thoughts on Obama's recent statements on abortion
Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."
There seems to be wide spread misconceptions about what Roe v Wade actually said as well as what the current policy concerning abortion in the US is. At least that's how it appeared when last this subject came up. Abortion is not an unfrettered right in the US. Roe v Wade gave the states the right to ban all abortions in the third trimester except if the life or health of the mother is threatened. Mental distress, mental health or psychological issues are accepted as falling under the health of the mother exception. Over 40 states now ban abortions in the third trimester except where the life or health of the mother is threatened.
Figures vary but I have never seen any number relating to the amount of third trimester abortions that exceeds 1% of the total of yearly abortions. There is no clear information as to why these abortions have been done.
The pro choice contingent plays up those instances where there are severe medical problems to the mother, the fetus, or both. In these examples its clear that the late term abortion was necessary. The pro life movement plays up those instances where there is not a physical cause and claims that the mental distress exemption has been abused. Obama appears to be echoing the argument set forth by the pro life movement that the mental health exemption has been abused or quite possibly should be eliminated or greatly restricted. This would increase the states ability to restrict abortions in the third trimester. But wait, its not just the third trimester.
To further complicate matters there is a flaw in Roe v Wade that has been somewhat corrected, but to the detriment to those who are pro choice. A rather arbitrary line was set at the beginning of the third trimester. At the time of the decision that was pretty close to the time that a fetus was viable outside the womb with reasonable medical attention. Anyone with even a small amount of knowledge about the advances in medical science could see how easily that line of viability could be broached. And, of course, it has been. Its quite possible that a fetus at 4 1/2 months could be considered viable.
In a court case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court refined the third trimester rule and replaces viability as the line at which the state could ban abortions to protect the life of the fetus. Again, excepting when the life or health of the mother is threatened.
As decided by Roe v Wade and refined by PP v Casey states can ban abortions at any time that the fetus is viable given reasonable medical attention. This could easily mean abortions can be banned at 4 months or, as medical science shifts, sooner. If the standards for mental health as it falls under the "life and health of the mother" exemption are tightened as obama seems to propose women could find it increasingly difficult to find an abortion provider early into the second trimester as they now find it in the third trimester.
Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."
There seems to be wide spread misconceptions about what Roe v Wade actually said as well as what the current policy concerning abortion in the US is. At least that's how it appeared when last this subject came up. Abortion is not an unfrettered right in the US. Roe v Wade gave the states the right to ban all abortions in the third trimester except if the life or health of the mother is threatened. Mental distress, mental health or psychological issues are accepted as falling under the health of the mother exception. Over 40 states now ban abortions in the third trimester except where the life or health of the mother is threatened.
Figures vary but I have never seen any number relating to the amount of third trimester abortions that exceeds 1% of the total of yearly abortions. There is no clear information as to why these abortions have been done.
The pro choice contingent plays up those instances where there are severe medical problems to the mother, the fetus, or both. In these examples its clear that the late term abortion was necessary. The pro life movement plays up those instances where there is not a physical cause and claims that the mental distress exemption has been abused. Obama appears to be echoing the argument set forth by the pro life movement that the mental health exemption has been abused or quite possibly should be eliminated or greatly restricted. This would increase the states ability to restrict abortions in the third trimester. But wait, its not just the third trimester.
To further complicate matters there is a flaw in Roe v Wade that has been somewhat corrected, but to the detriment to those who are pro choice. A rather arbitrary line was set at the beginning of the third trimester. At the time of the decision that was pretty close to the time that a fetus was viable outside the womb with reasonable medical attention. Anyone with even a small amount of knowledge about the advances in medical science could see how easily that line of viability could be broached. And, of course, it has been. Its quite possible that a fetus at 4 1/2 months could be considered viable.
In a court case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court refined the third trimester rule and replaces viability as the line at which the state could ban abortions to protect the life of the fetus. Again, excepting when the life or health of the mother is threatened.
As decided by Roe v Wade and refined by PP v Casey states can ban abortions at any time that the fetus is viable given reasonable medical attention. This could easily mean abortions can be banned at 4 months or, as medical science shifts, sooner. If the standards for mental health as it falls under the "life and health of the mother" exemption are tightened as obama seems to propose women could find it increasingly difficult to find an abortion provider early into the second trimester as they now find it in the third trimester.
Advertisement
Excellent points, all. Thanks for making them.
The viability issue is indeed a backdoor. I had a nephew born at 5 months who is in college now. He spent the first year of his life in in a IC unit. The costs were so high my in-laws insurance company didn't just cancel their insurance, but everyone's in the company my bro-in-law worked for.
Was that reasonable medical care?
July 4, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sure is the question and the dilemma. Not only is there the difficulty of making a line between viable and not viable but the law would also have to draw a line between reasonable and extraordinary medical care.
July 5, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, oceankat, for this post. It is an important issue and you have brought up some interesting points, especially about the changing definition of "viability".
July 4, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good measure might be if the fetus can be safely removed and remain viable. In those cases, the only reason to choose abortion would be cost, which I don't really think is a good enough reason to let the current chaos continue.
Complicating things even further is the Florida Jewish population. In the case of Orthodox Jews opposing abortions, there is a chance that they are doing so based upon Talmudic law, which counts the fetus as the limb of the mother. While this might seem to be a big boon for the pro-choice side, remember that such a definition would make an abortion equivalent to hacking one's arm off, and Orthodox Judaism doesn't look kindly on tattoos, let alone amputation.
July 5, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating post - thank you!
Two issues here:
"Mental distress, mental health or psychological issues accepted as falling under the health of the mother exception" I think there could be (and perhaps are) some detailed definitions as to what constitutes "mental distress" etc. Mental distress, as the words are commonly used, can be as minor as "upset" -- other mental health concerns can be serious and severe and mind-threatening as any life-threatening condition. IF or as long as the barrier is set at the third trimester, it's possible the 'mental' as opposed to 'physcal' part of the exception could be re-studied and some logical, workable distinctions made between "distress" and "mind-threatening" --- I suspect that in those examples pulled out by the pro-life side, there probably are some situations where most people would say "So why didn't you do something about it during the first two trimesters?" I don't know the area well but just some thoughts.
As to viability.... I remember the day Roe v Wade was announced, and explained. While celebrating the extremely important victory, those in the room where I was as it was being discussed looked at one another, uneasy and aware that to a certain extent we had to put blinders on to celebrate the decision ... just as the justices had, in some fashion, to put blinders on to reach the decision.
There is no firm, medical answer to the question of "when does life begin?" It was, even then, an arbitrary line that was drawn that didn't so much divide viable from non-viable as it divided "people will accept" from "it's too much to expect people to accept" It was a rationale rather than a reason ...... and we all knew it.
I think/hope that the focus on "mental distress" exceptions will keep the attention on that solveable (I think) part of the problem. The viability issue is a minefield.
This question show my ignorance (what can I say, I live in the liberal NE where it's not a serious dispute), but since PP v Casey (1992), what has happened in the States? Have any/many/most changed their laws in light of their ability to move from 'third trimester' to 'viability'?
July 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roe actually does not say abortion can be banned in the third trimester. It says abortion can be regulated in the third trimester as long as the rules regulating it make a place for the life and the health of the mother...it has always included mental health.
Later on it was taken to mean it could be banned with those exceptions for life and health noted.
Prior to that there may be not regulations on abortion...which is what Powell initially wrote and meant. But the later court of course began whittling that away almost into nothingness.
And you are right that late term is now a sloppy term. What did Obama mean when he said late term...Because in the second trimester tere are no regulations on why a women wants an abortion...merely the hoops she has to run through to get them...some sever enough to push her even further back into the 2nd trimester.
July 5, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the opinion of the court, Roe v Wade
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
July 5, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, not that I want to spend too much time correcting you but I do think its important to note that Justice Blackmun, not Powell, wrote the majority opinion. He does deserve the credit, or as others might say, the opprobrium. Powell simply voted with the majority and did not write a concurrence.
July 5, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point debcoop was making is that you said "ban" in your original post, oceankat. Roe itself says the states may regulate (within certain parameters), not "ban" abortion.
July 5, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said ban, Roe v Wade said proscribe. I believe the 2 words are synonymous in this context. Roe v Wade clearly gives the state the right to outlaw, proscribe, ban, in short to make abortions illegal to be performed in the third trimester, unless the life or health of the mother is threatened.
"the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion"
July 5, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree "ban" and "proscribe" are interchangeable in meaning. I'm trying to say (as I perceived debcoop was, too) there are always two conditions that a ban must accommodate: health and viability. So, in the part you just quoted, you left off the "For the stage subsequent to viability" stipulation. Without that, it sounds more general (like a total ban).
At any rate, to me, the last paragraph of your original post made "ban" sound much more general. Looking at it again, however, I think it's the placement of the phrase "at any time":
Of course I don't actually know how debcoop read you. (Note to self: Don't try to speak for others.) And I don't know if I've made myself any clearer.
July 5, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on now. I went to great pains to repeat more times then I felt it necessary the there was an exception for the life and health of the mother to the state's right to ban abortions in the third trimester. I think its just silly to complain that I was unclear in that I didn't include that statement every single time.
July 5, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not complaining, oceankat. I'm saying I misread you, that's all. It's my fault. It happens.
The language we use to discuss abortion does matter, however, because generalities and misinformation are exactly what pro-life politicians have always exploited to influence public opinion. You don't have to take my word for it. Here's an article about the term "partial-birth abortion."
July 5, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Dr. Obama:
"Mental stress" is a health issue.
Oh wait. You forgot you're not a doctor.
P.S. When you become president, you'll no longer be a legislator.
July 5, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a neonatal nurse. Bear in mind that we routinely have babies born in the third trimester who live viable lives. They also feel mental and emotional stress. In the neonatal units they display this in many ways. I am absolutely pro choice, but third trimester abortions should have a lot better reasons than that the mom decided not to be a mom and she waited until the third trimester to decide. If we're going to do that, it would be much, much kinder to make a law that allows for the baby to be humanely killed after birth. I'm not in favor of that. But that's the reason for partial birth abortions. The idea is to kill the baby before it's completely out of the birth canal because it's illegal once it is completely out. There are times when that's a kindness as in the severely deformed, but I don't think that most people would be in favor of it just because the Mom decides she doesn't want to be a mom and she's upset about it. She has six months to decide before we get to that point. She has an ultrasound at five months to check for abnormalities. Late term abortions should be for the physical health of the mother. This is a traumatic procedure for doctors and nurses too. It should only be done for very good reasons.
July 5, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with some of your points in that I would not like to see third term abortions become common. But I have some questions about your statements concerning what you refer to as a "partial birth abortion." I am not a medical professional, simply someone who has taken a bit of time to read up on the subject over the years. So I may not be clear in my understanding and use of medical terminology.
In my reading these are the most common reasons given for the use of a D&X. (dilation and extraction procedure)
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive but continueing the pregnancy would place the life on the mother in severe danger
The fetus is alive but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the mother's health or disable her.
The fetus is malformed and can not survive outside the womb most often due to a extreme form of hydrocephalus
I have not been able to find reliable data on how many D&X procedures have been done for the above reasons. But estimates for total D&X procedures range from 2000 to 4000 a year.
Do you have any reliable data to back up your claim that D&X procedures are used and how often used to remove viable fetuses from women for no other reason than they don't want to give birth? I would appreciate a link to further my research on this topic.
Its my understanding that due to the size of the human fetus's head, especially a hydrocephalic fetus, a physician performing a late term abortion is faced with 2 basic choices, a hysterotomy or a D&X procedure. A hysterotomy is similar to a Cesarean section and requires the physician cut into the uterus from the stomach area. This is considered a major operation with a greatly increased risk of infection, other risks to the women, as well as risk to any later pregnancies the women may attempt. Is this incorrect, is my understanding in some way lacking and in what way?
If the fetus is dead or must be removed to protect the life of the mother would you suggest a hysterotomy as the preferred method over a D&X and why?
July 5, 2008 5:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
karela,
Can you define "routinely" and specify the number of weeks you're talking about? 20 weeks seems to be a threshold for survival, and even then the survival rate is 14%. It's a given that third trimester babies are capable of surviving when they are developed enough, so it's imperative to be specific in discussions about abortion.
In any case, most abortions are not performed in the third trimester.
Of course they do.
This "reason" is what the pro-life politicians have always used to jerk our emotional chains about the issue. Again, relatively few abortions are performed in the third trimester, yet those are the most-exploited example in the political debate.
The reason for an abortion is not for anyone but the patient and doctor to evaluate. You sound like you don't trust the patients to make the decision. Do you trust doctors to help their patients make informed decisions? Do you personally know doctors who would just go along with such a reason?
As you know, "partial-birth abortions" is not a medical term. It was coined by politicians.
Also, here's why the "dilation and extraction" procedure was developed:
I guess hospitals aren't always primarily concerned about what's "humane."
Do you know anyone who had a third term abortion just because she didn't want to be a mom?
You probably know that some life-threatening abnormalities can't be detected before the 20th week. That's the problem.
July 5, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, as OceanKat quoted above from the Roe v Wade decision, the reason for the abortion becomes the State's purview once the pregnancy extends into the 3rd trimester or the fetus in a "stage subsequent to viability." At that point, the State is permitted to regulate access to an abortion (or even proscribe it), based on whether it is determined to be necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. So, the law does authorize the State to become involved in evaluating the reason for obtaining the abortion.
The question here is whether "mental distress" qualifies as reasonable criteria for preserving the life and health of the mother.
July 5, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite right. "Subsequent to viability" is in the state's purview, not before. Obviously some states want to define when "viability" occurs (in terms of number of weeks of gestation) in order to broaden the restrictions on abortion in that particular state. Some of those broader state laws have been struck down (by the lower courts) as being unconstitutional. Seven states have passed laws that ensure a woman's right to an abortion in that state whether Roe stands or falls.
It's misleading to say that the law authorizes the state to "become involved in evaluating the reason." The state sets the laws. Doctors then follow the laws.
Roe specifies the pregnant woman's mental health as a valid reason for an abortion. This again is not the state's purview, although it sounds like Obama thinks it's his purview.
July 5, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any citations for specific language in the Roe v Wade decision in regards to the mental health of the mother? The only language I've found refers to preservation of the life and health of the mother. While I wouldn't argue that mental health is not part of the mother's overall health, I'm not seeing specific reference to the other's mental health in the court's decision.
July 5, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready, if you were to read the whole opinion of the Court where the terms as used in that opinion are fully defined you would see that the court has created 3 trimesters with the state having differing regulatory powers in each. In the third trimester the state has the legal right to proscribe abortions excepting where the life or health of the mother is at stake.
Roe v Wade did not address the issue a mental health component in the life or health of the mother exception. That was addressed in Doe v Bolton, the decision released the same day as Roe v Wade.
July 5, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
CarolBG and oceankat:
I read the Court's opinion, which is what I quoted below. I don't have access to the entire text of Roe v Wade, however, but every citation I've seen, including the Court's opinion (again, see below), mentions that "mental health" is a completely relevant consideration.
Here's another seemingly trustworthy reference to mental health:
Per the Court's opinion, the two cases are supposed to be read together:
I'm just going by what I've read, which is admittedly not exhaustive, nor is it contradicted anywhere that I've seen.
July 5, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, OceanKat. I found the Court's specification that, in considering the mother's life and health, the "statute is construed to bear upon psychological as well as physical well-being." It's in Section IV(C) of the Doe v Bolton decision, found here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=179
July 5, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Roe v Wade was a pragmatic decision. I, like you, celebrated it knowing that. It was a very effective compromise that I think would have worked if the republicans had tried to make it work rather than stirring up the fundamentalists for political gain.
Third trimester abortions are so rare and while I haaven't been able to find any hard data, its my opinion based on my reading that most are for clear medical reasons so I think the mental distress aspect can be easily handled. Perhaps that is Obama's ace hole card. Maybe he knows that the fundamentalists view of mental distress being abused is nonsense and can easily say he'll stop it knowing it won't change a thing. I'm trying not to be too critical but in all honesty I'm not at all sure what Obama truly believes.
But you are correct, viability is a can of worms.
23 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability.
5 states initiate prohibitions at the third trimester
8 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, usually 24
9 states require that a second physician attend in a late term abortion in order to save the fetus if it is viable.
10 states require that a second physician certify that a late term abortion is medically necessary.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf
The real problem, of course, is that the right wingers don't want to administer the law. They want to eliminate abortions. That's where the attempts to get doctors to turn over records comes in. They want to evaluate and second guess the doctor as to the viability and the medical necessity of each abortion. With out a doubt what ever panel in places like Kansas looks at those records they will find viable fetuses that were aborted and abortions done that were not medically necessary. The panel will be preselected to make sure of that.
Another problem is that viability is not necessarily related to the age of the fetus. While the third trimester is a pretty clear line easy to legislate and administer viability is not. Depending on the health of the mother or fetus, her diet, or genetic factors a fetus at 5 months could be viable without extraordinary medical care yet a fetus at 7 months could need the care that workerbee's nephew needed. ((I am not a medical professional nor a lawyer but this is my understanding from research on this subject))
July 5, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
oceancat, "mental distress" is not a valid reason for really anything.
Depression may be. Clinical anxiety may be. Suicidal thoughts may be.
Those, however, are mental illnesses, transient though they may be, and therefore pertinent to the health provision. "Mental distress" is not.
Then there is the other component: the security net. There will be education, support and providers so that there should not be a situation where an abortion is not possible economically until too late etc. There should be fewer unwanted pregnancies through education. There should be mothers who decide they can have the child after all because there is a safety net that ensures they can still finish school by providing financial assistance, daycare facilities and other help. Even adoption; a couple people expressed their dislike of adoption and I can certainly understand it in many cases--but at the same time, there are certainly women now who would be far more comfortable with adoption than abortion but have to choose the latter for the unavailability of support for the former. One size does not fit all.
It is a big picture, and the society should try to facilitate everyone. And this type of misinterpretation of a term, even if unintentional, is thoroughly unhelpful.
July 5, 2008 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 5, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, from the quote you yourself provided, Obama appears to be echoing both points. As with other posters, however, I thank for bringing this up for a meaningful discussion.
As you say, third trimester abortions are a very rare procedure, and I'd be surprised to find out that any are performed for the mere "mental distress" of the mother. However, it's either true or it's not. If it is true, then is it right? If it's not true, then what changes have been made by suggesting that it should not be a reason?
I think it's also worthwhile to compare Obama's words to his actions in this regard. Not that his actions dispute his words, but that it paints the pragmatic picture. Despite his viewpoints, no bill has yet come up that has forced him to disagree with PP, NARAL, or NOW on anything.
July 5, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tsk, Ben, NARAL is just covering for Obama's baby-eating habit. There is no other possible explanation why they would support Obama's statement than that they are actually a secret baby-eating cult.
July 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's 2008 and men still control a woman's reproductive rights. It isn't Obama's or anyone else's business as to when and why a woman has an abortion - it is a medical decision, neither the state nor society has any vested interest in that decision.
July 5, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the society has much vested in its offspring. The darwinian view actually means that the entire purpose of a society is to ensure better chances for the human genes to survive.
Mainly, though, recognising the rights of the child in potentia is the issue. One may not simply call it a "privacy" issue, just as no other act of violence is a private matter. Whether a 6-month-old foetus is a child is a matter of some debate, but personally I would err on the side of caution.
I cannot really think of a situation where, provided the security net I mentioned above, anyone would ever need to have an abortion in the last three months outside of health issues, mental or physical, but I have never been in such a situation so I appreciate any insight you or anyone can give to such a circumstance.
The tone of your post, probably unintentionally, leaves another question: is the foetus the sole property of the woman carrying it until birth? Has the father nothing to say in the matter? Certainly the woman bears most of the burden during gestation, no pun intended, but is an interested non-deadbeat dad truly a third party in the situation?
It is a complex issue. Far more complex than "no babies should be killed" but also more complex than "it is none of anyone else's business."
July 5, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If society had a vested interest in the reproductive rights of its citizens, men would need state permission to have vasectomies. This is not the case, though, is it?
Secondly, there is no "Darwinian view" as you state it and that certainly is not the sole reason why societies were and are created.
Thirdly, I did not insinuate that a foetus was the "property" of anyone - this is the patriarchal view of women and children that they are "property" and thus subject to proprietary interest by others. It doesn't matter in the least to me that this is how the courts treat the issue, it is still wrong. You would think that in the year 2008, we would have moved from the "citizen as vassel of the state" to the more enlightened view of "the state as vassel to the citizens".
Sparta and Rome have gone from the earth, the catholic church no longer rules western civilization, the state no longer takes precedent in human reproductive rights - why are women still subject to asking the state for permission to exercise those rights?
Yes, it is as simple as I stated - it is no one else's business, not the state's, not the father's, not you, not me - it is the right of the woman to decide for herself, no one else has the right or should make that decision for her.
July 5, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there are no people, there is no society. People die, which reduces the number of people in the society. Hence, in order to maintain a society, new people must be born to replace the ones who died. A society therefore most certainly has an interest in its citizens' reproduction, albeit at a macro level. Unfortunately, reproduction at the macro level always boils down to the micro level of an individual family. It is an entirely different discussion whether this is morally just and what if anything should it affect. Should abortions be outlawed? Tying tubes in either sex? Should there be qualifications to be allowed to breed? Should people be forced to breed? Should children be raised communally rather than in families?
Organisms exist for a single reason, to reproduce. This is the intrinsic function of a complex cellular organism. Animal societies exist because the tendency and capability to form societies has led to more successful propagation of species than alternative forms of life, at least within that certain species. In humans, the social tendency has yielded generations with the highest survivability and have therefore become normative. So, yes, there most certainly is a "darwinian view" on society, fatalistic and unfeeling as it may be. Why does the father have no right of consent or vote in the fate of the child? I should not need to clarify that I am not even advocating that he should, particularly by legislating, I just cannot understand the mindset that the father has no rights. Unless the foetus is considered to be property.July 5, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there are no people, there is no society. People die, which reduces the number of people in the society.
I'm sorry, but as a pragmatic argument, this one sucks. Our country is already overpopulated and the world as a whole is already over-populated by an order of magnitude or three.
The current trend of "being fruitful and multiplying" causes or exascerbates almost all the the world's most pressing crises, and is quite likely to lead to cataclysmic consequences within our childrens' lifetime.
July 5, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be the opposite situation where a society might need to control birth rates. But quod erat demonstrandum, the society has an interest in reproduction.
July 5, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed with your QED. Disagree absolutely with your proposed solution. If you had used the word "discourage" I might grudgingly concede. But "control" smacks of a downer episode of Star Trek, or Brave New World, or Red China.
July 5, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just noticed that you said, "that would be," which appears to imply denial of catastrophic global overpopulation. Please deny your denial or prepare to be debated.
July 5, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this time there is no global society capable of co-ordinating on worldwide overpopulation. Many societies, nations, are struggling with declining populations currently. Others are holding at a steady reasonable pace and others have explosive and unsustainable growth. So discussing the issue in a hypothetical society, these would be some of the potential courses.
Note that these are not my "proposed solutions," just statements of fact.
July 6, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid I don't get the linkage between this comment and the issue of choice. Care to expand?
July 6, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I say society has an interest in reproduction and give an example where low birth rates are a concern. You point out that in the case of overpopulation this is inapplicable. I agree and state that a society struggling with overpopulation would still be interested in reproduction, just by opposite measures. You apparently take my use of the word "would" to mean that I do not understand the Earth is fairly close to capacity (please save the dick-waving in the future too.) I explain that I am only speaking of a society in the theoretical or hypothetical sense, particularly since there currently is no Earth-spanning society like that, hence my word selection.
July 6, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I understand how you got there.
So you would agree, then, that the societal imperative WRT offspring is not related to the topic of abortion and choice?
Dick waving. Funny, but not hilarious.
July 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what you mean. Examined clinically, completely without any moral judgements, reproduction is of crucial importance to any society regardless of how the society views it.
July 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
As we have already established, only under extreme conditions of low or high population. And low population in the United States is not an issue now, nor is it likely to be one in the foreseeable future. The opposite is true.
Therefore, while the question of offspring may be of interest to the state, the practice of abortion could only be seen as having a potentially positive effect on the population under today's conditions.
July 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We seem to have established very little. My assertion, which I presented in rebuttal to another poster upthread, is that reproduction is of substantial importance to a society.
You are welcome to apply my assertion to the specific situation of the United States. I have, however, not done so.
July 6, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My turn to say Q.E.D.
July 6, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roo didn't say that the state has a vested interest in anyone's reproductive rights; he said the state has a vested interest in OFFSPRING as they are actually citizens. Those not yet born, but viable are in a different category than fetal cell masses, according to most people.
Your red herring about reproductive rights is silly; the state does not grant permission for tubal ligations any more than for vasectomies.
Many of us who are strongly pro-choice would disagree with you here. Many doctors would refuse to abort a fully viable fetus, simply based on a woman's "decision."
What is your feeling about a woman who is raped and is seen by an MD who refuses to prescribe a morning after pill, or a pharmacist who refuses to dispense it?
Do you think the state has any say in a matter like that?
July 5, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, it seems to me that if the government's interest in banning abortion lies in "protecting the rights of the unborn," then how the unborn came into being is not a factor.
But of course, the arguments made by the Christian Right make it plain (to me, at least) that the "rights of the unborn child" are not the true driving issue in the campaign to outlaw abortion. Rather, religion is. And the religious motivation is ultimately based on the concepts of woman as temptress and women as chattel.
July 6, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink