the need for late-term abortions will never go away
September 22, 2013 4:00 PM Subscribe

I think that the extreme, right-wing, misogynist religious fanatics have basically hijacked the Republican party and are moving toward being able to hijack the Democrats too. I'm appalled at the hubris of these legislators who, one after another, think they can make more sensible decisions about a woman's personal, private reproductive decisions than the woman herself. They know nothing about these situations. They don't know a thing about later abortions, or why women seek them out, and yet they presume that they should be making these decisions. Interview with Dr. Susan Robinson, One of the Last Four Doctors in America to Openly Provide Third-Trimester Abortions
posted by latkes (117 comments total) 75 users marked this as a favorite

This woman is a legit hero and it sickens me to think that a not insignificant number of Americans want to forever end the work she does.
posted by elizardbits at 4:06 PM on September 22, 2013 [66 favorites]

childbirth is significantly more likely to kill the mother than abortion, which is something that no OB-GYN will ever tell you

And pregnancy is no piece of cake either. But lots of politicians seem content to believe otherwise.
posted by ambrosia at 4:15 PM on September 22, 2013 [9 favorites]

I just don't understand people who think it's okay to deny women of life-saving medical treatment. And sometimes, life-saving means mental health, freedom from financial ruin (caring for a child who cannot take care of him/herself), etc. The fact that someone would come from Afghanistan to get help should say something about how desperate you have to be to need a third semester abortion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:16 PM on September 22, 2013 [6 favorites]

The Last of the Late-Term Abortion Providers

According to the directors [of After Tiller], the doctors “thought that if more Americans could meet them, and hear where they were coming from—even if they still disagreed with the work that they did—they at least might not want to kill them.” But that framing limits the scope of their film. By focusing less on Tiller’s death and more on the reasons why third-trimester abortion needs to be legal, this could have been a stronger plea to the well-intentioned Americans who, because they don’t know these women’s stories, might support Albuquerque’s 20-week ban or vote for politicians who want to outlaw the procedure entirely.

It’s awful but true that in the fringes of the anti-choice movement, there are people who want these kindly, funny doctors dead. But those people are not going to see the film, and even if they did, it’s unlikely that any efforts to humanize the doctors enough to absolve them of their sins would be successful. Instead, it’s the people in the middle, the ones who support first-trimester abortion but become more hesitant as the pregnancy progresses, who should see After Tiller. They should see the moment, late in the film, in which Robinson agonizes over whether to give an abortion to an anti-abortion teenager who says that despite her convictions, she wants the procedure. “We’re kind of a court of last resort here,” she says. “If we don’t help somebody, they’re not going to get an abortion.”

posted by zombieflanders at 4:16 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

Thank you for posting this. Even though I consider myself pro-choice I struggle with the idea of late term abortions. This article has given me new information to consider.
posted by cairnoflore at 4:22 PM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]

She talks about having to draw lines and I know that some people are pro-choice but are still opposed to 3rd trimester abortions. I am curious why and how they make that decision.
posted by desjardins at 4:22 PM on September 22, 2013

I was so relieved to read that her practice had a trainee doctor recently, because the four existing late-term abortion providers can't be getting any younger.
posted by zeptoweasel at 4:23 PM on September 22, 2013 [4 favorites]

A friend just had a child two weeks past viability. Everyone is doing great given everything, and I'm so excited for their new (much-loved and wanted and strong and fighting) child, but nothing has made me more pro-choice than knowing that her health has been paramount throughout all of this. Nothing. I can't even imagine living in a place where my friend's life could have ended this week if the doctors weren't willing risk birth at this point for her health or if something else had gone wrong and they prioritized the child over her. I can't imagine how much pain and thought it must take to get to the point where a 3rd trimester abortion is even a consideration, and I'm glad that there are still options for those women.
posted by jetlagaddict at 4:37 PM on September 22, 2013 [6 favorites]

Reading that made me cry. It's really heartwarming to read about a person with so much empathy and compassion for others despite how hard it must be for her.
posted by SpaceWarp13 at 4:52 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

She talks about having to draw lines and I know that some people are pro-choice but are still opposed to 3rd trimester abortions. I am curious why and how they make that decision.

I don't consider the morning after pill to be murder, but I do consider killing a one-day old baby to be murder. Somewhere in the middle there has to be a line and it doesn't seem at all obvious to me that the moment when the child exits the birth canal is the right one.

The thing I find most perplexing about the abortion debate is the way that so many people on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides seem to think that everyone on the opposite side is a monster when the issue is so clearly a difficult one without obvious answers.
posted by 256 at 5:03 PM on September 22, 2013 [35 favorites]

Somewhere in the middle there has to be a line and it doesn't seem at all obvious to me that the moment when the child exits the birth canal is the right one.

Personally I draw the line that what a woman decides with her doctor is her business and I don't get to draw lines on other people's medical procedures.
posted by winna at 5:16 PM on September 22, 2013 [66 favorites]

At four and a half months pregnant, I can't imagine making this choice--finding out something was wrong with my baby and realizing that this was the best option for me. But I'm so, so glad that such an empathetic doctor is helping women in this situation.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2013 [3 favorites]

You can draw whatever moral or religious or personal lines you want to. The line I draw is the line that says no one else has the right to choose for me what I can do with my own body. Nor do I expect to have the right to choose for anyone else. I have absolutely no problems with anyone who is personally opposed to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, as long as they understand that they have no rights at all whatsoever to force those beliefs on others, in any way.
posted by elizardbits at 5:20 PM on September 22, 2013 [80 favorites]

Believing that the fetus is a human being and being a misogynist are not mutually exclusive categories.

The better analogy would be two mountain climbers joined by a rope, one of whom has the opportunity to cut the rope to save their life, sacrificing the other. That's the essential argument, and again, sensible people can come down on either side.

One side wants to make rope-cutting illegal. Many will allow the rope to be cut in extenuating circumstances; some want it criminalized no matter what. Some would simply not ever cut the rope themselves, but don't think it's their place to determine what other potential rope-cutters should do.
posted by rtha at 5:24 PM on September 22, 2013 [25 favorites]

She talks about having to draw lines and I know that some people are pro-choice but are still opposed to 3rd trimester abortions. I am curious why and how they make that decision.

I am not sure I have actually made a decision. A fetus at six months is possibly a viable human being whether it is in the womb of another person or in a bassinet. We are choosing one life over another. It is not a comfortable decision for anyone to make and I would not make it for another person, but I still think it has to be acknowledged that that is what is happening.

It makes it easier for me to vote pro-choice when I acknowledge how difficult this decision is for others.
posted by cairnoflore at 5:25 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

I don't consider the morning after pill to be murder, but I do consider killing a one-day old baby to be murder. Somewhere in the middle there has to be a line and it doesn't seem at all obvious to me that the moment when the child exits the birth canal is the right one.

You could consider many different aspects of the question and draw multiple lines that don't coincide. But in at least one way, the moment of birth actually does make sense. Before birth, the child can potentially be a threat to its mother's life. After birth, the child no longer represents a direct threat to the mother's physical health.
posted by Nomyte at 5:32 PM on September 22, 2013 [8 favorites]

But we all collectively impose that belief on society about every other human being. You can't kill a human being except in very limited circumstances (self-defense, war, capital punishment, etc.) I'm not saying you have to agree. I don't, in fact. I am saying that if you acknowledge their (legitimate) belief that these are human beings, then of course they're going to try to impose that belief on you--because killing them would be wrong.
posted by zanni at 5:33 PM on September 22, 2013 [6 favorites]

desjardins: "I know that some people are pro-choice but are still opposed to 3rd trimester abortions. I am curious why and how they make that decision."

I taught ethics to college students for several years, where we had a unit on abortion, and generally (wherever they fall on the life/choice spectrum), people are a lot more uncomfortable with elective abortions after the fetus is viable ... people often draw the line somewhere in the 20 to 25 week range. People often don't have a good logical explanation for WHY they draw the line there, but they "feel" differently about it. I think that's a pretty common human intuition, actually -- in medieval Christianity, for example, fetuses were considered "ensouled" when they quicken, or when the mother can feel movement, usually sometime in the 18-24 week period. Many European countries have very liberal abortion laws early in the pregnancy but restrict it much more heavily than the U.S. does later in the pregnancy, with restrictions kicking in at 14 or 18 or 22 or 24 weeks depending on the country.

The other thing I discovered while teaching is that a majority -- a pretty solid majority -- of people who oppose third-trimester abortions don't consider medically-necessary abortions to be abortions. Generally if it's necessary to save the mother's life, or if the fetus won't survive more than, say, 3 days outside the womb, they don't consider that an abortion. They say, "Okay, that's technically abortion, but that's not what I mean. I mean, that's a medical decision!" What they really mostly objected to was a narrative in which people had irresponsible sex and then didn't "do anything" about the pregnancy until they're 6 months pregnant, and then just "decide" they don't want the baby; they thought that those really harrowing medical choices should be left to a woman, her family, and her doctors, and weren't "real" abortions. They primarily objected to people having abortions for "social" reasons.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:39 PM on September 22, 2013 [63 favorites]

What makes them extreme, right-wing, misogynist, religious fanatics is their belief that they are entitled to impose this belief upon millions of others who do not share it, consequences to their lives and health be damned.

What makes them extreme, right-wing, misogynist, religious fanatics is that they refuse to accept the pro choice position is made in good faith and prefer to believe that pro choice people are murderous demonic monsters.

There are, however, people who in good faith feel abortion is taking of a human life and as such should be made illegal, especially for third trimester. While this I think that conclusion is ultimately wrong, to paint everyone who feels that way as a extreme, right-wing, misogynist, religious fanatic is as dishonest and fanatical.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:46 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

I know that I'm playing devil's advocate here and let me say that my personal beliefs fall pretty clearly on the pro-choice side of the spectrum. I teared up reading that article and think this lady is doing brave and important work.

But I wouldn't say that it is at all obvious to me that the right to determine whether somebody else lives or dies is simply a matter of your body physically encompassing them.

Again, I've struggled over the wording of this comment half a dozen times now because I know this issue is so loaded and important that even suggesting that pro-life advocates might not all be crazy people means risking being painted as a zealot who doesn't value the self-determination of half the population.

And that's not it at all. But abortion seems to me to be about as hairy as ethical conundrums get, and it's worrying to see people treating it like it should be cut and dry.

Of course, it's a hell of a lot more worrying to see women dying from sloppily performed illegal abortions.
posted by 256 at 5:46 PM on September 22, 2013 [5 favorites]

I have a huge amount of empathy for women in the terrible position of having to make a decision about abortion. Do pro-choice advocates have empathy for those of us who view the developing fetus as a human life?
posted by fraxil at 5:57 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

“If the physician came to me and said if we don’t deliver your baby in one hour you will be dead, yeah, I would have to do it,” she said. “But for me, it was at the very end. I would never make a decision like that until all other means had been thoroughly exhausted.”

-Karen Santorum, wife of Rick Santorum.

Even among the most strident of pro-lifers when you get right down to it they often want to decide if a procedure they consider abortion is necessary for themselves with the advice of their medical professionals. (Though in this incident which has been reported at times as Santorum having an abortion, that did not occur.)

They just seem to be unable to connect with the idea that most people would not be driven to this decision for reasons all that different from themselves. The lack of generous, purposeful empathy is a problem in our society sometimes.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:03 PM on September 22, 2013 [12 favorites]

Do pro-choice advocates have empathy for those of us who view the developing fetus as a human life?

I think a lot of them do, yes, they just don't believe that those views should set policy for people who don't share those views or that it's acceptable to harass people into alignment with your viewpoints. I had friends who had to have a third trimester... I guess it's called a termination since there was a problem with the fetus and it (I don't know the gender) was not expected to be viable. It was a terrible decision, made more difficult by people who gave them a hard time over what was already a truly horrible no-win situation with their first pregnancy. I don't think any of these situations are easy, but I think medical professionals are the appropriate people to help people make those difficult decisions.
posted by jessamyn at 6:08 PM on September 22, 2013 [34 favorites]

Even if you believe that a fetus is a human being, nobody is arguing to repeal the right to kill in self-defense in any other circumstance.
posted by rue72 at 6:17 PM on September 22, 2013 [10 favorites]

To see those doctors out there risking everything - risking their very lives - to provide this compassionate service... their bravery takes my breath away.
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 6:18 PM on September 22, 2013 [8 favorites]

In fairness, fraxil, that's a false equivalence. You say you have empathy for women who have to decide about abortion, then ask if pro-choice advocates have empathy for people who disagree with them. But to pose a question with equal stakeholders*, you would say "I have a huge amount of empathy for pro-choice advocates. Do they have empathy for those of us who view the developing fetus as a human life?" And the answer is yes, of course we do. Empathy is not the same thing as agreeing with you, though, so I'm not sure why the question is being posed. Will knowing that we pro-choice advocates understand and empathize with you help? Because we do. We may feel angry when your feelings are then enacted into law and thus remove women's control over their own bodies, but we can feel for you.

I can resoundingly assure you, though, that a) many, even most, women who chose to have abortions also believe a fetus is a human life, and they are making a heartrending decision to preserve their own lives or sanity or freedom or safety and b) there are many pro-choice people (myself and even many doctors I know who perform abortions) who do believe that a fetus, at various points, may be a human life, but still believe that women are not obligated to sacrifice their bodies, their work, and to risk their lives to continue that human life.

Have you read "The Violinist" in "A Defense of Abortion" (wikipedia)? It might help clarify how being pro-choice and believing that sometimes fetuses are human lives are not irreconcilable beliefs.

A long time ago, someone I was talking to about abortion said "if we don't know when life really begins, then why risk murder by allowing abortion?" I was maybe 16 and didn't know how to answer, but since then I've realized: we are never going to resolve for all people when life does, or does not begin. There are so many conflicting truths about that depending on religion, culture, personal history, etc. that there can be no one recognized truth. There will always be a question, there will always be things we don't know. What I do know, without a doubt, is that the life of the woman who is pregnant is a life that has really begun, and is a life that can be compromised, hurt, or ended by continuing a pregnancy to term. I do not believe that women have a moral responsibility to serve as unwilling life support systems to the potential of a life. I do believe that a society with anything approaching equality must first allow all women (and all people) the right to control their own bodies and destiny to the fullest extent possible. That is why I can be both pro-choice and acknowledge that there is a point at which a fetus becomes a human life.

*Because many women who get abortions are not pro-choice advocates, but are simply making a medical decision for themselves.
posted by c'mon sea legs at 6:19 PM on September 22, 2013 [23 favorites]

I think the terminology "medical decision" is begging the question, because medical decision-making presumes the consent and/or best-interests of all parties involved.
posted by fraxil at 6:30 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

The need for late term abortions will never go away, thus, I will never stop giving money to Medical Students for Choice.
posted by crush-onastick at 6:31 PM on September 22, 2013 [11 favorites]

I think the terminology "medical decision" is begging the question, because medical decision-making presumes the consent and/or best-interests of all parties involved.

We kill embryos all the time, we even kill born creatures all the time. I don't see that one set of embryos being potentially human makes any difference.

For me, it's not begging the question that it's a medical decision - it's not any different than any other medical decision. I have friends that are vegetarian, but if they decided to be obnoxious about my ham egg and cheese biscuit in the morning I'd be irritated, albeit far less so than when people try to legislate what rights I have over my own body because of some quasi-animist ideas about human embryos being imbued with some unique juju.
posted by winna at 6:37 PM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]

They should see the moment, late in the film, in which Robinson agonizes over whether to give an abortion to an anti-abortion teenager who says that despite her convictions, she wants the procedure.

And without a baby to take care of she has more time to lobby and picket!

Maybe they can all find new careers in pediatric clinics.
posted by clarknova at 6:37 PM on September 22, 2013

because medical decision-making presumes the consent and/or best-interests of all parties involved.

People have to make medical decisions for people who are not them all the time. Minor children often do not have to consent to their own medical treatment. This is its own can of worms. It's a huge deal in the world of children who are born intersex and have people "helpfully" trying to "correct" things that may not actually be incorrect. It's a huge deal for children who are born conjoined and there have been tough ethical cases over what to do when separation would allow only one child to live but both would die otherwise. Ethicists talk about this stuff all the time. Explaining that a fetus can't consent isn't actually one of the better arguments against abortion especially the ones that are most of the ones being talked about in the actual article.
posted by jessamyn at 6:44 PM on September 22, 2013 [15 favorites]

trying to limit abortion by arbitrarily choosing a point in time for when the fetus is a "human life" is ridiculous.

(on review, what winna says)
posted by Artful Codger at 6:44 PM on September 22, 2013

The thing I found especially compelling in this interview was seeing a rare instance of an unequivocally pro-choice person acknowledging the moral ambiguities of some abortions. It's like we usually have to be on guard so we don't want to name some of the hard stuff about this. It was a brief discussion, but the fact that she named some of the critiques from the disability community was really refreshing to me.

An unwanted third trimester pregnancy can never be morally simple or black and white. I say this as someone who believes in abortion on demand at any time for any one for free.
posted by latkes at 6:48 PM on September 22, 2013 [6 favorites]

There is no equivalent moral situation to abortion because there is no other situation where a developing human is living inside another human and entirely dependent on that human to continue to live and develop. The analogies on both sides are weak, we need to just recognize the uniqueness of the situation. It's the only way we get more people.
posted by fraxil at 6:50 PM on September 22, 2013 [3 favorites]

I should say that I volunteered at Planned Parenthood in the nineties while Eric Rudolph was loose. Every day when I went in to file charts for women who came to us with their medical needs, I was confronted with a scary sign that said 'If you see any of these men, call the police immediately and do not confront them'. There were usually people outside with grotesque signs taking photos of us and our cars and screaming things, generally with their kids in tow. And not that it matters, but we did no abortions.

So I don't actually have much empathy for prolifers, because while I was doing my actual best to help women get good care, they were outside scaring me to get their jollies. Is that fair for all prolifers? Probably not, but after you've spent a couple of years wondering if you're going to get blown up for filing you do tend to lose some generosity about things.
posted by winna at 6:51 PM on September 22, 2013 [49 favorites]

(And when I say "an unequivocally pro-choice person acknowledging the moral ambiguities of some abortions", I don't mean the stupid pandering to anti-abortion activists that a lot of Democratic politians do when they reflexively say that abortion is "always a difficult decision" etc.)
posted by latkes at 6:51 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

There's a lot in this article that's worthwhile, but responding specifically to your pull-quote: most of those "extreme, right-wing, misogynist, religious fanatics" actually believe that the fetus is a human being. It boggles my mind that some people struggle to understand that.

Amazingly, those "extreme, right-wing, misogynist, religious fanatics" believe the fetus is a human being, but don't seem to think that after the child is born it deserves any consideration whatsoever, be it basic physical, dental, or mental health care, proper nutrition, or education. After birth, the child is the product of some welfare-seeking slut that had a baby out of laziness or for her own selfish interests, and the outcome of such deserves no special consideration.

I have a huge amount of empathy for women in the terrible position of having to make a decision about abortion. Do pro-choice advocates have empathy for those of us who view the developing fetus as a human life?

I understand and empathize over those who do not believe in pro-choice. I have several close friends who have significantly different beliefs than I do, and I know how it grieves them to think that what they believe is an innocent child has been done away with. Yes, have empathy for them. Those whom I don't have any empathy for are assholes that believe they can impose their will on others, make decisions concerning people's lives whom they know nothing about. I have no empathy for someone who can lobby to prevent kids having access to condoms and the morning-after pill and closing birth control and abortion clinics. There's no empathy for those who call women sluts and murderers and then go out and kill a doctor who performs abortions (as well as working to save women's lives in other ways) while they claim they're "doing the will of God." Horseshit.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:56 PM on September 22, 2013 [20 favorites]

256: "But I wouldn't say that it is at all obvious to me that the right to determine whether somebody else lives or dies is simply a matter of your body physically encompassing them. "

It's not obvious why it should be up to me to decide if a person's reasons for seeking an abortion are valid. Why should I not believe someone who decides in consultation with their doctor that it is best for them to terminate the pregnancy? People can be put in both physical and mental danger by remaining pregnant. Who am I to disagree if a woman says that she can't birth a child for whatever reason? (Who am I to even ask what that reason is, for that matter?)
posted by wierdo at 6:58 PM on September 22, 2013 [7 favorites]

The thing I find most perplexing about the abortion debate is the way that so many people on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides seem to think that everyone on the opposite side is a monster when the issue is so clearly a difficult one without obvious answers.

Really? Because the obvious answer to me is not to criminalize a medical procedure that some women may desire and choose for themselves. I mean, you can oppose abortion if it conflicts with your religious beliefs--you can choose to sacrifice your life for your unborn child, let a female relative die for her baby to be born, give birth to a child with severe physical defects and raise it with love to the best of your abilities, but all of this would be possible still in a society that where abortion is legal and safe.

Even as a pro-choice woman, the idea of abortion makes me a little bit queasy, as most major surgical procedures do. I am pro-choice because I am pro-SAFETY above everything else. I want everything to be available for women--birth control, sex-ed, abstinence (sure, why not, I'm sceptical but if it works on five teenagers, great), counselling, access to pre-natal care and safe abortions. This is why we call ourselves pro-choice. I don't think anti-choicers are monsters; I just think they're selfish, tyrannical, and lacking in empathy (for women who want/choose abortions, for abortion doctors). Though hey, we call people monsters when they lack empathy, don't we?
posted by peripathetic at 7:01 PM on September 22, 2013 [10 favorites]

I am pro-choice, but I don't buy this pro-choice talking point that's been made already a few times in this thread:

What makes them extreme, right-wing, misogynist, religious fanatics is their belief that they are entitled to impose this belief upon millions of others who do not share it

Do people who say this honestly believe that they themselves don't "impose their beliefs on millions of others"? I doubt that you are all moral relativists. Don't you, for example, reserve the right to impose on others your belief that parents should not neglect their children, even though it may impose a severe burden on the parents involved? Can you not see why anti-abortionists might also want to impose their beliefs on expectant mothers, since they consider unborn children to be imbued with the same rights as born children?
posted by dontjumplarry at 7:03 PM on September 22, 2013 [7 favorites]

To reiterate, I don't buy into their views (the rights of the mothers outweigh the rights of the unborn children, even though they can feel pain). But I just think it's a hollow argument to say "don't impose your moral views on others". We all do that.
posted by dontjumplarry at 7:04 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

fraxil: "I think the terminology "medical decision" is begging the question, because medical decision-making presumes the consent and/or best-interests of all parties involved."

If my wife were to desire gender reassignment surgery, I would most certainly be an involved party, but my interests and/or consent aren't really relevant. Nobody should be forced to risk their life by operation of law. We used to do that with the draft, but we quit drafting people a while ago now.

If faced with a shortage of soldiers in a war because your state has lost the confidence of its people, you can do the immoral thing and force people to fight or you can do the moral thing and give them something to fight for by fixing whatever is so wrong that people won't voluntarily fight to preserve their way of life.

Similarly, if faced with what you feel like is an excessive number of abortions, you can do the immoral thing and force people to risk not just their economic welfare and mental health, but their very lives in service to your dogma or you can do the moral thing and make it easier for them to make the decision you would like them to make. Using the carrot is moral, using the stick is not.

dontjumplarry: "Don't you, for example, reserve the right to impose on others your belief that parents should not neglect their children, even though it may impose a severe burden on the parents involved?"

When parents are unable to care for the child and there are no relatives able/willing to take the child, we do not force the parents to raise the child. We recognize that they are incapable or unwilling and remove the child from their home and hopefully eventually find an adoptive family. Of course, the system is largely broken thanks to the folks who constantly bleat about government waste refusing to fund the system adequately. The intersection between that set and the set of people who are constantly piling on new restrictions on abortions is large, sadly.
posted by wierdo at 7:23 PM on September 22, 2013 [11 favorites]

fraxil: Do pro-choice advocates have empathy for those of us who view the developing fetus as a human life?

Why do you require "empathy" in this situation? You're not in a difficult position just by virtue of being against abortion.

Speaking for myself, no, of course I don't share your feelings. If I did, we wouldn't disagree, now would we?

dontjumplarry: Can you not see why anti-abortionists might also want to impose their beliefs on expectant mothers, since they consider unborn children to be imbued with the same rights as born children?

From a pure-logic standpoint, sure, but I've never actually met someone who was anti-abortion who I feel their actual concern was about fetuses.

256: it's worrying to see people treating it like it should be cut and dry.

It's worrying to me that people don't. The shrugging of people who treat this like some sort of philosophical abstraction rather than a real thing that affects women is going to lead to a public health crisis has more anti-abortion laws get enacted.
posted by spaltavian at 7:35 PM on September 22, 2013 [16 favorites]

Don't you, for example, reserve the right to impose on others your belief that parents should not neglect their children, even though it may impose a severe burden on the parents involved? Can you not see why anti-abortionists might also want to impose their beliefs on expectant mothers, since they consider unborn children to be imbued with the same rights as born children?

And I wonder how many parents wouldn't be under the onus of a "severe burden" had they had access to birth control and/or and abortion? Rights due to "unborn children" aka fetuses are not the same as rights due to born children. Born children deserve health care, decent living quarters, good nutrition, education, love and respect--which the opponents of pro-choice often vote to deny them--at least with regard to the first four items. Many many women are under the onus of that severe burden and forced to carry and birth children they would not have had simply because they had no access to birth control--whether under external control by religion, parents, some male in control of their lives, through lack of education, or because of poverty or location.

We impose our beliefs on others when we say that murder, rape, and incest are wrong. Yet two of those evils may affect their victims with results that many refuse to face. There are individual moral choices, as well as those moral choices that we agree upon as a society. It amazes me that we continue to oppress the victims of the last two crimes mentioned by demanding that they birth the result of those crimes. That decision is not society's to make.

I want everything to be available for women--birth control, sex-ed, abstinence (sure, why not, I'm sceptical but if it works on five teenagers, great), counselling, access to pre-natal care and safe abortions. This is why we call ourselves pro-choice.

Seconded. The stupidity behind closing clinics and refusing to allow women unquestioned access to free birth control and reproductive care results in abortions. If you're opposed to abortion, why would you logically not support birth control?

(The fact that it fails, women possibly forget, get raped, etc, means that abortion is a last resort, rather than being a first line action in birth control choice.)
posted by BlueHorse at 7:50 PM on September 22, 2013 [7 favorites]

There is no equivalent moral situation to abortion because there is no other situation where a developing human is living inside another human and entirely dependent on that human to continue to live and develop.

I don't agree that the uniqueness of pregnancy renders it somehow less susceptible to the sort of moral considerations that are relevant in formally parallel situations, though. Simply because it's a unique process doesn't mean that the same rights which would attain otherwise can't persist here, for example, and the right to bodily autonomy is really pretty fundamental.

Pregnancy is materially unique in the human experience. However, that does not make a compelling argument for restricting access to abortion whatsoever; in fact, because pregnancy requires so much of a woman and entails (for complex reasons) such an unparalleled imposition, it is especially important in that case to ensure that women are neither coerced nor restricted in their choices about whether or not to undergo that process.
posted by clockzero at 7:50 PM on September 22, 2013 [32 favorites]

clockzero: "pregnancy requires so much of a woman and entails (for complex reasons) such an unparalleled imposition, it is especially important in that case to ensure that women are neither coerced nor restricted in their choices about whether or not to undergo that process."

I think this deserves more attention than I can possibly call to it and know that it deserves more than the one favorite I can give.
posted by wierdo at 8:00 PM on September 22, 2013 [20 favorites]

Personally I draw the line that what a woman decides with her doctor is her business and I don't get to draw lines on other people's medical procedures.

Amen to that. But you know what? Apparently, as a woman, I can't even make decisions about my uterus when there ISN'T a fetus in it.

I have a doctor's appointment this week about ongoing lady-problems. I'm closing in on 40. I don't want kids. My husband is fine with that. And you know what? Every friend of mine with similar problems has told me to expect the doctor to refuse treatment that would fix things because it might render me infertile.

One told me her husband had to sign a notarized letter saying she was *allowed* the hysterectomy that finally ended the health problems she'd had for a decade. Another's husband had to go in to her doc's office to ok her endometrial ablation because it might keep her from getting pregnant again (they've got a kid in high school and he's had a vasectomy...she didn't have to sign off on HIS snip snip!)

I could go on.

My husband jokes that the state owns my uterus and I should just stop pretending otherwise. I wish we could all rely on getting the medical care we need based on *medical need* and not anyone else's opinions about what we should be doing with our internal organs. It's so depressing. Reading this was one ray of sunshine in the week of uphill battle-suck I'm about to have.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:02 PM on September 22, 2013 [42 favorites]

I'm very pro choice, but post viability abortions make me deeply uncomfortable. For me I guess my issue is theoretically you could induce labor instead of have an abortion and then if the baby was born alive transfer it to an incubator. My understanding of whether this is actually feasible may be wildly inaccurate, but euthanizing a viable fetus, especially one that is otherwise healthy and at a gestational age where the chance of survival is above 50% is hard for me to reconcile morally.

This is very often not feasible and it's frankly kind of outrageous to suggest it. Most late-term abortions are performed because the fetus has birth defects or malformations that are either incompatible with life or would cause a lifetime of pain and suffering. Don't you think the parents (who, if we are talking a late-term abortion, most likely want and love their child) and the doctor are aware of all the options and are trying to make the best decision possible? Why do you think you know better?

I'm not trying to specifically call you out, but I've seen arguments like this before. This is a decision best left to the parents and the doctors. Why would an outside person not deeply involved in the decision-making and in possession of all the facts be better able to make that decision?
posted by Aquifer at 8:14 PM on September 22, 2013 [13 favorites]

"You can draw whatever moral or religious or personal lines you want to. The line I draw is the line that says no one else has the right to choose for me what I can do with my own body. Nor do I expect to have the right to choose for anyone else. I have absolutely no problems with anyone who is personally opposed to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, as long as they understand that they have no rights at all whatsoever to force those beliefs on others, in any way."

That's what it's always come down to for me: It's none of my business whether or not someone else gets an abortion. As it's none of my goddamn business, I can't really have an opinion.
posted by klangklangston at 8:25 PM on September 22, 2013 [8 favorites]

I don't like the "I have no opinion" dodge, though I sympathize with where it is coming from.

I think it is very important for people to be aware of the reasons people have late-term abortions (and other abortions). It's pretty obviously a moral issue for us as a people (one way or another) and so we are going to have opinions on it in general.

Ideally, though this is often not the case, informed opinions. I believe very strongly that abortion needs to be free, available, and decided upon by the woman involved, her doctor, and other people (spouse, family, friends, therapist) she prefers to consult. I have this opinion because of what I have read of the experiences of others (including my friends, family, and loved ones), the research I have seen, and my own moral reasoning.

And in specific? Well, specifics vary, but I do often have opinions on abortions that people I know have had. That opinion can be sympathy (when it was a difficult decision), relief (when it wasn't so much), or all kinds of other things. But my simply having an opinion in no way makes it appropriate for me to be the one who makes the decision. There are lots of things in life I have an opinion on that I am not the right person to make a decision about.

But I think (and I'm turning a bit to the politics here) that the more purely libertarian argument in favor of abortion rights (not that actual Libertarians tend to make it, but you know what I mean) is not the best or most effective one. I think that we (who are in favor of abortion rights) should argue very directly and in moral terms for why abortions can be good, right, necessary, or all three. And I think to make that argument specific stories, as in this interview, are the right way to think about it and talk about it.
posted by feckless at 8:44 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

But I wouldn't say that it is at all obvious to me that the right to determine whether somebody else lives or dies is simply a matter of your body physically encompassing them.

That's the wrong frame. The right frame is that the right to determine whether somebody else lives or dies is simply a matter of how much of a threat you pose to them and how avoidable that threat is.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:55 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

That was a really interesting and informative interview. I also think this thread, despite the emotional focus, has seemed quite measured and reasonable. Maybe the needle is moving a bit on this topic toward a rational center? I, for one, would like to see women's bodies and reproductive issues taken out of the political arena. It just doesn't belong there.

On the topic of abortion in general. It seems to me that there's often an imaginary woman at the heart of those who would limit access to abortion. She's a nice, young girl (not too young) who was foolish or made an error in her birth control. And now, she had the possibility of bringing a healthy pregnancy to term and giving up the perfect, healthy child to a loving, religious family. Instead she is making the selfish choice to rid herself of this inconvenience and continue her (slutty) ways. So keeping the child actually takes on the air of a "punishment" for bad behavior which is a really weird place to go in this.

Sadly, I can imagine much worse scenarios than wanton sluttery that might lead a woman to make the choice to end her pregnancy. A statistically significant number of young pregnant women are murdered each year, most often by a domestic partner or family member. I read an article a couple years back based on a survey of young men and women and there were a rather shocking number of men who sabotaged birth control to get their partner pregnant against her will. I also wonder at the maternal care a woman would take who is very poor, in a very unsupportive or combative environment. And I think about those women who are on the edge and one more thing would just push them over.

I think the only person who can know what is the best choice for a woman and her body is the woman who is living in that body. Her doctor can give her guidance but to rob a woman of this choice is, in my mind, to rob her of autonomy, freedom, and equality.

And in the U.S., my opinion is greatly tinged by all the other moral handwringing and open disgust we have for the poor in this country. So, I have a hard time not coming to the conclusion that some of the anti-abortion crusaders are motivated by some hateful and dark feelings about those over whom they wish to exert power.

Lastly, I feel late-term abortions are a tragedy and rare and decisions about who can get one does not belong anywhere near a voting booth.
posted by amanda at 8:58 PM on September 22, 2013 [5 favorites]

Every once in a while, I think more people should watch 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days. Making abortions illegal does not stop women from getting them and that fact alone is what makes me adamantly pro-choice, no matter who the woman or how late the pregnancy. There's a reason for the saying 'safe, legal, and rare' and I am (choosing to be--it helps me sleep at night) baffled by the number of people who think making abortion illegal will stop people from doing it if they feel the need. No matter when.
posted by librarylis at 9:03 PM on September 22, 2013 [22 favorites]

you would say "I have a huge amount of empathy for pro-choice advocates. Do they have empathy for those of us who view the developing fetus as a human life?" And the answer is yes, of course we do.

Speak for yourself; I don't. Or at least, en masse and as anonymous entities, I don't; I'm sure fraxil is nice enough as a person. I don't particularly care what they think or why they think it, and I don't particularly care about understanding them. They're just enemies that need to be defeated.

After that, they can go around being as sad about it as they want; I really don't care about that any more than I care about how sad it makes racists that they have to let blacks into their store or how sad it makes nasty homophobes to see two dudes smooching.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:03 PM on September 22, 2013 [8 favorites]

Couple of comments deleted. This is a difficult topic; if you want to participate, try harder by for example reading the article.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:10 PM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]

FWIW, my thinking about using moral reasoning and moral language for these kinds of issues is basically a product of this essay which I read years ago and only just now found again.

... the ultimate object of moral reasoning is always to give us guidance in leading our lives; and (in so doing) to lead us to greater self-knowledge. And on this view, we make moral judgments about other people for two reasons. First, having developed moral concepts for use in our own lives, we can apply them to others. If, for instance, we are talking with another person about morality, we may have occasion to make such judgments. Second, we make them in order to clarify our own views about right and wrong, and to see more clearly how we can achieve the former and avoid the latter.
posted by feckless at 9:12 PM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]

The shrugging of people who treat this like some sort of philosophical abstraction rather than a real thing that affects women is going to lead to a public health crisis has more anti-abortion laws get enacted.

Yep. This is massively important. I think that abortion is a difficult moral issue that, yes, might in fact be the business of society. But I think that in all practical terms, the theoretical moral harm of allowing abortions is massively trumped by the actual moral harm of outlawing abortions.

I'm also going to recuse myself from this conversation now because this isn't really a debate where I feel like I'm the best champion for either side. As I said, I'm pro-choice, but, in general, I would prefer to let ladies argue both sides of this one.
posted by 256 at 9:16 PM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]

There are, however, people who in good faith feel abortion is taking of a human life and as such should be made illegal, especially for third trimester.

How many of those though would want to prosecute abortions as murder and the mother as the murderer, which would only be logical if they really believed abortion is "the taking of a human life"?
posted by MartinWisse at 10:54 PM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]

Indeed, I do not believe that their belief that a fetus is human is what makes them extreme, right-wing, misogynist, religious fanatics.

In theory that's not a misogynist belief; in practise though it very much is, as it reduces women to nothing more but wombs whose lives can be sacrifised to protect the fetus.

Remember that recent case in Ireland where a woman was bleeding to death and needed an abortion to save her life, didn't get it and died? That's the end result of believing a fetus is human and it used to be not uncommon in a country like Ireland when every form of abortion was banned.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:08 PM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]

Just to make that ... film-viewing decision ... easier, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is on Netflix and Amazon Prime. For context, at the time depicted, Romania was experiencing a low birth rate and the regime had criminalized abortion and, perhaps just coincidentally, birth control was very difficult to obtain. It actually made Alfie look like a walk in the park, and the ending, for reasons that will become clear on viewing, is a real gut-punch. If the topic isn't a reason to watch, then just see it for Anamaria Marinca's singular performance.
posted by dhartung at 1:20 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]

Personally I draw the line that what a woman decides with her doctor is her business and I don't get to draw lines on other people's medical procedures.

That framing is what makes anti-abortion people crazy. (And makes a lot of pro-choice people uncomfortable...) Abortion, especially later term abortion, is a lot more than just a "procedure". I'm sure most strident pro-choice people know this.

We hate it when the other side of an argument over-simplifies the problem to absurdity, but it is just as disingenuous to over-simplify our own position to absurdity.

I am about as pro-choice as someone can be, but I absolutely agree with the comparison above regarding the day-after-conception pill versus the day-after-birth murder thing. (And I don't even have a problem with post-birth euthanasia, if that is the most humane/merciful decision for the infant.) Each end of that spectrum is about as black and white as possible. I guess I'm saying that pregnancy is a continuum, and there is a point after which abortion becomes much more than a medical procedure. It does become something closer to euthanasia, and that decision is a far weightier one than mere choice. Not that it should be illegal, but that the pro-choice side needs to acknowledge that terminating a viable fetus is not just a choice, but a decision that must be made with some consideration for the humanity of the fetus.

(And again, I'm sure the vast majority of women who have had to make this decision know this far more strongly than someone who hasn't. That's why the "choice" rhetoric is so distasteful. It trivializes what is usually a heartbreaking decision for everyone involved. As a political tactic, it allows the right to frame the debate by allowing them to perpetuate the illusion that there is no middle ground. There is a reason these are called wedge issues. One rarely wins a battle by retreating. You have to advance and win rhetorical ground by giving the other side no choice but to concede or look crazy.)
posted by gjc at 2:12 AM on September 23, 2013 [8 favorites]

I know that Roe v Wade said that the government has a right to regulate after the 6th month of pregnancy. That was 1972 so this is not a new issue. What is new is the ability to deliver successfully after that point. Why are there late term abortions instead of a Csection delivery to "save" the mother's life?

I made that decision 28 years ago after being told my child was life threatening to my health and she would likely be a "vegetable". The doctor told me he would have to have a better reason if I wanted my insurance to cover an early C section but they would pay for a late term abortion. I took the chance and waited a bit, did the emergency C section. She can be a pain in the ass but not a vegetable.

So I get the whole choice issue and believe up until that point where baby can live without mother, Do we do the delivery and tell Mom you can walk away or do we continue to believe that late term aborted babies should not have some standing of their own?
posted by OhSusannah at 3:46 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]

Do we mandate serious abdominal surgery for pregnant fourteen year olds, then? Who pays for and then who will care for those children after months in the NICU? What if the woman has no health insurance and cannot afford the post-surgical complications and restrictions of a C-section let alone the procedure itself? What about those situations where viability is not an option?

I trust trained doctors to make that call.
posted by jetlagaddict at 4:47 AM on September 23, 2013 [5 favorites]

There was this one time in a crowded lecture hall, some mandatory review about medicolegal junk that really only gathered attendance because pastries, and/or threat of losing hospital privileges.

But mostly pastries. And the guy, some kind of medical ethicist (this is probably the closest actual job to being a paid philosopher) was talking about how the law was clear on the fact that you cannot force a woman to deliver a child in a difficult delivery in a timely manner. If the available evidence indicated that the baby probably wasn't going to make it, you could strongly advise them on their options (drugs, c-section, vacuum) but if they said no; no meant no, legally the product of conception (fetus; baby) was the property of the woman until delivery. Which would seem straightforward except for all the other million laws and regulations regarding fetus' rights arguing precisely the opposite thing when talking about women who were considering not having it.

And I remember waking up from my post-doughnut daze in the far back corner next to the radiator and thinking what in the fuck, man. It's just like this ...this endless maze of grey areas and legal jousting in a swamp at midnight, just like all the other contradictory OB-GYN black magic voodoo witchcraft that nearly led to a mental breakdown halfway through my third year of medical school. To this day seeing the algorithm for follow up pap smears after an abnormal result nearly gives me a panic attack.

Anyways, the ethicists' conclusion was that if a woman intent on delivering a healthy baby could legally, and unimpeachably, make decisions leading to its certain demise based on nothing but her moral compass and the doctors can just watch in frustration and perhaps a little bit of horror; legally it was her body and her choice. The state or the medical profession has no say in the matter. But if you're trying to responsibly end a pregnancy, for whatever reason, after an arbitrary line in the sand? These gentlemen over in the hallway would like to have a word with you, ma'am.

Seriously, think about what kind of bureaucratic nightmare of a world we live in where this is the end legal result. At least it's consistent with all our other laws wherein we ruthlessly penalize the shit out of the victim.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 6:24 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]

It's been interesting for me to see where people draw the line for abortion restrictions because at this time last year, my sister was pregnant with twins. She went into early labor at just over 24 weeks. They were born less than 48 hours after she went to the hospital. They lived for about four hours. So it seems so bizarre to hear people say, 20 weeks is totally reasonable but after 22 weeks is barbaric and such.

Doctors often won't resuscitate babies born before 22 weeks. Babies born before 20 weeks are considered miscarriages. A baby born at 24 weeks has an 80% chance of being moderately disabled, if she survives (source).

That said, my sister is totally pro-choice. She said that being pregnant made her feel more strongly pro-choice because pregnancy is hard and no one should be forced into that unwillingly.
posted by kat518 at 8:07 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]

That framing is what makes anti-abortion people crazy. (And makes a lot of pro-choice people uncomfortable...) Abortion, especially later term abortion, is a lot more than just a "procedure". I'm sure most strident pro-choice people know this.

It is a procedure, though, and your arch inclusion of the term "strident" does nothing to suggest that pro-choice people will be amenable to the pedantic tone of this argument. It's not more (or less) than a procedure, it is a procedure, it is exactly a procedure. The extent to which it is more than a procedure is dependent upon how people construct the meaning of the procedure; thus when someone insists that it's categorically "more than a procedure", that rhetorically complicates the issue merely by constructing its character in a particular way. There is no reason to remind women that it is serious except to problematize the decision, and it's already problematic enough for a woman without other people reminding her about how difficult and complex it is. Some people seem to think that hypothetical women exist who take abortion very lightly, and I think that's clearly a fact-free, self-serving myth which simply legitimates the position those people already hold.

Not that it should be illegal, but that the pro-choice side needs to acknowledge that terminating a viable fetus is not just a choice, but a decision that must be made with some consideration for the humanity of the fetus.

The pro-choice "side" does not "need" to acknowledge these things. You're claiming, basically, that everyone "needs" to agree with you, including the people who don't agree with you.

I'm sure the vast majority of women who have had to make this decision know this far more strongly than someone who hasn't. That's why the "choice" rhetoric is so distasteful. It trivializes what is usually a heartbreaking decision for everyone involved.

The second part of this does not follow logically from the first, despite the attempt here to flatly assert that the first part constitutes proof of the second. The two sentiments, that in individual cases it can be a difficult choice to make, and that in a macro-social, public-policy context discussing abortion as a choice is "trivializing", do not make any sense together. You think "choice rhetoric" is distasteful, which leads one to think you don't support women's right to choose, but then you justify that position by saying that the decision can be a hard one. There's just no obvious way those two claims go together, and from the way the argument has been constructed here it seems like you're trying to gratuitously problematize women's right to choose while pretending to support it.
posted by clockzero at 10:08 AM on September 23, 2013 [13 favorites]

Not that it should be illegal, but that the pro-choice side needs to acknowledge that terminating a viable fetus is not just a choice, but a decision that must be made with some consideration for the humanity of the fetus.

No, I actually don't "need" to "acknowledge" something I fundamentally consider to be untrue, except in the sense of, "I acknowledge you feel that way, but I think you are about as wrong as wrong gets."

And all of this "not that it should be illegal" stuff sounds real nice and fluffy and probably makes you feel very reasonable. But it is completely and utterly beside the point in the current environment, which is a persistent and unrelenting attempt at TOTAL ERADICATION OF ACCESS, including access to many forms of birth control, in many parts of the United States, many parts of South America, many parts of Africa, etc...
posted by like_a_friend at 10:58 AM on September 23, 2013 [9 favorites]

No, I actually don't "need" to "acknowledge" something I fundamentally consider to be untrue, except in the sense of, "I acknowledge you feel that way, but I think you are about as wrong as wrong gets.

I think the poster meant that for the purposes of constructive argument, it helps to start by stating your a priori assumptions, and hearing what those of the other side are. Ignoring, minimizing, and ridiculing someone's sincere beliefs about an important issue sets us all back.
posted by fraxil at 11:53 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]

Personally, I feel that birth is a good dividing line. After birth, an unwanted baby can be given up for adoption. Before birth, the woman is stuck with the fetus - as far as I know, you can't transplant it to another woman. I do not feel it's right to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term, no matter how far along the pregnancy.

Many people draw the line at a viable fetus, but when are they actually willing to induce labor? In other words, how much of a risk are they willing to take that this particular fetus really is viable outside the womb? If they are not willing to take that risk, why are they okay drawing that line and forcing the woman to carry to term at (say) 24 weeks vs. 8 weeks? If the 24-week woman really does not want the baby, can we trust her to keep it safe in utero (no smoking, drugs etc)?
posted by desjardins at 11:53 AM on September 23, 2013

I think the poster meant that for the purposes of constructive argument, it helps to start by stating your a priori assumptions, and hearing what those of the other side are. Ignoring, minimizing, and ridiculing someone's sincere beliefs about an important issue sets us all back.

That's not what they said, however, and we're not trying to cooperatively construct an argument, so that point is irrelevant. You and the other poster are trying to control the conversation by condescendingly dictating what can and cannot be said, what must be acknowledged, and where the line of legitimacy lies. Those things are not yours to decide, in exactly the same way that women's bodies do not belong to people who want to control them.
posted by clockzero at 12:03 PM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]

Clockzero, I don't think your assertions about "trying to control the conversation" and "condescendingly dictating" can be supported. I agree that you're not trying to engage in constructive conversation, however.
posted by fraxil at 12:07 PM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]

For context, at the time depicted, Romania was experiencing a low birth rate and the regime had criminalized abortion and, perhaps just coincidentally, birth control was very difficult to obtain.

Interestingly, in Romania now, there is very little debate about abortion and birth control despite the country being fairly religious and not that keen on birth control because they've seen what it looks like when the government really does step in and decide they, not women, have the right to make decisions about people's fertility. There are a lot of people that are not very in favor of abortion or may be very personally against abortion who still don't want the government doing what it was doing.
posted by jessamyn at 12:11 PM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]

clockzero, fraxil, please cut it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:13 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]

You [gjc] think "choice rhetoric" is distasteful, which leads one to think you don't support women's right to choose, but then you justify that position by saying that the decision can be a hard one. There's just no obvious way those two claims go together, and from the way the argument has been constructed here it seems like you're trying to gratuitously problematize women's right to choose while pretending to support it. - clockzero

For what it's worth, I think gjc is exactly right about this. I'm also about as pro-choice as they come, in the sense that there should be no legal restrictions whatsoever on abortion access (except being sure that clinics are sanitary and providers are qualified etc). For many years I was a one-issue voter on this, I've donated a bunch of money to various abortion rights groups, etc.

Yet I think very late term abortions are a moral gray area, in the sense that they share important features with euthanasia of an infant -- they're not as clearly morally a-okay as an abortion at 12 weeks or whatever. I also think women and doctors know this all too well, and make decisions about them very seriously, and there's nobody better positioned to judge the morality of a given case than the people immediately involved. And even if one didn't think that, still one should acknowledge that people seeking these abortions are in an absolutely desperate position and would seek them regardless of legality, and if the procedure is illegal it will lead to unnecessary deaths or serious injury of mothers.

So - what this shows is that one can accept that very late term abortions are morally serious, and still believe they should be 100% legally unrestricted.

Acknowledging the moral seriousness of these decisions is not giving in to anti-abortion forces.

I've taught students in philosophy classes who are totally confused about what the debate is even about, because of these slogans. They'll say, "I'm pro-life, but I think abortion should be legal." or similar things. To me, it's not a winning strategy to insist that people who favor full abortion rights need to see very late-term abortions as morally clear-cut or morally exactly the same as very early-term abortions. We just need to separate the moral issue and the legal issue - the legal issue has lots of reasons why it should go toward full abortion rights, and that's what matters.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:14 PM on September 23, 2013 [14 favorites]

Yet I think very late term abortions are a moral gray area, in the sense that they share important features with euthanasia of an infant -- they're not as clearly morally a-okay as an abortion at 12 weeks or whatever...So - what this shows is that one can accept that very late term abortions are morally serious, and still believe they should be 100% legally unrestricted.

Acknowledging the moral seriousness of these decisions is not giving in to anti-abortion forces.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but I think what you're saying is quite different from what gjc said.

The remarks I was responding to seemed to be saying that because of that moral gray area, talking about abortion in general in terms of choice is very questionable. I disagree with that very strongly, but I do understand and appreciate that late-term abortions are a unique case within a contested area. I just don't think that has anything to do with couching discussions of abortion in terms of women's choice.
posted by clockzero at 12:24 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ah, I took it he was saying, "choice" makes it sound like it is a "mere choice" or something like that - where the framing in terms of choice suggests it is an easy decision or something like that. So people who feel like, "I think it would be much more involved than just making a choice" end up thinking, well, maybe I am not pro-choice after all?
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:30 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]

This is such a difficult area. I know people who have made some difficult choices, including letting a living child die naturally even though it could have been "saved" by modern medicine. Whoever is judgmental here has no idea what they are talking about.
The thing is, with modern medicine, many children who would have died just a decade ago can now be brought to life. And this distorts the whole concept of "late abortion". There are almost no natural limits left.
A friend of mine works in ob/gyn, and recently she told me that evolution has been challenged by modern medicine. Already now, they are seeing women who would have died in childbirth giving birth, babies who couldn't have survived living, fathers who are impotent fathering. Obviously, she is joyous to see these happy, successful families. She loves babies and loves being part of the process of birth. But as she says, we no longer have any guarantee that the fit are surviving, and she has already met 2nd generation infertile families giving birth to 2nd generation genetically challenged babies. Happily, most of these babies are still healthy and sound. But a disconcerting amount are not. And here, late-term abortions are really, really hard to get, while neo-natal ICU is ready all the time.

I think some of the pro-lifers are unaware of how many babies would have died naturally just a generation ago, specifically when it comes to late term abortions.
posted by mumimor at 1:01 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]

LobsterMitten: Acknowledging the moral seriousness of these decisions is not giving in to anti-abortion forces.

That's question begging. In reality, you are insisting on the "moral seriousness" of these decisions. By doing so, you shift the emotional and logical tone of the argument, similiar to the "most terrible, heart-wrenching thing ever" characterization we've heard for decades.

For a lot of people, this is a medical procedure without the Sturm und Drang you are injecting into it.
posted by spaltavian at 1:06 PM on September 23, 2013

I think LMs point is that this is rarely true with very late term abortions (not abortions generally), which is why they're difficult to obtain in the first place and sort of what the article is getting at.
posted by jessamyn at 1:08 PM on September 23, 2013

You do know you're conflating the remarks of two different posters, right? If you're just doing it to make a point, that's pretty hard to take seriously itself.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:58 PM on September 23, 2013

It is an incoherent position and hard to take seriously.

Please do not turn this thread into a generalized argument about abortion. If you need more advice or feedback about this, please hit us up on the contact form. Otherwise this is a mod note to stop this general "I am not convinced by your arguments" back and forth and stick to the narrower topic of the thread.
posted by jessamyn at 2:09 PM on September 23, 2013

It's interesting that advocates for late-term abortions cite both anecdotal experiences of the anguished, wrenching process of making a decision to abort late-term (usually in these anecdotes due to a serious health concern with the fetus or mother), but when convenient insist it is "just a medical procedure" even up to viability

I'm not sure if I am one of the posters you are referencing, but I am capable of seeing it as both a wrenching process and also a medical procedure; what is emphasized probably depends on the situation and the discussion of the agent-- the doctor, the patient, etc. This article brings those two together in a very good manner, I think: the doctor who is faced with the human side of the procedure, the patients who grapple with the medical reality of the procedure and any other health conditions. I don't think anyone has referred to it as equivalent in moral gravity to, say, wisdom tooth removal, but I also don't see how it can be described as anything but a medical procedure.
posted by jetlagaddict at 2:26 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]

That's question begging. In reality, you are insisting on the "moral seriousness" of these decisions.

I meant to be demonstrating the logical compatibility of the two beliefs, both of which I hold:
-Very late term abortion is morally serious
-Very late term abortion should be legal without restriction

These two beliefs are perfectly compatible, people can hold both at the same time without any incoherence. I don't insist that other people should hold both.

But I think a lot of people do have the feeling that very late term abortions are in some way different or more morally questionable than early term abortions. And my own feeling is, that is fine, that is an okay and very understandable way to feel. To my mind, pro-choice people should say loud and clear, taking abortion as a serious thing is compatible with being pro-choice. The feeling that these are very grave decisions is totally compatible with believing that women and their doctors should be able to make whatever decision is best in these cases without any legal barriers.
posted by LobsterMitten at 2:35 PM on September 23, 2013 [8 favorites]

Apologies
posted by fraxil at 3:03 PM on September 23, 2013

Getting married can be a morally serious decision.
Moving far away from one's loved ones can be a morally serious decision.
Taking a new job can be a morally serious decision (depending on the job).
Buying a t-shirt can be a morally serious decision (if you care about where and how t-shirts are manufactured).
Certainly, having and raising a child can be a morally serious decision.

Having an abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, can definitely be a morally serious decision. That doesn't mean that there is any role for the government, or random strangers, or the body politic to play in "helping" me to determine whether or not to do any of those things, absent some proof that I, specifically, am incompetent to make my own decisions.
posted by decathecting at 3:17 PM on September 23, 2013 [11 favorites]

Exactly.
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:01 PM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]

@ latkes, thank you for this; it's generated a thoughtful and interesting thread. As long as MeFites keep up the conversation, I feel a little better about aging out of the arena!

I watched that film (thanks, librarylis and dhartung) and am impressed. It is not merely a tale of the dark days of a despotic regime; it also conveys very well the desperation of women who live in a modern world but can be--and are--manipulated, controlled and imprisoned by the inaccessibility of safe and legal birth control and abortion.

For what it's worth, I've never known a woman who did not have in her consciousness a pretty good understanding from examples in her life, if nothing else, that a pregnancy is far more seriously and permanently consequential for a woman than it is for a man. Yes, I know more men than a generation ago are now involved fathers and, yes, absolutely there are women who are not involved mothers. Still, it is insulting and infuriating that many opponents of abortion seek to legislate against reproductive rights on the grounds that women are not thinking sufficiently seriously about these absolutely serious matters.
posted by Anitanola at 4:01 PM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]

Every time someone pro-life talks about abortions, they are talking about a healthy and viable third-term fetus that the mom has known about for 7 months and just decided to terminate due to personal inconvenience.

Every time someone pro-choice talks about abortions, they are talking about a non-viable breech baby that is often the result of incest/rape.

The vast majority of abortions fall into neither category.
posted by 256 at 9:03 PM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]

I appreciate that you're trying to encourage people to look at things with some more complexity, 256, but I don't think what you've said about "every" person who's pro-life or pro-choice is true.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:08 PM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]

Absolutely true! I apologize and retract both of those statements to be replaced with "Too often, when a pro-x person talks about abortion, they are talking about..." versions.

My point is that, within this thread, there are already at least half a dozen places where one person obviously makes a point about aborting a healthy and viable third-term fetus, and someone else responds with an argument about aborting a non-viable or life-threatening fetus (or vice-versa). As though any logic (or law for that matter) that deals with one must also deal with the other.
posted by 256 at 9:15 PM on September 23, 2013

As the doctor in the article points out, people don't tend to seek out late-term abortions for shits and giggles. They're painful and complicated, and tend to be something they're put a lot of thought into and are pretty convinced are the best thing for their situation. If a trained medical doctor agrees with them, that would be good enough for me even if I did consider it my business.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:31 PM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]

Point of information. I have heard C sections described as this horrible procedure compared to live birth or vacuum abortion....really none are a piece of cake but having experienced a C section, it was a 15 minute procedure and a quick recovery.
posted by OhSusannah at 10:32 PM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]

This is a thread about late-term abortions. It's perfectly appropriate to talk about a non-viable fetus, because that's why they're done.
posted by winna at 4:37 AM on September 24, 2013

As the doctor in the article points out, people don't tend to seek out late-term abortions for shits and giggles.

Yes, exactly. Her comparison of women in that position with the climber who cut off his own arm to get out from under a boulder really resonated with me; these are not decisions people make lightly, whatever the reasons behind them.

Some time ago, I had a miscarriage of a very much wanted pregnancy. Early scans showed a pregnancy two weeks behind where it should have been, along with another possible sign of a chromosomal abnormality. At the early stages, and when everything's anatomically standard on the mother's end, measuring that far behind means one of two things: either your dates are wrong (maybe you ovulated late), or there's a very serious problem. And my dates weren't wrong.

As soon as I got that news, I wanted the pregnancy over. No, needed it to be over. Obviously I also wanted to be dreaming, for someone to say "Oh gosh, sorry, it's all fine after all!" and so on - but knowing I couldn't have that, I had a deep, visceral need for this to just end, then and there. I loved and mourned for that little life so deeply, and at the same time I truly could not imagine how I could bear living one more minute with this doomed pregnancy inside me. I find it difficult to put that feeling into words even now, except to say that cutting off my own arm to get out from under a boulder that was killing me is the best analogy I can think of.

But the hospital's policy was to wait - wait at least another week for a third scan, then schedule surgery, which would have meant waiting another 4-7 days for that. Two weeks of enduring something that was already howling, terrible, unbearable torment after two minutes. Because maybe it was still growing, although they couldn't be sure. Because maybe my dates were wrong, no matter how certain I was that they weren't. Because why on earth wouldn't I want to wait those two weeks if it meant there was a chance, even a teeny tiny chance, that the pregnancy would pull through? I wasn't in any physical danger, so what was the problem? I remember these long, tearful conversations in which I was begging them to just end it, please, don't do this to me, but no.

I don't say this to equate my exact situation with the women making the decision for late-term abortion (although many of them, too, are looking at situations in which the prognosis for a healthy baby is very poor indeed). But I will never, ever forget that feeling of having such a powerful overwhelming need to end this now - and being told that no, someone else was deciding for me whether or not I should go on with this pregnancy. I'd always been pro-choice, but not until experiencing that feeling for myself did I really truly get how women could knowingly endanger their own lives to get unsafe illegal abortions. I am totally comfortable with believing that abortion is not a morally neutral thing that's just like any other medical procedure, and particularly late-term abortion - in my perfect world, nobody would need them, in the same way that nobody would need open-heart surgery or to euthanise a pet - and believing equally strongly that if someone desperately, deeply does need her pregnancy to be over, then abortion is the least worst option and she should get one.

It's not for me to tell other women whether their circumstances 'should' warrant that awful feeling of panic, despair, dread and grief all rolled into one, that need to make this end now. It's enough for me to know that some other woman does feel that way. And if she's going to such desperate lengths to seek out a late-term abortion, then we can be pretty sure she does. Maybe her circumstances wouldn't have had such a reaction in me, or you, or three hundred other random members of the public - I know other women who went through the same circumstances I went through and wanted to wait and see, and didn't understand why I couldn't - but what matters is not "if I was in her circumstances, how would I feel about this?". What matters is "how does she feel about this?". And if how she feels about this is that she's prepared to cut off her own arm to get out from under that boulder, then it's not for me to say "well I'd die of thirst instead, so you can't have the knife."
posted by Catseye at 5:20 AM on September 24, 2013 [24 favorites]

fraxil: It's interesting that advocates...

You seem to be confusing me, a singular person, with all pro-choice people in aggregate. You are accusing me of switching my argument out of "convenience" by comparing something I have said to something you think others have said.

You'll notice my argument is actually a critque of pro-choice rhetoric. The void that is anti-abortion "logic" doesn't require a very complex counter-argument.

OhSusannah:but having experienced a C section, it was a 15 minute procedure and a quick recovery.

And you believe your experience is typical?
posted by spaltavian at 7:30 AM on September 24, 2013 [1 favorite]

You'll notice my argument is actually a critque of pro-choice rhetoric.

Thank you. The point I was trying to make is not that any one person in this thread or other discussions have advocated both points of view (though I suspect examples could be found), but that the pro-choice movement as a whole contains both views, which are very hard to reconcile, but seems more interested in presenting a unified front in terms of defending access to abortion than it is getting into more detail about when abortion is and isn't ethical. It's eminently practical from the point of view of preserving abortion rights but causes me to experience uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. This is as someone who is sincerely interested in a dialogue with all parties about how we can base rational policy on the ethics of the issue. The arguments that government is never / can never make policy on ethical grounds is so bizarre to me, but don't want to get on too thin ice with the mods so I will say no more on that subject.
posted by fraxil at 9:40 AM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]

This is as someone who is sincerely interested in a dialogue with all parties about how we can base rational policy on the ethics of the issue. The arguments that government is never / can never make policy on ethical grounds is so bizarre to me, but don't want to get on too thin ice with the mods so I will say no more on that subject.

For me, I think it comes down to an understanding that our government's ability to write good legislation on this is currently compromised because sound regulation will require a level of medical knowledge, maturity and subtlety that we are not truly capable of achieving on an issue this polarized at this time. I wouldn't say we can never do it, but for now I don't know if it can be done without making problems worse.

I don't think this would be the majority view here, but I'm not opposed to an idealized version of late term abortion regulation. We can't entirely, in all cases, simply trust doctors and mothers to always act in the best interests of children. But we can't always trust the government to act in the best interests of doctors, mothers, and children either. There are times when I think Obama's "Above my pay grade" comments were one of the smartest things he ever said.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:41 AM on September 24, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's eminently practical from the point of view of preserving abortion rights but causes me to experience uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Does the anti-abortion movement's point of view and rhetoric also cause you cognitive dissonance? Because for me - I am pro-choice of the "on demand, no restrictions" kind - I find it incredibly hard to reconcile a movement that says at least in part abortion is murder...except when the woman is a victim of rape or incest, or her health is in danger. It's become increasingly clear to me over the years that the only reason "it's murder, no ifs ands or buts" isn't something that's pushed harder legislatively is that it's politically a really, super-unpopular view when you get down to brass tacks.

It also doesn't help that many of the anti-abortion movement's loudest voices are also opposed to anything resembling good sex education and easy, cheap access to birth control. The flat-out lying (e.g. all Planned Parenthood clinics do is murder babies with your tax dollars!) is also, um, unhelpful.
posted by rtha at 10:55 AM on September 24, 2013 [3 favorites]

Absolutely the pro-life side is fully of cognitively dissonant arguments, and in my impression a despicable undertone of hatefulness in many cases.
posted by fraxil at 11:05 AM on September 24, 2013 [3 favorites]

fraxil: defending access to abortion than it is getting into more detail about when abortion is and isn't ethical.

Because that is irrelevant to the pro-choice position. You are having an ethical debate. The pro-choice side is called pro-choice for a reason. It is the woman's choice if her actions are ethical, or even if such a thing applies at all.

The need to turn this into a referendum on ethics is central to the anti-abortion argument, and their desire to constantly make pro-choice people explain themselves to the anti-abortion crowd, in their own pre-selected language. Your begging the question, and I'm going along with it. This is the same tactic used with flag burning; where conservatives demand that I first explain that I don't hate America before I ever get to explain that the First Amendment protects flag burning regardless of whether I would burn one.

I have no interest in trying to wheedle out of Christian/Traditional ethics some mushy, faux-grief-sticken reason why women should have access to medical care. That's your deal. I leave it to women to decide what to do with their bodies, and I don't see any reason to have an ethical debate about that.
posted by spaltavian at 1:10 PM on September 24, 2013 [6 favorites]

fraxil: "Absolutely the pro-life side is fully of cognitively dissonant arguments, and in my impression a despicable undertone of hatefulness in many cases."

You don't see reasons why people would be hateful when state law requires them to not only have, but look at an ultrasound (transvaginal, no less) and listen to a spiel about adoption and then wait 24 hours before they have an abortion? Keeping in mind that these requirements aren't waived for people who are undergoing the procedure for purely medical reasons. And that in many states, abortion access is very limited. Like "drive several hundred miles" limited.

And that's just the latest round of asinine requirements women have to put up with now. Why shouldn't they be pissed off? I am, and I'm not even a woman!

I could go on and on, but I'll just leave you with this: Given the hate women who speak out against access to abortion receive constantly and the regular presence of protestors attempting to shame women who enter abortion clinics, I would say that on the whole pro-choice activists are incredibly well-tempered. Call me when they start bombing churches and murdering pastors who speak out against abortion.
posted by wierdo at 5:05 PM on September 24, 2013

You don't see reasons why people would be hateful when state law requires them to not only have, but look at an ultrasound (transvaginal, no less)

fraxil said that the pro-life side sometimes has a despicable undertone of hatefulness. Also, the invasive legislations about what women have to go through to get early abortions make my skin crawl, but this thread is about late term abortions.

winna:
This is a thread about late-term abortions. It's perfectly appropriate to talk about a non-viable fetus, because that's why they're done.

I think you are doing what 526 described, i.e. reducing a complicated issue to its easiest cases. Euthanizing a late-term fetus that is non-viable is practically non-controversial.

There will be more pushback, of course, when the fetus has non life-threatening conditions such as Down Syndrome. But where most people get really queasy is when we are talking about elective termination of healthy late-term pregnancies. Dr Robinson makes no bones about the fact that many of the abortions her practice performs fall in that category; she said a large percentage of our patients had no idea that they were pregnant. She also described the case of the French woman at 35 (to 38?) weeks who "just desperately did not want to be pregnant." And Dr Robinson turned her down, citing not ethical reasons but that she did not think it would be safe to perform that abortion in her office setting.

Most Americans do believe that most abortions should be a private choice made between a woman and her doctor. But most Americans (including me) are also going to have a reaction to that story of "GAH!! That is a healthy full-term baby!" and are not going to buy the idea that the woman's desperation is sufficient justification for terminating, regardless of whether the procedure were to take place in an office or a hospital.

I wish there could be some reasonable regulation of late-term abortions but am not sure it's possible, at least in the U.S., because the dialogue has become so poisoned. But at any rate - I've been looking forward to seeing After Tiller and am even more interested after reading that interview and the discussion here. Now I think I'll go watch the Four Months movie (thanks, librarylis).
posted by torticat at 8:18 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]

I find it incredibly hard to reconcile a movement that says at least in part abortion is murder...except when the woman is a victim of rape or incest, or her health is in danger. It's become increasingly clear to me over the years that the only reason "it's murder, no ifs ands or buts" isn't something that's pushed harder legislatively is that it's politically a really, super-unpopular view when you get down to brass tacks.

Yeah, this is something I've given a lot of thought to, myself. I've encountered very few people (quite possibly even none) whose position is an unequivocal, "There should never be any abortion performed at any time, on any patient, for any reason whatsoever, no matter what." Nearly everybody believes there are cases where exceptions should be made, and those that don't tend to be seen as extremists, even by the majority of people who unhesitatingly wear the "Pro-Life" badge. I've heard them called much worse than "extremist" by the most conservative Americans I know.

So, then the question becomes - who gets to decide when the exceptions are? Can you really get a court of jurists together and make a list that can be applied to every woman's case like a Scantron sheet on a multiple choice test? Do you convene sone kind of panel to evaluate each case? Say we want to allow abortion in the case of rape. Rape trials can drag on forever, and are notoriously hard to prove. Can she only get an abortion if there's a conviction? That'll be a late-term one at best. Does she have to make it to Grand Jury? What if the cop she reports it to that first night doesn't believe her - is she just SOL until full-term? If reporting a rape is enough to qualify, will we get false reports from desperate women?

And how many doctors have to weigh in on whether a woman's health is in danger for a therapeutic abortion? Two? Three? Will her insurance cover that if she has any? Will waiting for all those appointments push her into another trimester?

Once you're willing to concede that circumstances can sometimes make it the best decision, it seems to me like letting the woman and her doctor be the ones to examine the circumstances is the only practical way to proceed, especially if we want to keep as many abortions as early as possible for safety's sake.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:56 PM on September 24, 2013 [3 favorites]

torticat: Euthanizing a late-term fetus that is non-viable is practically non-controversial.

Uh, what? The currently policy of the GOP is never, under any circumstances.

Most Americans do believe that most abortions should be a private choice made between a woman and her doctor. But most Americans (including me) are also going to have a reaction to that story of "GAH!! That is a healthy full-term baby!" and are not going to buy the idea that the woman's desperation is sufficient justification for terminating, regardless of whether the procedure were to take place in an office or a hospital.

Which means you do not all believe that abortion "be a private choice made between a woman and her doctor".
posted by spaltavian at 5:25 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]

Well "a private choice made between a woman and her doctor" is really more of a slogan than it is a policy. Similarly with "it's a child not a choice" on the pro-life side.
posted by fraxil at 5:54 AM on September 25, 2013

fraxil: Well "a private choice made between a woman and her doctor" is really more of a slogan than it is a policy

Who are you talking about when you say something like that? I, in fact, believe women's health decisions, including when to terminate a pregnancy, to be a private choice made between a woman and her doctor. Who exactly is saying that but not really believing it? It seems you believe pro-choice people don't actually care about women's control over their own bodies, but just want to participate in the Culture of Death or whatever.

My comment was pointing out that torticat implied they think it's a private choice, but then went on to spell out how they do not think it is actually a private choice. I don't see how slogans have anything to do with it.
posted by spaltavian at 7:22 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]

But most Americans (including me) are also going to have a reaction to that story of "GAH!! That is a healthy full-term baby!"
-
Which means you do not all believe that abortion "be a private choice made between a woman and her doctor".

In general it seems to me people think it's a private choice right up until the point where they believe it is unnecessarily killing a healthy human being. Different people think it's a human being at conception on one end and only at birth on the other and everywhere between.

People don't think it should be legal to make a private choice to unnecessarily kill a human being. It might be better to phrase it as, "You believe abortion should be a private choice made between a doctor and a woman up until the point where you believe there is an actual child involved, at which point you believe society has an interest in protecting the child from being harmed by the mother and doctor."
posted by Drinky Die at 11:00 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]

...which is the point where it becomes more than a slogan. Reasonable people may still agree as to whether legislation has to address any given set of circumstances, however, such as viable/ non-viable 3rd term pregnancies, just to relate it back to the original post.
posted by fraxil at 11:19 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]

torticat: "fraxil said that the pro-life side sometimes has a despicable undertone of hatefulness. Also, the invasive legislations about what women have to go through to get early abortions make my skin crawl, but this thread is about late term abortions."

Wow, talk about a complete misreading on my part. Sorry fraxil and everyone else. :(
posted by wierdo at 1:01 PM on September 25, 2013

It might be better to phrase it as, "You believe abortion should be a private choice made between a doctor and a woman up until the point where you believe there is an actual child involved, at which point you believe society has an interest in protecting the child from being harmed by the mother and doctor."

Yes. And what I actually said was that most Americans believe that most abortions should be a private decision. Most Americans emphatically do not believe that all late-term abortions should be up to private choice. I think that 80 to 85% wish for third trimester abortions to be banned (with exceptions).

spaltavian:
torticat implied they think it's a private choice, but then went on to spell out how they do not think it is actually a private choice. I don't see how slogans have anything to do with it.

Slogans have something to do with it because they don't tell the whole story. You can agree with a general principle but apply limitations to it or spell out exceptions, which is what actual policy has to do.

If you genuinely think that supporting women's privacy and autonomy means abortion should be available on demand at any stage of pregnancy, you are in disagreement with the majority of pro-choice people, with Roe/Doe/Casey, with most European abortion law. This is not a mainstream view and it's not required as some kind of logical extension of pro-choice thinking.

Placing the dividing line for elective abortion at birth is just as problematic, from a common-sense perspective, as putting it at conception. The former leaves us with the illogic of legal late-term abortion coexisting with laws like the one that would have this woman potentially facing the death penalty (her baby was estimated to be 33-36 weeks; ironically the death penalty would apply because of the youth of the victim).
posted by torticat at 2:54 PM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]

i see that this finally made it's way to breitbart. of course they only talk about letting women have closure with their late-term aborted babies.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 10:04 AM on September 27, 2013

Spiltivan........my experience is typical for all my births and most of my friends. and some doc doesn't let the situation get. bad
posted by OhSusannah at 8:18 PM on September 27, 2013

« Older Mikey's Middle Finger | "Where are we? *When* are we?" Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

the need for late-term abortions will never go away
September 22, 2013 4:00 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

the need for late-term abortions will never go away September 22, 2013 4:00 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

the need for late-term abortions will never go away
September 22, 2013 4:00 PM Subscribe