstance where a lot of people are "getting in through the back door" by claiming rape or incest or endangerment, by the way, at least not as I understand it. (see below)
quote:We all know that the majority of abortions performed in this country are subsidized by tax dollars.
No, we all don't. That is, I certainly don't.
My recall of the CDC tracking information is that in 2002, only 14% of abortions (or 14% of abortion costs in toto, can't remember which -- but the point is the same) are subsidized by government-controlled money. And most of that was state government money, not federal, by the way.
I'll look up references if you like. I'd like to see where your estimation [that "the majority of abortions performed in this country are subsidized by tax dollars"] came from too, though.
posted
No it would not cease being an important issue. There are those of us who care very deeply about the issue and our tax dollars are the furthest things from our mind.
Most abortion, as I understand it, are paid in case. Not by insurance, not by the government, but cash by the patient.
I'm as puzzled as CT by skillery's post.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do rape and incest figure into it at all?
If you do not believe that a fetus is protected human life (or at least, not until a certain level of gestation is reached) then the cause of the pregnancy shouldn't matter. Abort away.
If you do believe that a fetus is a protected human life, then the cause of the pregnancy shouldn't matter. Deal with it.
What do you think? If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am against abortion, and I wouldn't make exceptions for raper nor incest.
edit:
It seems to me that the idea that there should be exceptions for rape and incest sometimes stems from a mentality that promiscuous women deserve the "punishment" of the pregnancy. In the case of rape and incest, it's not the girl's fault, so why "punish" her.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still find your writing on this matter to be eminently tenable. (I think you are right about the edited part, to be specific. Thanks, though, for the clarification -- just in case I hadn't.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What do you think? If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
I'm against abortion, but I would make exception if it was needed to protect the mother's life. I feel that the only time killing is permissible is if you are protecting a life.
I don't think rape and incest should be exceptions, because in that case the baby did nothing wrong, why should the baby be killed for the crimes of his/her father? Rape is a terrible crime, and the punishment should be severe...but the criminal should be punished, not the innocent.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH I was going to bring that issue up as well. People get confused between being Pro-Life/Pro-Choice, and those who are Pro-Sex/Anti-Sex. Pro-Choicers are characterized as being wild sex deviants who want an excape from the consequences of thier lewd acts at anybody else's expense. Pro-Lifers are characterized as rigid frigid non-sexuals sticking their over-busy noses into other people's business and demanding the wrath of God on all who fornicate. Both of these characterizations are wrong.
If you believe that the life of the unborn child is sacred, and that all fetuses should come to their complete and natural fruition, then whether that child was the result of rape or incest or uncontrollable hormones of a teen woman shouldn't matter.
Yet it does matter greatly to the mother. Imagine what the raped mother must go through. Not only is there one night of terror and shame, but then the continued 9 months of bodilly changes and inconviences that serve only to remind that mother what terror and what shame she endures. She not only continues knowing that the child she carries is the seed of her tormentor, but she has to pay for it as well.
Giving birth to a child is not cheap, especially if we want it done correctly and healthilly. Prenatal visits, time off work, maternity clothes, a thousand more expenses. Even if she does surrender the child to be adopted, who is to pay her for all these expenses, or is it just another cost of the crime she must endure.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Why do rape and incest figure into it at all?
If you do not believe that a fetus is protected human life (or at least, not until a certain level of gestation is reached) then the cause of the pregnancy shouldn't matter. Abort away.
If you do believe that a fetus is a protected human life, then the cause of the pregnancy shouldn't matter. Deal with it.
What do you think? If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
Really, that's the nature of compromise. Someone may believe that abortion is wrong in those cases, but will still accept them for the sake of getting any restriction at all. Even if your overall goal is to prevent all abortions, it would still be more preferable to prevent some of them than none at all.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet it does matter greatly to the mother. Imagine what the raped mother must go through. Not only is there one night of terror and shame, but then the continued 9 months of bodilly changes and inconviences that serve only to remind that mother what terror and what shame she endures. She not only continues knowing that the child she carries is the seed of her tormentor, but she has to pay for it as well.
Giving birth to a child is not cheap, especially if we want it done correctly and healthilly. Prenatal visits, time off work, maternity clothes, a thousand more expenses. Even if she does surrender the child to be adopted, who is to pay her for all these expenses, or is it just another cost of the crime she must endure.
One article I read also had a quote that pointed out that if she kept the child, she might be fearful that the rapist would have the same parental rights as her. (She could probably get them terminated, but that's more pain and expense, especially if she knows the rapist-- and a large percentage of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, all *very* good points. Which is why I strongly agree with what ricree said.
In other words, *I* might not choose to abort a child that a rapist forced on me--because I think it is morally wrong to do so--but to force another woman by law to accept the full burden just seems too hard-hearted to me.
It's not about punishing the permiscuous woman. It's about easing the burden of the victimized woman.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm personally against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, but I agree with others that a ban on abortion with exceptions for rape and incest is certainly a compromise I could live with. A worrisome consequence could be an increase in women charging men with rape, however, to qualify for the exemption, so I would like to see strict penalties for false charges. And the exemption shoudn't be something that is a given or is easy to get simply on the girl's say-so, there should be a police report and a judges' order.
My personal belief is that any woman who reports a rape should be offered the morning after birth control pill option that would prevent conception, that way she need never know if she would have conceived, it will remove a worry from her, and that's something that any woman who has suffered such trauma deserves - a compassionate response that protects her from an unintended pregnancy and takes her feelings into account.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me point out that I didn't say that the idea of exceptions for rape and incest always comes from the concept of punishing the promiscuous woman. I just said that it sometimes does.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If limitations on abortion became part of our law in the future, I would like to see such a morning after pill made readily available the way condoms are now made so readily available.
I am one of those people who is unsure when I think life begins, but I grow more and more uncomfortable with abortion the later in pregnancy it comes. I am not bothered by a morning after pill that would prevent conception.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it should be as available as a condom. It requires a prescription now, and I think it should continue to require one. Birth control pills have some pretty serious (though thankfully rare) side effects possible, and I think there are specific risks of heavy bleeding associated with the morning after regimen.
I would prefer that be done under the guidance of a prescribing physician. But I get your point, bev. Personally, I am a little unsure on the beginning of life myself up until implantation. So, birth control methods that prevent implantation I have little problem with. Dislodging an implanted embryo or fetus - I do have a problem with.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're still struggling with whether or not Mirena (a low-progesterone IUD) is moral or not. :/ They don't *really* know how it stops pregnancy, only that it does. That means there is a slight possibility that some of the time it kills zygotes by not letting them implant in the thinner, more hostile lining. I am not really bothered by that, but Porter is.
Edit: Kill might be too strong a word. They will die if they don't implant. It might allow them to die. Medical science seems to believe that this happens naturally on a very common basis.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My personal belief is that any woman who reports a rape should be offered the morning after birth control pill option that would prevent conception, that way she need never know if she would have conceived, it will remove a worry from her, and that's something that any woman who has suffered such trauma deserves - a compassionate response that protects her from an unintended pregnancy and takes her feelings into account.
But not all rapes are reported immediately; in fact, many are not reported at all. Women are scared to report, are not able to get to a hospital or the police, or are too ashamed to report a rape, especially by a boyfriend or friend. What about those women?
(Not that I don't agree it should be available to all rape victims, I'd just like to know how we get it to them.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My doctor offered the IUD to me but I couldn't do it. I don't think it should be illegal, though, but for me, I preferred to use methods that prevented ovulation.
You're right - medical science does seem to believe that a fairly large percentage of fertilized eggs never implant, for whatever reason. But for me, there is a difference between allowing a natural process to take place and interfering and creating an artificial environment (a more hostile womb, if you will) to encourage that process. It crossed the line for me.
I realize that for many people it doesn't cross the line and I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem with IUD's and would never tell anyone with one that they're a murderer - which is sadly something that a few anti-abortion advocates have done. I think that's wrong, because I do see a difference, as I stated, between preventing implantation and dislodging an implanted embryo. However, for my personal view, the IUD method still makes me somewhat uncomfortable.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But not all rapes are reported immediately; in fact, many are not reported at all. Women are scared to report, are not able to get to a hospital or the police, or are too ashamed to report a rape, especially by a boyfriend or friend. What about those women?
(Not that I don't agree it should be available to all rape victims, I'd just like to know how we get it to them.)
We can't go out in the street asking people randomly if they've been raped and offering them the morning after pill, you're right. They are going to have to report it and come into the hospital and be examined, have evidence collected, and then get the prescription.
If abortion isn't available to anyone except in rare exceptions, perhaps it will encourage those women to come forward and report what has happened. If they don't report it, and wait until they know they've conceived, then it should become a much more difficult procedure - I would expect that a petition would have to be filed with a court and a judge would have to order that the abortion take place. I would assume, in this scenario I'm imagining now that all 3rd term abortions would be illegal unless necessary to save the mother's life, so there will be a limited time for the victim to bring forth her charge of rape anyway - she would have to do it so there is enough time for the court proceedings and to have the procedure before the 3rd trimester begins.
But a rape accusation involves more than just the victim. There is the issue of the accused. As I said, there needs to be protection in place, otherwise we would have women going forward, accusing some guy she went out with and even if he's eventually exonerated there is major damage to his reputation and his life. So, it needs to be taken very, very seriously.
Once that's known, I think people will see it's to their benefit to come forward and report it as soon as possible.
Edit: I'm not looking at this from a position of punishing the victim. My heart goes out to them, I have more than one family members who've been raped. I'm looking at this from the perspective of protecting the life of the child, who had no say in how he/she was created. The best solution is for the woman to never conceive, that's why I would want to see aggressive advertising encouraging women to report attacks and receive the morning after pill.
But I see huge problems for this with false reports. I can see people adopting an attitude of "well, if my boyfriend and I get pregnant I can always just go and claim somebody raped me." Then we would either have someone falsely accused, or if the woman falsely claims stranger rape then we have police resources wasted looking for someone that doesn't exist. That's one big problem I see with the rape exception.
Of course, all this is purely speculation, and may never come to pass.
[ February 26, 2006, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was wrong. When I read that most abortions are subsidized, I assumed that meant federal tax dollars. It turns out that seventeen states subsidize abortions for low-income women through state tax funds. The majority of abortions nationwide are performed on low-income women and are subsidized. In those states with no state-funded abortion clinics, those abortions are paid for by voluntary contributions to private organizations.
What we as a society are trying to prevent is the barbaric coat-hanger abortions to which some low-income women were resorting in the middle part of the last century. I think if a woman really wants an abortion she should be able to get a safe one. On the other hand, too many women are getting abortions because we are too willing to pay for them.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think that if the law were different, women would be far more motivated to report rape right away, and we would certainly want to put a lot into educating both men and women about the effects of such laws.
Cases where the rape was not immediately reported would automatically be "suspicious" and thus prevent innocent guys from being accused and possibly found guilty of rape just so the girl can have an excuse to get an abortion.
Obviously there are times when the women is frightened or unable to come forward right away, but the reasons should be demonstratable. Why would a woman in a healthy relationship with an innocent male be afraid to come forward?
And if she comes forward right after intercourse happens, what motivation would she have to do so unless she were telling the truth? Pregnancy can't be detected until 2 weeks after sex happens.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why would a woman in a healthy relationship with an innocent male be afraid to come forward?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If it's why would she be afraid to report a rape, I hope she wouldn't be afraid to do so.
quote:And if she comes forward right after intercourse happens, what motivation would she have to do so unless she were telling the truth? Pregnancy can't be detected until 2 weeks after sex happens.
Again, that's the ideal situation - she gets raped and comes forward immediately and receives morning-after treatment which results in no pregnancy at all.
Maybe you aren't even asking me questions at all, I think I've gotten confused. I believe you and I pretty much agree on the principles - if abortion is illegal with an exception for rape the best case scenario is a woman reports it right away and is treated, and if she waits, obtaining the abortion will be more difficult and both the accuser and accused should have rights that are respected in any case.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was more in response to KQ's concerns. I don't think they are insurmountable concerns, and I stated some possible solutions to them.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted." -http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
Birth control methods aren't as widely available as some would like to think, and where they are available, instruction in proper use may be lacking.
How about a) comprehensive health care to make certain that all women who may get pregnant can be certain of getting the best of prenatal care and all women who choose not to get pregnant have the best contraception possible available; b) reality-based sex education to help insure everyone who may choose to engage in sex knows how to use contraception properly, minimizing the necessity of abortion, and c) effective networks of child care, parental support, and education so women who choose to give birth aren't making immense sacrifices to do so, devoid of support of communities and caregivers?
The South Dakota law is a stupid bit of legal chicken. It is, and should be, worrisome.
And rape continues to have enough complications and stigma associated with it that we shouldn't make it any harder on the victims than it already is.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Call me simple here, but the only thing about the debate that baffles me, after giving birth to 6 chiildren, is how in the world does an abortion in the 3rd trimester EVER going to SAVE a woman's life? Giving birth at that time and aborting at that time, would be equally tramatic- so why not give birth instead of killing the child?
I have heard instead that late term abortions are usually done to euthanize babies who have life altering abnormalities.
As for my own opinion, abortion should usually be illegal. There are plenty of options for 99 percent of the woman out there who are not rape or incest victims.
I don't feel we have a right to negate the consequences of our actions by taking another's life away. Not that I am using pregnancy as a "punishment" but just a consequence of sex.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, do you think that people who are pro-life and advocate an end to legal abortion don't agree with and support your a, b, and c? Because many of us do. Your a, b, and c and the pro-life stance are not mutually exclusive. We can do all those things and add one more thing - the recognition and protection of unborn life.
I know there is stigma attached to rape. I don't want the victims to suffer any more. How is providing them a way to prevent conception in the first place making it harder on them?
Does anyone think that women not reporting rape until after they find out they're pregnant is a good thing? Shouldn't we be encouraging them to report it as soon as it happens for more than one reason? First, so the police have a better chance of bringing her abuser to justice and secondly, so she can get physical and emotional counseling and healing as quickly as possible.
I never said that a woman who was raped should be forced to carry a child to term. I said ideally, she would never conceive in the first place and less than ideally, there should be protections in place to insure she isn't abusing the system by making false accusations.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
...how in the world does an abortion in the 3rd trimester EVER going to SAVE a woman's life?
When the mother is diagnosed with any life-threatening ailment or disease with treatment that would be impossible for a pregnant woman, such as chemo.
The point is not to offer an out for women looking for late-term abortions of convenience, but to avoid tying the hands of doctors presented with such problems, especially when an outright ban on late term abortions could result in the deaths of both the mother and child.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sydney, I can tell you that late term abortions FREAK ME OUT. There is such a thin line between "aborting" a baby that is capable of surviving outside the womb and taking a preemie off life support or smothering a newborn that--what the heck. I see no line.
But it is possible that if the mother's life is in danger that if you don't have to concern yourself with making sure the baby survives, you can take extra measures to make sure the woman survives. I don't know, I'm just guessing.
It must be a heart-wrenching decision in that specific case--but if you have a choice of only one surviving and maybe neither, you gotta choose. You know?
"Aborting" a late-term fetus because it's gonna die anyway is just wrong, IMO. Unless we argue that killing a newborn that's gonna die anyway is OK.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Aborting" a late-term fetus because it's gonna die anyway is just wrong, IMO. Unless we argue that killing a newborn that's gonna die anyway is OK.
Heck, everybody is going to die someday.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Sterling, do you think that people who are pro-life and advocate an end to legal abortion don't agree with and support your a, b, and c? Because many of us do.
I hope they do agree. I don't doubt many, possibly most, do.
However,
a) Given the above statement about the rates of abortion in countries where abortion is illegal, (take, or refute, that as you will) and the fact that those things I described presently do not exist, perhaps everyone would be using their energies far more effectively if they spent less time on the legal issues of abortion and more on making those conditions that render abortion unnecessary (or, if you prefer, not a question that warrants asking).
b) Given that a large portion of the anti-abortion movement- and yes, I recognize not all, not all here represented, and so on- also favor abstinence-only education, oppose measures that make contraception more available, and detest anything that smacks of their money being spent to support those they feel "have made poor decisions", perhaps you can understand the hesitancy of those in the pro-choice contingent to let that perceived agenda run.
And incidentally, in the case of, say, encephelopathy, it's entirely possible for the birth of a non-viable child to cause the death of both child and mother, while an abortion might well save the mother's life.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Went and checked with Teres for details before I posted it; her mom had a late-term abortion. She started hemorraging and the doctors couldn't stop it, they had to abort the pregnancy to get to the problem. It wasn't an easy decision but the alternative was to lose the baby anyway or to lose both of them. I'm glad they made the choice they did; Teres was born after this happened.
However, this was also 40 years ago, and medical science faced with the same problem today may very well be capable of either helping her or successfully taking the baby.
I'm just wary of non-medical people saying there's no reason for late-term abortions. What do doctors say?
(Note: I don't advocate them, either. I was born at 7 months because of complications, I get a bit tetchy when people talk about late-term abortions of convenience)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, if you can't stop the bleeding and the mom dies, then baby dies too. You can always to do what you must to save the mom. But in saving the mom, oftentimes now the pregnancy can be maintained. If not, the baby can be taken to NICU and worked with. Mrs M gave birth at what, 26 weeks?
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:perhaps everyone would be using their energies far more effectively if they spent less time on the legal issues of abortion and more on making those conditions that render abortion unnecessary (or, if you prefer, not a question that warrants asking).
I am all for this. Especially since I like to be realistic. Since I don't see abortion ever becoming illegal again in this country, I would like to see the underlying "disease" treated. That is a better solution anyway, if it can be done. I'm just talkin' hypotheticals here.
quote:also favor abstinence-only education, oppose measures that make contraception more available, and detest anything that smacks of their money being spent to support those they feel "have made poor decisions"
Again, I am far to realistic to be one of these people. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
