Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld

Remove all ads!

You wouldn't know it based on the news in the U.S., but the Virginia Tech shooting wasn't the only thing that happened in the U.S. last week. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in upholding a law banning partial birth abortions. Newseek posted an article on some potential ramifications of this decision.

For my part, I'm very much of two minds on this subject. On one hand, I have a problem with terminating a fetus that is capable of surviving outside the womb. Fetuses as early as 22 weeks in gestation time have survived. The final trimester starts at 27 weeks, and the survival rate of fetuses at that stage have increased dramatically in recent years due to technological advances in medicine. Partial birth abortion can occur even later than that - basically anyime before the woman would give birth. I don't think it's right to terminate the life of a viable fetus.

On the other hand, the SC also ruled that the law does not need to make any exceptions regarding the life of the mother, by saying, "there is no reason this procedure would ever need to be performed to save the life of the mother". That seems to be a rather all-ecompassing position for the 5 SC Justices who voted in favor of the measure - none of whom have medical degrees - to take.

Make no mistake - I am pro-chioce. However, I feel that it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances - such as a direct threat to the mother's life - for an abortion to be conducted after the first trimester. Maybe my perspective on this has changed recently, as I am an expectant father, but 13 weeks is long enough to get the first series of tests done, to see if the fetus has some type of severe genetic abnormality. Or, if you prefer, 13 weeks is long enough to decide that you do not wish to have the baby. Regardless, I feel that up to the 13 week mark a woman should have the right to chose to end a pregnancy for whatever reason she has.

(As an aside, while the 14th Amendment is cited in the majority opinion in the Roe v. Wade decision, the concurring opinion actually states that one reason for allowing abortions in the first trimester is that the risks to the woman's life and health of receiving an abortion are less than the risks associated with carrying the child to term. For full disclosure, I also feel the need to link to the dissenting opinion.)

However, what matters most to me, is that many are saying that the SC decision is the first step on the road to repealling Roe v. Wade. I find such statements absurd. Apart from the self-evident nature of there being a huge difference between a viable and non-viable fetus, such an action would be a political coup de grace to the Republican party. So what gives here? Is it just blowing a lot of smoke, or is there actually some validity to this contention?

[ April 23, 2007, 19:55: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Aldeth, the reason they say it would never be needed to be done in order to save the mother is because they could induce labor and remove the baby alive. I am also pro-choice, but I am very much against partial birth abortions. 6months is more than ample time to decide to have an abortion, and once the child can survive without the mother abortion should no longer be an option. After all a partial birth abortion is just that, a birthing. If they can birth the aborted child then they can birth a living child early.

 

And I generally agree with that statement SA. While I have some reservations, I too, think that even 13 weeks is ample time for most people to decide whether or not to have an abortion. What I really was concerned about is the thought process involved in those who postulate that the upholding of this law is the first step to repealing Roe v. Wade. That seems quite the leap in logic to me.

 

yes it does. I am very much a staunch supporter of Roe v Wade and don't see how banning partial birth abortion is the same as puting roe v wade on notice. Are there really very many people on the pro-choice side even supporting partial birth abortions?

Me being pro-choice, though, has no bearing on my feelings towards abortion. I'm against abortion. I don't like it and think it should only be a last resort, but I also realize that it's not my place to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their bodies. I don't have to agree with the choice to have an abortion to support women in their right to have an abortion.

I added that last bit because far too often the pro-life people try to potray the pro-choice people as pro-murder, people actively trying to kill babies. That simply is not so. Probably the most ironic thing is that the same people that are pro-life are the ones that advocate the death penalty.

 

This isn't meant to be an attack, but this type of logic has never made sense to me. If you don't agree with abortion, it is usually not because you don't support the woman's right to choose. It is usually because you aren't comfortable with terminating the life of a child, regardless of whether or not it has been born, yet. The right to life, in my opinion, trumps the right to choose. The issue isn't about whether or not I have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. It's about whether or not I (or anyone else) have the right to decide for a child whether it lives or dies. I don't think that the pro-choice crowd supports murder, but I do think that their logic is often faulty.

 

I'm with Drew on this. I'm in the pro-life camp for this reason primarily, but also because the pro-choice camp never seems to take the responsibility of the mother into account. The way I see it, she already made the choice - when she chose to have unprotected sex. The vast majority of pregnancies are the result of consentual sex. There are very simple methods available in the modern world for enjoying all the benefits of having sex while still preventing pregnancy - and she chose to forgo them.

When you decide not to wear a seatbelt, you don't get to choose whether or not you'll be injured or killed if you wreck your car. I hold pregnant women to the same standard. I believe she has a responsibility to carry the child to term and either raise it or give it up for adoption - God knows there are a multitude of good parents out there lining up to adopt healthy infants.

I'd also like to add that I hate the term "pro-life" for what a loaded term it is. It suggests that if you're not "pro-life" then you're objectively "pro-death," which I've always found intellectually dishonest. Though I think many pro-choice arguements are misguided, any reasonable person can see that the pro-choice people aren't out to murder babies, they believe they're protecting the rights of women. I find such black-and-white, line in the sand BS to be very unhelpful. I also find biblical arguements to be missing the point (but that's how I feel about biblical arguements in almost every subject, really).

There's my 20% of a dime.

[edited for spelllign.]

[ April 24, 2007, 02:20: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

And what about the ones who haden't consented? What are your views on their choices?

 

This is where the issue gets more difficult for me, but I believe there's gray area in any issue.

Personally - am in favor of abortion in the case of rape, incest, or extreme young age of the woman (younger than, say, 10 or 11). And even then I'm only ok with it in the first trimester. I would also include that I'm ok with it when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, but the incidence of this in modern medicine are so rare given today's medical technology that I don't consider it much of a factor. The lobby that supports partial-birth abortion is having trouble difinitively proving that caveat as well, which as I understand it is one reason why SCOTUS voted to uphold the ban.

You may be thinking "but DR, isn't it taking life either way?" Sure it is - hence the gray area for me. I don't think a woman should be forced to carry the child of her rapist to term; I don't think victims of incest should be forced to bear a severaly-defected fetus; and I think a 10 year old is far too young to understand the consquences of her actions. If she didn't choose the action or was persuaded into it by an older male, then she falls under the rape/child sexual abuse category. There is also the arguement that carrying a child to term in such a young body is a great medical risk to both the mother and the child, considering the physical toll labor can take.

But I consider all women in this group to be a caveat, because all of them together only account for a very small percentage of pregnancies, at least in civilized society. The rest of them - even a 14 year old girl with a public-school education - knows that having sex means you're gonna get knocked up.

It's like that new show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" Most people learn that sex=pregnant long before they learn 5th grade math. And the rest can figure it out just by watching prime-time TV.

 

I might be mistaken, but it is my understanding that this type of procedure is almost never performed anyway, except in the most desparate situations. I've heard that all this is just the beginning of a ploy to get more types of abortions banned by the Supreme Court of Fools (yes, I'm still mad about the way they took the election from Al Gore in 2000).

If someone knows how many of these horrific procedures are performed each year, I would really like to hear from them, as I have never researched it myself, but have heard from a good source that they are very rare.

 

That's kind of where I am too. I agree with Clinton's (Bill that is, not Hillary) view on it: "Abortions should be legal, safe, and rare."

However, DR does bring up an interesting point -a lot of people try to make this a black and white issue, when if fact there are many shades of gray to be considered. I consider myself pro-choice - but with caveats. DR considers himself pro-life - but again with caveats. This issue has been framed in such a way where it would appear that you need to be on one extreme or the other. It seems that there are two camps. On one side, life begins at conception, and that there is no reason to get an abortion under any circumstances, and on the other side, abortion should be done on-demand at any time during pregnancy. While I do not doubt that there are people who support one of those two viewpoints, I think they represent a very small percentage of the population. I think the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle. Where you fall in the middle is highly variable, but most people are somewhat pro-choice AND somewhat pro-life.

I'm not even sure how I would characterize DR and myself in this debate the more I think about it. Am I REALLY pro-choice if I set the cutoff for when you can have an abortion at the viability of the fetus, and preferably during the first trimester? That's an especially tricky point to pick because it's a moving target. Right now, you can argue that the fetus is viable as early as 22 weeks. Given advances in medical technology, we can expect that the viability age will be pushed to even earlier points. On the other hand, is DR REALLY pro-life if there are circumstances - albeit few - where he would consider abortion a legitimate choice?

You see, that's what I don't get. Banning partial birth abortion is taking away the extreme of one side of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. While this can be viewed as a victory for the pro-life side, since most people didn't think partial birth abortion was OK in the first place, it doesn't really matter to them.

However, if they repeal Roe v. Wade, you are essentially eliminating the pro-life side of the debate. The idea here is we should be moving towards the middle. By getting rid of one of the extreme positions - that's good. The next logical step should be to get rid of some of the extremes at the other side. Granted, that is accomplished by doing nothing. Roe v. Wade spells out clearly that no state can pass a law that makes it illegal for women to have an abortion during the first trimester.

While I don't have a number, I can guarantee that it's a very small one. They are extremely rare, but that's more because of what qualifies as a partial birth abortion. The only thing that qualifies is when the fetus's head pops out, you crush it, killing the fetus. That almost never happens. More commonly, the fetus is given a lethal injection, and then is dismembered and taken out in pieces. That's not considered a partial birth abortion, and isn't covered by this ruling. Frankly, I think both methods are horrific, and I wouldn't mind seeing both banned.

 

I suppose it depends greatly on your point of view. Can you be anti-murder and still be in favor of the death penalty? Can you be for a ban on assault weapons and for loophole-free gun laws, but still favor the second ammendment? I think yes in both cases.

To me, purely black and white issues are extremely rare - and those who try to MAKE everything a black and white issue are usually the source of the controversy. You don't have to agree with something in an absolute sense to agree with it in principal. I think in order to agree in principal your position has to apply to the sizeable majority of cases. I'm comfortable that mine does with abortion.

 

DR, IMO the most intelligent post I've seen lately.

 

@DR - I wasn't trying to be critical of your position - at least no more so than I was being of myself. You were selected out of convenience, not because I disagreed with your position. In fact, you are the only person posting in this topic who claimed to be pro-life - so I had a sample size of one to chose from.

Really, though, you're just confirming what I had written - i.e., most people do NOT fit on the extremes, even though the debate on abortion is seemingly controlled by those holding extreme positions. Just like I'm pro-choice, but I'm not on the extreme of the pro-choice side, you are pro-life, but not on the extreme of the pro-life side.

Frankly, I do agree that your position is reasonable, and does apply to the majority of cases. I think the same goes for my point of view. The thing is though, neither of us have a dog in this fight. To the people in the trenches fighting this battle, neither of our positions are acceptable. I'm not pro-choice enough, and you're not pro-life enough. That's the point I was trying to make, while at the same time pointing out an irony at the core of this debate. To state it simply, most people would be willing to compromise at some middle of the road point, but the people controlling the debate will not be satified with anything less than one of the extremes. That's why it's hard for very many people to plant themselves firmly in one camp or the other.

 

Aldeth - I didn't think you were being critical. In fact, I appreciated the opportunity to clarify my position.

And thanks Nakia.

 

I definitely think the Supreme Court hit it right on this one. This ruling actually does several things:

1. It gives a timeframe when a fetus has some rights. This means killing a pregnant woman in her third trimester can (and probably will) result in two murder charges. A lot of states have been pushing this to the limit, but there had been no Supreme Court ruling to back them up -- bad guys beware.

2. Limits abortions. Just as I do not agree with the NRA regarding a ban of assault rifles weakens the second amendment; I did not agree with the extreme pro-choicers who say that any restriction weakens Roe vs. Wade. I think by barring this particularly barbaric procedure, Roe vs. Wade is actually strengthened. Yes, strengthened. Most moderates do believe there are reasons for abortion, but were very much against partial birth abortion and could not in good conscience support such an act. This ruling allows moderates to actually support abortion and takes a big marketing tool from the pro-life crusade.

3. The clause that even to save the life of the mother is quite misleading. It's a good clause. Many early term births are performed (either c-section or induced) to save the life of a mother. To state you cannot abort, but must perform an early birth is certainly reasonable and just adds to #2 above.

I guess I'm somewhat of a dichotomy -- a republican who believes there needs to be better enforcement of gun laws and restrictions on what weapons are available to the public, along with tighter controls over who may have a weapon. I also am very much for the woman's right to choose. I personally disagree with abortion but I don't believe it is my right to enforce that belief on others. I also believe that ANYTIME the government gets involved in very personal issues, things go wrong. Who is to decide rape or incest (as DR points out)? What evidence is necessary? We, of course, can't take the victim's word for it; if she's willing to kill a baby she's wiling to lie about the act responsible (heavy sarcasm there). I don't have confidence a government social worker is the right person to make that decision. And by the time any court would decide the child would be in kindergarten.

 

Actually, after re-reading the opinions in the links of the original post of this topic, it doesn't weaken Roe v. Wade AT ALL. In fact, the Roe v. Wade decision acknowledges that the later in the pregnancy an abortion is performed, the higher the risks to the mother. The decision went so far as to say that states DO have a right to limit late-term (they specifically used the term 3rd trimester) abortions.

 

I'd like to start by saying I've immensely enjoyed this conversation. And, DR, the times that you stated that you see abortion as a viable option are the only times I think it should be considered as well. After all adoption is always there. That said I am still pro-choice for women to have access to an abortion if they so choose. Why I think it should remain a legal option goes beyond just the rights of the woman. While that's a big part, I think, that an equally important part of it is that I know that the option doesn't go away just because it becomes illegal. It just goes underground where it is unregulated and dangerous. Remember, abortion is nothing new, women have been doing it for a very very long time. Reasonably safe abortions are new, and are only thanks to them being legal and regulated.

If a woman wants an abortion she can always get an abortion all we can do is decide how safe we make it for her.

 

Pro-Life here, and I'm encouraged by many of the opinions I've read here. I'm glad to see there hasn't been anyone to defend partial birth abortions on this board.

The main question left open at the moment seems to be on questions about extreme cases (rape, incest, etc.). While not directly relating to the topic, I'd like to put my 2 cents in.

As Drew has stated, I don't see it as an issue of the woman's right to choose, but of the child's right to live. I realize that the woman's right to choose at the point of sex has been taken away in these cases, but that does not justify restoring it at the cost of the child's right to live.

I regret that, in such rare cases, my opinion would force the victims of rape to carry the child of their rapist to term. If there were some way to save the child and not force the woman to carry it, some kind of pre-natal transplant or a good artificial womb, I would support it whole-heartedly, but I'll never support the death of the child just because the mother doesn't want it.

 

@NOG: I agree with your sentiment on the issue of rape/incest, but I don't think it's something that the pro-life community should be pushing for, yet, either....or, possibly, ever. I think telling a (possibly suicidal) rape victim that she's going to have to carry her rapist's child to term is going to be putting both the life of the mother and child at great risk.....and this is most certainly not a battle worth fighting in a country where more than half of its citizens support the right to choose. If any progress is to be expected, we're going to have to be doing a lot of "meeting them half way" for a while. Maybe, when our cultural values on the matter of abortion have shifted a bit, such stringent legislation will be possible, but as it stands right now, it isn't.

After looking into what a partial birth abortion really is, I have to say I'm somewhat appalled that the bill was only passed 5/4. I initially thought "partial birth abortion" was a term for all third trimester abortions.

 

I am generally against partial-birth abortions, since there's both a serious ethical problem (might sound weird, but I consider a 5-week fetus and a 28-week one slightly different things), but more importantly a risk for the mother's health. However, in case the pregnancy puts her life at greater risks, I think it should be an option.

A desperate one, granted - but I think that most people who would have had an abortion for "trivial "reasons (if there are such people at all) would have had it earlier.