here we go again...

[poetry_writer]

But so far, we really haven't been talking about getting rid of abortion, btu simply where the restrictions on it start, and what things must be overcome (by the woman seeking one) to get one.

For some, these standards are too loose; for others, too strict.

This particular incarnation (va law we initially started to discuss) has two elements:

1. a vaginal ultrasound (which was clarified that the mother could choose vaginal or abdominal);

2. showing the pregnant woman the baby within her, having her hear the heart beat.


The relevant question, I think, is whether or not this standard is unreasonable.

Now, for the first part, I think that most people have fairly argued that it is not appropriate to subject women to this particularly invasive ultrasound unless medically necessary -- and an abdominal ultrasound will suffice. If it is true that the law asserts the woman has a choice, then I would be happy with this. If she does not have a choice, then I am not happy about it at all. I find the procedure to be needlessly invasive, akin to rape, and essentially demeaning.

For the second part, I think that this particular standard is interesting.

On the one hand, I find it to be troubling. It assumes that the woman in question lacks overall awareness of herself, her body, who/what is in her body, and what she wants to do about it considering all of her options. I suggest that by the time a woman has decided to have an abortion, she has already run through many aspects of her feelings and beliefs and experiences that she is choosing the best possible solution for her - that is, that abortion is a last resort.

Perhaps you can say that I take a optimistic view of people. This may not be realistic, but I certainly hope that it is so.

If this is the case, then the woman actually "seeing" the baby is unnecessary. In fact, if it were me, I think that "seeing" the baby would be particularly hurtful, as I would have already agonized over this decision at great length, and would be working to live with the fact that I find myself in such dire straights as to require an abortion (something I work and seek to avoid for myself, as much as for other women in so much as I can). I would consider it quite extreme, and it likely still wouldn't put me off my decision.

I think that others can (and have) argued that this is simply a necessary step. I think Alan put it most colorfully -- to look the baby in the eye before killing it. I can certainly value this opinion. I just question whether it is actually necessary.

But, I am also assuming a great deal -- assuming, mostly, the best of people.

Why do you think that women who see the baby on ultrasound ususally do not have an abortion?

[loosechickens]

I agree completely, poetry-writer, that children are precious. Which is why I donate generously every year to Planned Parenthood in their work to prevent the most possible unwanted pregnancies. Because every child deserves to be wanted and valued. I want to see the abortion problem dealt with at the source, BEFORE that egg and sperm manage to become so closely connected.

[JaneV2.0]

I am as pro abortion as anyone, and as supportive on the far end continuum scale of life as anyone here, but I agree with you that there is an odd lack of balance on this website. It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.

It just seems dishonest to me, and tone deaf. But you really cannot expect balance here on this site, now you know better.

Maybe I'm just particularly obtuse, but I don't get what the typical (early first trimester) abortee "loses." This is a collection of barely-differentiated cells with no apparent consciousness whatsoever, let alone consciousness of loss. If you believe in an eternal soul, it persists regardless. The loss, if any, is experienced by observers.

[Spartana]

Don't get me wrong Spartana, the male 1/2 of the equation should absolutely share the responsibility equally, straight up 50/50. I was just trying to be practical, too. Truth is, as you said, for a very long time our culture has viewed contraception as the woman's responsibility. Even though that's wrong, it IS where we are so it is also where we have to start from. The only way I can think of to really change that is to put a twist on what we're teaching the upcoming generations. Both the boys and girls should be taught about the responsibility along with the mechanics. It is possible to get to a new normal where its just assumed that the responsibility is split, but its going to take a while. Fair or not, for the moment you girls are still the ones that have the best opportunity to take control of the situation.

Ha Ha - I know what you meant and I was just joking with you. Same with the "guys get full custody" comment (although that might actually stop alot of guys from having unprotected sex). And I agree that, for the most part, women still assume most /all of the responsibilty for birth control - and I believe it will remain that way even if men can be held at least financially responsible for child rearing (gosh darn paternity test - wrecking the lives of men everywhere :-)!). I'm not really sure how to change that unless all women who don't want to get pregnant are 100% willing to NEVER have sex with someone who isn't wearing a condom - thus forcing men to either suit up or abstain. And even then it's still the woman calling the shots.

[Gregg]

Ha Ha - I know what you meant and I was just joking with you.

Yea, this thread just has the ole' mod hairs standing up. Makes me jumpy. Kinda like those warm, muggy, spring days when you can just feel the storm about to bust loose.

[Spartana]

Maybe I'm just particularly obtuse, but I don't get what the typical (early first trimester) abortee "loses." This is a collection of barely-differentiated cells with no apparent consciousness whatsoever, let alone consciousness of loss. If you believe in an eternal soul, it persists regardless. The loss, if any, is experienced by observers.

And of course here is the crux of it all - what is "life" and "when" does it begin. Since that definition differs for everyone - and there are reams of scientific data to support that "life begins" at every different state of fetal development - then abortion will always going to be an open debate. If one believes it begins at conception, like many religious people do - including Santorum - as well as others who aren't religious yet base the definition that a seperate life begins at conception from a scientific view, then it's impossible to debate abortion with folks who don't belief that life begins until a later stage in fetal development. Even the issue of "viablity" is highly contestable. Those things will always be debatable, there will always be scientific data to support all sides, and therefore these kinds of debates will go on and on with no end in sight. But people like Santorum, who, as you pointed out, wish to do away with contraceptives use, don't get my vote.

[JaneV2.0]

I was just scanning information about early pregnancy loss, and it stated that about 60% of fertilized eggs (zygotes) fail to implant, and that as much as 20% of those who do implant abort spontaneously. That's not an inconsiderable number.

And then there's this:
Genesis 38:9-10

"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."

So why aren't Santorum et al addressing the widespread scourge of seed-spilling? (Note God's beef wasn't with adultery, apparently...)

[Midwest]

And then there's this:
Genesis 38:9-10

"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."

So why aren't Santorum et al addressing the widespread scourge of seed-spilling? (Note God's beef wasn't with adultery, apparently...)

I don't claim to be a biblical scholar or a Santorum supporter, but given the quote is from Genesis (old testament), it may be that Christians don't view it as binding. Similar to the fact that Christians don't follow may other old testament rules.

[creaker]

I was just scanning information about early pregnancy loss, and it stated that about 60% of fertilized eggs (zygotes) fail to implant, and that as much as 20% of those who do implant abort spontaneously. That's not an inconsiderable number.

And then there's this:
Genesis 38:9-10

"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."

So why aren't Santorum et al addressing the widespread scourge of seed-spilling? (Note God's beef wasn't with adultery, apparently...)

His church does - as a form of contraception, this is a no-no as well.

[poetry_writer]

Maybe I'm just particularly obtuse, but I don't get what the typical (early first trimester) abortee "loses." This is a collection of barely-differentiated cells with no apparent consciousness whatsoever, let alone consciousness of loss. If you believe in an eternal soul, it persists regardless. The loss, if any, is experienced by observers.

Herein lies the problem. What you said in the above post isnt true, which you would know if you looked at an ultrasound. Are you too afraid to look knowing that you might see something that disturbs the comfortable notion that it is a blob of cells? Do you know when the heart starts beating? My daughter in law is just at six weeks pregnant and my son was beaming with joy last week. He heard his babys heartbeat. Does a blob of cells have a heartbeat? Think on it.