Thoughts on late-term abortion and the woman-hating right

[LuckyTheDog]

I hope I am not about to start a flame war here. But...

I happen to think it is legitimate to debate whether late-term abortion should be banned -- except whenever it is needed to save the life of the mother or save her from significant injury. I am willing to hear arguments pro and con about whether we should ban it in any case at all. But I think the debate is legitimate -- so long as we are not talking about taking the option away from women who are medically at risk.

That said, however, it is very clear that such a debate is NOT what the right wants. It wants the law to choose the life of the baby over the mother's life and health 100% of the time. No exceptions. And, whatever one thinks about abortion in general or late-term abortion in particular -- that view is downright evil.

The right wing's utter devotion to choosing the life of the baby over that of the mother in EVERY CASE makes no sense. What if the woman in question has other kids? Should they have to give up their mothers to satisfy a few right-wing zealots? Should women have to endure lifetime disabilities to satisfy them?

Even in the context of a late-term abortion ban, exceptions to protect women from death or injury make perfect sense. Yet, the right's devotion to ideology trumps their concern for the lives of women and the sanctity of families. That really pisses me off. It reveals to me that the so-called "pro-life" crowd is full of woman-hating nutballs.

Thus, even if we accept the idea that society can limit late-term abortions (and that's not stipulated here), one thing should be very clear: Government should NOT be in the business of interfering with the right of families in a bad situation to make such gut-wrenching decisions for themselves. Period.

[kirby]

1. They hate the woman, but love the fetus!!! n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

3. Worse than that

They hate the FAMILY -- the father, any other children the couple has, the grandparents, everyone! SICKOS!

[DURHAM D]

2. This cow has already left the barn.

The decision was made today - the result is "let the mother die".

See if you can get a copy of The Cardinal - old movie from 1963.

[madfloridian]

4. Well, then, if you would be willing to ban it a little...

how can you criticize the level those judges reached today. Why do you think you have the right anymore than they do?

Controlling what women do with their bodies is the goal of this group. It is power over women.

[LuckyTheDog]

6. I knew I'd get this kind of thing

No, I never asserted any kind of right at all. I merely said that it was a legitimate debate to have -- so long as we never take the protection of the lives and health of women off the table. It's just my opinion.

Like I said, I am willing to hear all sides of this issue. My point was that even if we did decide that banning late-term abortion was a good idea (and that is not the case I am making) -- we'd have to allow reasonable exceptions.

I agree that control over women is the goal of the far right. But my goal here is to think through resaonable policy options free of the hysteria.

[madfloridian]

14. It should not be on the table for discussion.

Not really. If so, then I think a man should face scrutiny for a vasectomy, and not be allowed free access to Viagra.

Not being ugly, but the assumption that it is ok to make discussions about a woman giving birth is just wrong.

[madfloridian]

20. Health of women IS off the table now. Here is Ginsberg's dissent.

I found it in mcjoan's post at Kos.

"Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote for the minority. "It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists....And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She added: "Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices."

One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus will hold in the face of the Court's "moral concerns." . . . The Court's hostility to the right Casey and Roe secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctors."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/18/20138/3017

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Please keep in mind

that this decision does NOT outlaw late-term abortions at all. It doesn't affect the underlying right to abortion. It outlaws ONE procedure for performing the abortion. Other procedures are still available.

That said, it's supremely stupid to legislate medical decisions like this.

[LuckyTheDog]

7. Yes, you are right (nt)

[uppityperson]

12. I wonder how many of these have ever been done. Rather stupid indeed.

I can see it as a precedent, but outlawing something that is rarer than rare and unenforceable? Precedent.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Yes, very stupid

and very few of them are done, but when they ARE done, it's done with good reason.

The important precedent from this is that a procedure can be banned without concern for the health of the mother. As I understand it, if the mother's life is endangered, this procedure is still legal.

Practically, doctors will just determine, in the few cases this needed, that the mother's life is at risk. So it probably won't actually restrict the procedure in any meaningful way, but the notion that the mother's health and future reproductive ability can be ignored is troublesome.

[madfloridian]

16. It outlaws the one that a woman who is in critical condition could have.

The caesarean would not be done probably if woman were diagnosed with eclampsia.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. If she were in critical condition

then her life would certainly be in danger, and thus the procedure would be available to her, according to my understanding.

The problem with this law was that it contained no exception to preserve the health and future reproductive ability of the woman.

[madfloridian]

18. And would the doctor act freely or with fear of breaking a law.

And do you think the woman would get the care she needs or be the victim of a medical staff that is cowed by whether someone in a court will be second guessing them.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I'm simply pointing out

what this decision does or does not ban. This certainly isn't the only situation where doctors have to worry about possible legal consequences.

But a woman in critical condition requiring an intact dilation and extraction doesn't strike me as an edge case - if she's critical, by definition her life is in danger.

[DURHAM D]

23. I don't understand your statement. "...the procedure would be available.."

The Supreme's decision yesterday for the first time affirmed a state regulation that does not consider the health/life of the mother. First time in 30 years that a regulation was allowed to be put in place that does not consider the life of the mother.

In other words, the interests of the fetus (if viable or not) trumps the interests of the mother.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. If the procedure

were necessary to save the life of the mother, it would be legal to perform it.

[Morgana LaFey]

8. Their propaganda is so effective. Do you know you've been conned?

I think the debate is legitimate -- so long as we are not talking about taking the option away from women who are medically at risk.

That's when it's used.

C'mon. Let's use Morgana's famous common sense test, shall we? Let's say a non-medically at risk woman decides in the 3rd trimester that she does NOT want to complete the pregnancy. Where the HELL is she going to find a doctor to simply abort a viable fetus? Even if she could find a doctor to terminate her pregnancy. that doctor would more likely keep the fetus alive and make sure it got put up for adoption.

Now, have you EVER heard of such circumstances happening? No, you haven't. Women who find themselves in that situation go on to full term and put the child up for adoption. It's not fun, but that's what they do.

So WHY do you think these ghastly medical procedures are ever considered, let alone done? Did it ever occur to you to RESEARCH the situation?

They're done because the fetus is severely deformed and/or ill and not able to stay alive once born, and usually if not always, the women's health is at severe risk as well.

WOMEN DO NOT CHOOSE ABORTION ON A WHIM, or as a matter of convenience -- doctors wouldn't support that anyway -- so your very question is sexist, trivializing women's concerns and pretending, if only in your own mind, that women are fucking flighty and irresponsible enough to need adult supervision in the form of Congress and SCOTUS.

Grrrr. :nuke:

[LuckyTheDog]

9. Reading things I never wrote

I NEVER said that "WOMEN ... CHOOSE ABORTION ON A WHIM, or as a matter of convenience." Not once. Never even implied that.

And I tend to agree that if "fetus is severely deformed and/or ill and not able to stay alive once born" and/or "the women's health is at severe risk as well," it makes no sense to deny an abortion. In fact, I'm not even totally convinced that it EVER is a good idea to deny an abortion. As you stated, very few women (if any) would have a late-term abortion "for convenience."

And in most cases, I think the doctor WOULD counsel that adoption is a better option if the fetus was viable and the woman was healthy.

As a rule, society certainly can trust the judgement of women in these cases. But, it's also true that even among pro-choice people, some folks are conflicted about late-term abortions. And so, an honest debate seems called for. We should clear the air and reach a consenus.

I merely was pointing out that, even if one accepts the "need" for such bans, the approach of the right wing is evil.

[LuckyTheDog]

10. Reading things I never wrote

I NEVER said that "WOMEN ... CHOOSE ABORTION ON A WHIM, or as a matter of convenience." Not once. Never even implied that.

And I tend to agree that if "fetus is severely deformed and/or ill and not able to stay alive once born" and/or "the women's health is at severe risk as well," it makes no sense to deny an abortion. In fact, I'm not even totally convinced that it EVER is a good idea to deny an abortion. As you stated, very few women (if any) would have a late-term abortion "for convenience."

And in most cases, I think the doctor WOULD counsel that adoption is a better option if the fetus was viable and the woman was healthy.

As a rule, society certainly can trust the judgement of women in these cases. But, it's also true that even among pro-choice people, some folks are conflicted about late-term abortions. And so, an honest debate seems called for. We should clear the air and reach a consenus.

I merely was pointing out that, even if one accepts the "need" for such bans, the approach of the right wing is evil.

[LuckyTheDog]

22. One more thing

I always hear from right-wingers that late-term abortions are "never medically necessary," which I know is total crap. But, for the sake of argument, I grant them that in order to say this:

"OK, then, why NOT make legal exceptions for medical situations? I mean, hey, if it's never, medically necessary, then a provision to protect women would be just academic in terms of its real-world impact, right?"

On the other hand, I hear from fellow pro-choicers that late-term abortion NEVER happens UNLESS it is medically necessary. That's probably much, much closer to the truth. But, even so, it should be fair to ask this:

"If no woman could be denied a late-term abortion that is medically necessary -- and all of them are medically necessary -- then any well-written 'ban' would be just academic in terms of its real-world impact, right?"

But, of course, the problem is that abortion is not merely a public health issue. It is the hottest of hot political issues. And, in such an environment, neither side wants to grant even a symbolic victory to the other side that could be used as a future precedent.

I get that. And, so, when push comes to shove, I'll err on the side of a compete pro-choice position. No restrictions. There is no justification for putting women at risk. But, I just wish the debate was not what it is. I wish the U.S. was more sane about this stuff.

[mloutre]

11. luckydog, you've got some kind of nerve posting this...

... so let me say thank you for having the stones to include another side of the many-faceted, no-easy-answers debate on this painful subject. That's exactly what it is -- complicated and impossible to resolve in any fully inclusive way.

My own POV on the topic is colored by something that the vast majority of the pontificating preachers, pundits, and politicians don't have: personal experience. As I noted earlier this evening in a separate post that's definitely related to the discussion in this thread, but is too long to include as a comment here now:

"Dear SCOTUS: If you haven't had one, then you need to STFU."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x694683

Abortion needs to be safe, legal and rare. Nobody has ever wanted to have an abortion that I know of, but many have felt that it was their only available option. There's a middle ground in which many feel that it's their best available option even though it's not their only one, but that's where the lines get blurry and the white grays into white and back again.

There are no answers. But there are questions. There always will be questions. There is no shortage of them, but they still need to be asked even when that's not popular (from either side of the political, ethical, legal, and/or spiritual fences).

[madfloridian]

15. Vasectomies and Viagra should also be on the table for discussion.

What if I think it offensive that some men choose not to have children. What if I or "some" find it not proper for men to have free access to Viagra?

Let's make some rulings about that as well.

Our party sold out on this issue so we could win elections. They took two issues off the table so they could win again....women, and gays.

They will not fight for women to have contraception...I point to Schumer picking anti-choice Casey to run. Schumer said we could no longer worry abtout such issues.

[Morgana LaFey]

24. Yeah, that rightwing point of view is SO valued and impt to include

I'm always so fucking pleased to see it.

And as for you, you're getting on my last nerve. I applaud your telling your story so honestly; I applaud the attitude you had over your own situation.

What I do NOT applaud is your apparent belief that because you went through it you know all about abortions and decisions and women's needs and men who are their mates. THIS post of yours confirms that: you seem to think all points of view are valid. Tain't necessarily so, ESPECIALLY in the case of rightwing talking points -- which you're so busy supporting because by golly YOU and your girlfriend faced an abortion decision once upon a time and as a result YOU now know all about it.

Let me put it this way: YOU may have more questions than are necessary and warranted. Don't slam YOUR questions on us.

Abortion needs to be safe, legal and rare.

Bullshit. As I said to you on another thread: it needs to be none of anyone else's goddamned business. That miserable, triangulating mantra you've trotted out here as if it MEANS something, the one dreamed up by Mr. Triangulator himself, is just bullshit because it ALREADY cedes moral ground on the subject by admitting some underlying assumption as to the shamefulness or undesirability or "lesser of two evils-ness" or something of abortion. BULLSHIT.

There should be just as many abortions as are needed and wanted and not one abortion less. Abortion rates go down when economic opportunities for women go up. Abortions become less necessary with good, reliable, safe, effective, readily available birth control. If you want to work towards those things, be my guest.

But don't be goddamned wringing your hands over abortion and making all those of us who happen to have uteruses feel we owe you or anyone else in the whole fucking WORLD an explanation or apology of any sort about what goes on inside our own bodies. We do NOT.

In the meantime, I'm sorry for your loss, but it doesn't give you quite the right to pontificate all over us that you think it does. Frankly a little humility about the fact that you do not and never will have a uterus is in order.

[omega minimo]

21. I wanted to kick this but reading the thread is exhausting

because of the amazing level of misinformation and misunderstanding, even when people think they are being openminded and exercising some understanding.

The procedure is used in extreme cases only and it's availability is needed in those cases. Unless it happens to you and your family, that's all you need to know about it.

In this case, it has been used as the tip of a wedge driven into the human rights of womens. All the ignorant agonizing about hypocritical hypotheticals ignores the history of women's lives before abortion became safe and legal.

The OP comments on how it doesn't make sense. Right. It makes no sense because this is not about life-- it's about control.

[Lyric]

26. I don't have a lot of experience debating abortion.

But I *am* a woman, and of childbearing age, so this issue affects me with particular intensity.

I believe that laws restricting abortion, even a *little*, are the legislative form of a strawman. The point of them isn't to limit the number of abortions, because there are SO many more effective ways to reduce the number of abortions, and the right doesn't support them. They balk against making contraception readily available. They thwart efforts to more fully educate our young people about sexuality and responsible decisions. They hamper efforts to ease the plight of women in poverty, who often choose abortion because they can't afford the baby, and don't want to take the medical risk of maintaining a pregnancy (carrying a pregnancy to full-term is significantly more dangerous to the woman than having an abortion).

Logic tells me that because the right wing consistently opposes things that would have a REAL impact on the number of abortions performed every year, then reducing the number of abortions cannot be their real goal. So then--what is?

Examining it from the standpoint of logic and reason would lead me to contemplate what the right-wing thinks that the effect would be on society if all voluntary abortion was made illegal. (I'm defining "voluntary" as "not necessary to preserve the life of the mother").

1. They think that sex outside of marriage would become taboo again--therefore decreasing the rate of extramarital sex, and increasing the rate of marriage.
2. They think that women would be less likely to have careers and incomes of their own, due to being bound to the home by motherhood and pregnancy, therefore increasing women's dependence upon men.

And that is very telling. It seems to me that criminalizing abortion is more about controlling women's choices--careers, sexuality, marriage, etc.--than about saving babies. It's about reimposing the patriarchy. It's about making us little more than property again--after all, if we cede autonomy over our own bodies to a government dominated by men, what would we have left to truly call our own? With nothing that is 100% your own, not even your body itself, you become the property of someone (or something) else. You become a slave--to husband, to father, to government.

The repercussions mean little to nothing, to the right wing. They don't care how many subversives die in back alleys. They don't care how many dreams will be destroyed. Control is everything. The loss of our dignity and human liberty is just "collateral damage".

I am not someone familiar with debating abortion, and and I don't know many of the excellent arguments that I've seen feminists on DU use. But I am very, very angry. I am nobody's property, and the decisions I made about my body are mine alone. If Roe is ever overturned, and laws are put into place to limit my right to an abortion, I will find a way to break them. In fact, I'll go to medical school and become an OB/GYN, so I can help other women break them too. I will not obey a law meant to oppress me or put me back into the chains that my mother and grandmother fought so hard to break. I'd rather go to prison. In fact, I'd rather die.