This case seems like a mess but there's a lack of information right now about the girl's situation. Is she in foster care? Juvie Hall? Was she taken away from her natural parents? etc. etc.
So lets say Florida's law hadn't been struck down. Who's the person who needs to be notified about the abortion- her Natural Parents, an unnamed "Guardian" ... who precisely?
It seems to me that this case worked the way it should have- without a clear or obvious "guardian" to notify, what was the girl to do other than petition the court to proceed.
Joshua
· 4 years ago
Another proud day for the Left.
Gluskape
· 4 years ago
This case falls in the "gray zone" for me. I'm generally against abortion. Life itself vs. death is certainly my preference. But we don't know what kind of life this girl's kid would have. If this girl is already in custody of the state of Florida, that means her baby would be too. And I they'd certainly have a hard time finding foster parents for a 13-year-old with a baby? So, her baby would be born into poverty, with an unstable mother that doesn't want her. It would be life, yes. But probably a life of neglect, malnurishment, instability, and maybe even abuse. I can't decide where I stand on this.
Joshua
· 4 years ago
Let's not forget the option of adopting the child away. The waiting list to adopt can be very long as many infertile couples seek to raise a child from birth.
Rob
· 4 years ago
The girl is a ward of the state right now.
As for whether or not she should have an abortion, the idea that her child might have a hard life isn't convincing enough for me to say, "Ok then, lets kill it."
VGC
· 4 years ago
So, this 13 year old child is not mature enough to elect to have an abortion....but she is mature enough to bear a child and make a decision regarding keeping it or allowing it to be adopted.
You all must be kidding!
Rob
· 4 years ago
So, this 13 year old child is not mature enough to elect to have an abortion….but she is mature enough to bear a child and make a decision regarding keeping it or allowing it to be adopted.
Well, at least we're not killing anybody in that scenario.
WOOF
· 4 years ago
Isn't it time for the right to get Congress the Supreme Court and POTUS flying in the middle of the night issuing decrees and appeals and demanding justice? What"s happened to that Shiavo dance? Why does DeLay delay?
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
Forcing a woman of any age, but especially a young teenager who doesn't have parents, to bear a child against her will is horrible. I realize you think abortion itself is horrible. However, if you accept the fact that abortion is legal and a medical procedure -- and I do, then you must understand that no one but the patient and doctor should be making this medical decision. In this case, the patient, because of her age, was represented by her guardian, but the court decided that her rights superseded those of her guardian. In my view and in my experience as a mother, this is appropriate because going through a full-term pregnancy or aborting a fetus is an intensely personal decision. Having said that, let me also express my sorrow that a 12 year old girl in the custody of the state became pregnant in the first place. Yes, I think she should have known about birth control and protection from sexually transmitted diseases. In other words, she should have used a condom. But first and foremost what is a 12 year old doing engaging in sexual intercourse? Didn't anyone teach this girl respect for herself and her body? It's all very sad.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Didn’t anyone teach this girl respect for herself and her body?
You say that while advocating for abortion rights.
Abortion - no respect for herself or anybody else's body.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Forcing a woman of any age, but especially a young teenager who doesn’t have parents, to bear a child against her will is horrible.
More horrible than killing an unborn child?
I realize you think abortion itself is horrible. However, if you accept the fact that abortion is legal and a medical procedure â€" and I do, then you must understand that no one but the patient and doctor should be making this medical decision.
I don't accept that abortion is legal. I think it should be illegal. And while an abortion is a medical procedure, it is one that impacts three people: The mother, the father and the unborn child. Saying that it should only be between the woman and her doctor is patently ridiculous.
In this case, the patient, because of her age, was represented by her guardian, but the court decided that her rights superseded those of her guardian. In my view and in my experience as a mother, this is appropriate because going through a full-term pregnancy or aborting a fetus is an intensely personal decision.
An intensely personal decision...that results in the ending of the life that was created when this young girl chose to have sex. Contrary to popular belief, abortions are not a simple medical decision a woman makes about her body, though framing the issue in that manner is no doubt effective for the pro-abortion activists.
Didn’t anyone teach this girl respect for herself and her body? It’s all very sad.
Apparently not. Given the way she talked to the court, I'd guess that she's been under the impression that should she have to face the consequences of her decision to have sex (getting pregnant) she could make all her problems go away by killing off the root of her problems.
Gluskape
· 4 years ago
I think the real debate with this other live/death issues is how one uses the term "life" and defines what its intrinsic values are. It seems many people are focused on idea of just Life by itself as opposed to death, or more specifically the Taking of Life. When debate is framed in this manner, it's pretty easy to say, "life is good and killing is bad." And within this frame, of course I take the side of Life every time.
But reality is much more complicated than that. There's so much more to life than just existing. Once a child is born we can't just forget about them. Our care for children can't stop with preventing them from being aborted. They need decent homes, food, education, and love. Then when they are grown up they deserve equality, opportunities to make a fair and decent living, and protection from mistreatment by others and their government. All these things need to be considered and supported if one is to truly claim to be "pro-life" and not just "anti-abortion".
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
I advocate choice.
As do I. It's how you define "choice" that makes the difference.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
"They need decent homes, food, education, and love. Then when they are grown up they deserve equality, opportunities to make a fair and decent living, and protection from mistreatment by others and their government. All these things need to be considered and supported if one is to truly claim to be ""pro-life" and not just ""anti-abortion"."
Right on! And to those who have written that I "advocate abortion" let me say that I do not. I advocate choice. I believe that every woman must choose for herself what is right to do with her pregnancy if she's pregnant, her reproductive health, her body in general.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Our care for children can’t stop with preventing them from being aborted. They need decent homes, food, education, and love. Then when they are grown up they deserve equality, opportunities to make a fair and decent living, and protection from mistreatment by others and their government. All these things need to be considered and supported if one is to truly claim to be ""pro-life" and not just ""anti-abortion".
This is the prelude to the coming socialist argument.
aw
· 4 years ago
How come Jeb Bush -- whose underlings clearly knew about this -- didn't intervene? My guess, no one cared about this little girl, not the man who molested her into being pregnant, not the system into whose care she was entrusted, no one except a judge who cared she was clogging up his docket.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Once a child is born we can't just forget about them. Our care for children can't stop with preventing them from being aborted. They need decent homes, food, education, and love. Then when they are grown up they deserve equality, opportunities to make a fair and decent living, and protection from mistreatment by others and their government. All these things need to be considered and supported if one is to truly claim to be ""pro-life" and not just ""anti-abortion".
Great. Fine. We can talk about all of those things...just as soon as we refrain from killing the child before it even gets a chance to have a life, whether it be good or bad.
There are couples in this country who are lining up to adopt children. Why kill a child when you could give it a life with somebody who wants it?
Right on! And to those who have written that I ""advocate abortion" let me say that I do not. I advocate choice.
A person supporting the legalization of murder could also say that they do not support murder, but rather a person's right to choose to kill somebody who is a hinderance to them.
Calling this a matter of "choice" is rather silly. The person who the "choice" affects the most doesn't even get a voice in the matter.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
Yes, according to what I've heard from OB/GYN doctors, it is not safe for a 13 year old girl to give birth. Most important is that this is her choice --she must have control over her own body and her own life. Abortion is a sad choice, but it's a personal and private one to make. For those who don't accept that abortion is legal: You're not facing reality.
Michele
· 4 years ago
You are ignoring the fact that this girl was raped. She is not old enough to consent to have sex. Anyone who thinks that any woman or girl should be forced to continue to be violated after that most ultimate violation of rape by carrying the baby of her rapist is a monster and could only be a man who would never understand the humiliation of being raped.
Also, having a baby at 13 is extremely dangerous. Why should she be forced to place her life in danger based on a rape that should never have been allowed to take place in the first place. Whether or not you think abortion is moral or not, it is a medical procedure that is often used to save the life of the mother.
jaigirl
· 4 years ago
the girl was raped by a 30 year old man. why has there been no press about this? while abortion is not a crime, statutory rape is. no one has stepped forward in the well-being of this girl, only in her unborn fetus. there have been people volunteering to adopt her child but not one person has offered to adopt her as well. whether or not any of you agree with the MORALITY of abortion, the ETHICS of this situation also need to be considered. if anti-abortionists are so concerned with saving lives, why will no one save the girl's life and adopt her? she's been in the system since the age of 9 because of neglectful parents. i haven't heard one person offer her a life line. also, no one spoke in behalf of this girl before she was pregnant, DCF didn't even inform the courts that she was missing for a MONTH so they could try to find her and possibly avoid any harm (such as rape). also, to say that a 13 year old girl CONSENTS to sex is a justification for statutory rape. this law was put into effect to make sure our children are not being taken advantage of, something we cannot deny when looking at this situation. the man who raped this girl has lost all rights because he committed a CRIME.
Rob
· 4 years ago
You are ignoring the fact that this girl was raped. She is not old enough to consent to have sex.
Just because she was under age does not mean she didn't consent to the sex.
Anyone who thinks that any woman or girl should be forced to continue to be violated after that most ultimate violation of rape by carrying the baby of her rapist is a monster and could only be a man who would never understand the humiliation of being raped.
I'm sorry, but rape is not a convincing enough argument to kill the unborn child. Its just not. If this girl was raped (and I don't think she was as I pointed out before) why should the child have to die for that? The child didn't rape anybody.
Bad things happen to people all the time. People get cancer. People die in car accidents. People get raped. A tragedy, yes, but that doesn't mean we should compound the tragedy with death.
Also, having a baby at 13 is extremely dangerous.
Baloney. Throughout history women have had children at ages this young. Its not the optimal age, but certainly not dangerous enough to warrant killing the unborn child.
Why should she be forced to place her life in danger based on a rape that should never have been allowed to take place in the first place.
This wasn't a rape. She consented to the sex. The fact that she was underage doesn't automatically make it a rape.
Whether or not you think abortion is moral or not, it is a medical procedure that is often used to save the life of the mother.
I'll agree with you there. If a pregnancy will result in the death of the mother than an abortion should be considered. But that's pretty much the only time.
Most important is that this is her choice â€"she must have control over her own body and her own life.
What about the baby's life?
For those who don't accept that abortion is legal: You're not facing reality.
And the reality is what, that millions of unborn children should die every year because its too inconvenient for the mother's to carry them to term?
That's not reality, that's lunacy.
And don't tell me that men cannot talk about abortion. Lets not forget that it takes two people, one man and one woman, to create children. Certainly there are instances where the father shouldn't be involved (rape, etc.) but those instances are the exception and not the rule.
WOOF
· 4 years ago
"the man was 30"
Says Who?
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
Oh my God, the man was 30? The Florida DCF lost the girl for a month? This is disgusting. I can't believe the discussion here is over the fact that this 13 year old girl had an abortion and not over what a disaster our child welfare system is. The focus needs to come back to the BORN.
Rob
· 4 years ago
the girl was raped by a 30 year old man.
Where are you getting this information? I haven't seen it reported anywhere. And I'm pretty sure that, given the media blitz surrounding this, that we'd have heard about it.
whether or not any of you agree with the MORALITY of abortion, the ETHICS of this situation also need to be considered. if anti-abortionists are so concerned with saving lives, why will no one save the girl's life and adopt her? she's been in the system since the age of 9 because of neglectful parents. i haven't heard one person offer her a life line. also, no one spoke in behalf of this girl before she was pregnant, DCF didn't even inform the courts that she was missing for a MONTH so they could try to find her and possibly avoid any harm (such as rape).
So...we should favor killing her unborn child because nobody stepped forward to adopt her?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
also, to say that a 13 year old girl CONSENTS to sex is a justification for statutory rape.
I'm not saying that statutory rape is ok. What I am saying is that a girl choosing to have sex with somebody else is a much different thing than somebody else forcing this girl to have sex with them.
And we still don't know, outside of your baseless allegation, if this was a case of statutory rape.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
12 year old girls do not consent to sex. It's called statutory rape because she doesn't have the capacity to consent to sex at the age of 12. It's not the same as rape, but it's taking advantage of a child in a particularly cruel and perverted fashion. And this while she was supposed to be a ward of the state. Floridians must be outraged over how incompetent their DCF has proved to be.
Rob
· 4 years ago
It's not about killing anyone.
Yes it is. If she chooses to have an abortion her unborn child dies.
Are you seriously implying that this young girl doesn't have a life growing inside of her?
without anyone but she and her doctor making decisions about her medical care.
Its not just her medical care that's being considered here. Its the medical care of her and her unborn child.
It translates into support for caring for children after they are born.
That's a point we can talk about, after we stop killing the children before they're born.
Rob
· 4 years ago
12 year old girls do not consent to sex. It’s called statutory rape because she doesn’t have the capacity to consent to sex at the age of 12. It’s not the same as rape, but it’s taking advantage of a child in a particularly cruel and perverted fashion.
Agreed.
And this while she was supposed to be a ward of the state. Floridians must be outraged over how incompetent their DCF has proved to be.
Right. A point I made in the post.
Still not seeing where any of this translates into support for killing the unborn child.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
It translates into support for caring for children after they are born. It's support for this girl to live her life without anyone but she and her doctor making decisions about her medical care. It's not about killing anyone.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
"That’s a point we can talk about, after we stop killing the children before they’re born." This is the essential difference between our viewpoints. I believe the already born take priority over the potential life to be born. And I believe that our resources and energies would be much better spent focusing on the children we now have. If we did, if we really cared for these kids -- just like this unfortunate 13 year old who was impregnated at the age of 12 -- we could prevent a whole lot more unwanted pregnancies than we can by trying to stop abortions in and of themselves. If we focus on the larger issues of lack of proper support for raising children in our community, instead of one particular result of not providing that support (eg. the rise in abortions nationwide since Bush took office), then we have a much better chance of raising children who take better care of their bodies and souls, children who do not engage in sexual activity because they are supervised by adults who care for them, children who have better things to do with their time because the larger community provides recreational activities for them, children who care more for themselves than to be used by a sexual predator because they have been taught and shown that they are God's gift to the world and are therefore too precious to be wasted like that. I believe that if we want to stop unwanted pregnancies, we must focus on those already born.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
(eg. the rise in abortions nationwide since Bush took office)
Proof please.
...and shown that they are God's gift to the world and are therefore too precious to be wasted like that.
Wow. God's unaborted gift to the world. You have a lot of hutzpah to bring God into this while supporting abortion.
I believe that if we want to stop unwanted pregnancies, we must focus on those already born.
Or we could make it illegal.
Aaron
· 4 years ago
This is the essential difference between our viewpoints. I believe the already born take priority over the potential life to be born.
And it's rather sickening. You go to great lengths to explain away the fact that this child-to-be is a life and is growing and developing inside of her mother. You wish to have this child killed because the mother seems to think her life would be easier without a child.
Well, it would be easier on Florida's system without this 13-year-old, so I propose we perform an abortion on the both of them and end the problem altogether. I mean, neither the child nor the teenager have any sort of "quality of life". Do you really want to force either one of them to grow up in the foster system with no parents? Abort them both, solve all the problems!
Rob
· 4 years ago
This is the essential difference between our viewpoints. I believe the already born take priority over the potential life to be born.
No, the essential difference between our viewpoints is that I believe life begins at conception. You believe it begins at birth. I don't believe that a child, in its mother's womb, is a "potential" life. I believe it is a life. A life with a beating heart which abortion stops.
If we did, if we really cared for these kids â€" just like this unfortunate 13 year old who was impregnated at the age of 12 â€" we could prevent a whole lot more unwanted pregnancies than we can by trying to stop abortions in and of themselves.
So...you're saying that if we just kill off enough of these unborn (unwanted, to use your term) children we'd stop abortions? Or at least greatly reduce them?
Nonsense. This assumes that the majority of abortions take place in instances where the mother is incapable, either through poverty or other circumstances, to care for the child. Which isn't the case. The majority of abortions in this country come in instances where the mother is capable of caring for the child but would merely be inconvenienced by it.
Your "we could take better care of the children if we just thinned their numbers a bit" plan is sort of sickening. We could probably take better care of homeless people too if there were fewer of them, but does that mean we should go around culling out the ones we don't want any more?
Mark
· 4 years ago
Aaron - To be fair, I think you have slightly skewed what he said. His specific comment, which you quoted, is that people that are already born should take priority over those that are not.
You have interpreted this to mean that any trivial wish ('an easier life', as you suggest) of a born human should take preference over the life of an unborn human.
What he actually argued was that the life of a born human should have greater weight than that of an unborn human (presumably, although I am guessing here, in virtue of its sense of identity, personhood, et cetera).
Rob
· 4 years ago
We are being civil. I think you're just getting a little emotional because your position is, really, morally indefensible.
Um, I never said these things. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Well, you implied that abortion should be legal so that we can kill the unborn children that won't be cared for adequately. That's pretty clear support for "thinning the numbers" or "culling the heard," as it were.
You can't possibly believe that terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a 13 year old girl.
Well, perhaps not to you, but to somebody who believes that abortion is taking a life its not so different. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't place varying degrees of importance on life based on age.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
You asked for proof that the number of abortions has gone up under the Bush administration. Here's a source:
Pro-life? Look at the fruits by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen
I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.
I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.
Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology or ethics.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
These posts are getting increasingly hostile and divorced from reality.
For example:
"Well, it would be easier on Florida's system without this 13-year-old, so I propose we perform an abortion on the both of them and end the problem altogether. I mean, neither the child nor the teenager have any sort of ""quality of life". Do you really want to force either one of them to grow up in the foster system with no parents? Abort them both, solve all the problems!"
You can't possibly believe that terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a 13 year old girl. You may be opposed to abortion, but that's like saying someone who performs an abortion deserves the same fate as a murderer.
"So…you're saying that if we just kill off enough of these unborn (unwanted, to use your term) children we'd stop abortions? Or at least greatly reduce them?"
Huh? And...
"Your ""we could take better care of the children if we just thinned their numbers a bit" plan is sort of sickening."
Um, I never said these things. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Can we not disagree with some degree of civility?
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
You asked for proof that the number of abortions has gone up under the Bush administration. Here's a source:
And then you didn't give me proof. You gave us one Bush hater's guess based on very incomplete data. Nice try Jen, but no cigar.
You may be opposed to abortion, but that's like saying someone who performs an abortion deserves the same fate as a murderer.
Aaron, did you say that? If you didn't, I will: someone who performs an abortion for purposes other than saving a mother's life deserves the same fate as a murderer. Namely: lifelong imprisonment and an eternity in Hell. Abortionists are a pox upon humanity and should be shunned and disdained.
And back off of Jen just a little bit. I think she's wrong in the typical pro-choice way (i.e., ignore the existence of the baby). But we pro-life people get charged with ignoring the plight of the woman, and there's enough to that to give us pause. Just because she's got Gold in her name doesn't make her another JadeGold. She's being civil, so cut her some slack.
That said, the question for Jen is: do you take the existence of the child seriously, and do you deny that child's essential innocence in the circumstances of her conception? Finally, let's stipulate this girl was not raped in the emotion-packed meaning of the term (i.e., forced sex through violence) even though it may have been statutory rape (in which prosecute the man to the fullest extent of the law.) If the girl carries the child to term and gives it up for adoption, what happens to most of your objections about the alleged quality of life for both mother and child?
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
Thanks for your comments, Slarrow. You ask good questions. Let me respond:
Yes, I take the pregnancy seriously. I consider prenatal care essential and wish all women who have babies would have access to that care. But no, I do not consider a pregnancy to have the same value as a baby.
I never argued for the mother's quality of life as a reason for her to terminate her pregnancy. What I argue is that she must be the one to decide what is best to do. You've heard it before: Her body, her choice.
I would be a little worried about her health if she decided to carry to term (because she's so young), but again, if that's what she decided to do, then I would respect that decision. In fact, I have great admiration for women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term and then give their babies up for adoption. But I have a great fear of laws that force women to give birth to unwanted babies.
As to this particular case, I am appalled by what has happened to this very young woman. If this girl had been properly taken care of she wouldn't have become pregnant. I would love to see a world in which young women would not even consider engaging in sexual intercourse until they were in a sanctioned, loving, committed relationship because they would know they were valued far beyond some sort of object to be used for another's sexual gratification. If we want people to stop having abortions, we must work toward creating a community in which abortions are not perceived as needed because unwanted pregnancy happens far less often.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Her body, her choice.
It's not just her body we are talking about. This is the kind of narcissistic rhetoric that tends to piss off those who are against abortion. It's like the one in the womb is totally ignored and it doesn't exist. In fact, that's exactly what it says.
Imagine, if you will, a world in which a baby absolutely needs his mother's breast milk to survive. No formulas from the store, no surrogate mother breast milk, only his mom's. Or he dies. Would you use the "her body, her choice" argument then? What would be different? (besides the obvious difference)
If we want people to stop having abortions, we must work toward creating a community in which abortions are not perceived as needed because unwanted pregnancy happens far less often.
And make it illegal.
slarrow
· 4 years ago
Thanks for directly answering my questions, Jen. I see, upon further review, that you did not in fact argue about quality of life (you just said "right on" to one who did; probably where I got the notion.)
I think there are still a few conceptual problems with the "her body, her choice" formulation, though. For one thing, at one point does the entity inside a woman stop being just another part of her body and start being someone to be respected in his own right? When my wife was pregnant with our son and we could feel him kick, we never thought of it as her body acting up. He was kicking my wife; she wasn't kicking herself. Who would talk like that? But saying "her body, her choice" obscures that rather clear distinction, doesn't it?
Here's another wrinkle: two women conceive at the same time under similar circumstances. They find out on the same day. Both fetuses are developing normally. One starts buying baby clothes and taking prenatal vitamins that very afternoon; the other schedules an appointment with an abortion clinic. Which fetus is human and which one isn't, and do you see the danger in defining that based on the opinions of another person?
At bottom, the formulation "her body, her choice" disappoints me because it just punts on tough questions like these. And I too would love to see a world where women "would not even consider engaging in sexual intercourse until they were in a sanctioned, loving, committed relationship". I call that "marriage" (and for so thinking sex outside marriage is wrong, not least in part because of the harm it can cause, I get called a troglodyte. It's a funny old world.) But by no means is the existence of that state of affairs a precursor for seriously considering abortion. The world need not be perfect in all other respects before we can try to stop abortions.
Aaron
· 4 years ago
Here's another wrinkle: two women conceive at the same time under similar circumstances. They find out on the same day. Both fetuses are developing normally.
I'll take your wrinkle in a different direction.
These two women carry their children to term. One gives birth to her child 3 weeks early. Two weeks later (one week before both of their original "due dates") both women kill their child. The pregnant woman has a partial-birth abortion, the other woman takes scissors and cuts open the back of her childs head (like they do in partial birth abortions)
What's the difference? Both children are identical except one is outside of the womb and one is inside. Why is one legally allowed to kill her child and one is given 10-20 years for murder?
This is the kind of stuff that makes abortions look ridiculous...
Rob
· 4 years ago
You could, Aaron, take that even another step.
Same scenario with the two women. One wants her child, one goes to the aboriton clinic. On the same day the second woman goes to the abortion clinic the first woman is attacked by a mugger. The mugger punches her in the stomach and kills her unborn child.
Both babies die, but one is considered a murder and the other is not.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
You know, I've been reading these messages and getting really angry at some of the infamatory remarks.
The vast majority of abortions that take place in this country are in the first term. Late term abortion is a whole other topic. And I thought it was pretty disgusting of some of you to use a nine month gestation to illustrate a point about all abortions. It's just emotional manipulation and it completely disregards the privacy of the woman.
Late term abortions make me very uncomfortable because it cuts too close to infanticide in my mind. So, I choose generally to stay off of that topic since most abortions take place during the first trimester.
However, I decided that I was being closed-minded and needed to think about the whole issue some more.
If you could terminate a pregnancy without killing the fetus, and if you could then relieve the mother of parental responsibility for the resulting baby, then you would remove the privacy issue from the table and the whole discussion of abortion would be changed.
Right now a fetus with a gestational age of six months has a very good chance of survival outside the mother's body. So a woman who wants to or needs to abort at that stage or later in the pregnancy could probably have a C-section instead and the baby could then live.
Once the fetus can survive outside its mother's body, I don't think it should be aborted unless the mother is then forced to parent this unwanted baby.
Premature babies often do very well, and therefore I think the state does have an interest in late term abortions.
However, you have to be very careful here. If you criminalize late term abortion, you relegate women who want or need a late term abortion to unlicensed and probably dangerous procedures.
Now, if I believed -- as many of you appear to -- that an embryo is equivalent to a baby in terms of its right to live, then I would be furious and outraged at the legal status of abortions.
I do not believe that a first trimester fetus and a baby are equal in value. I've been pregant; I have a daughter. I know that a pregnancy is not just a bunch of indeterminate cells that mean nothing. It's life, of course it's life. But it's not a baby.
If, however, I wanted to reduce if not eliminate abortions, I would focus on making sure sex education was complete, i.e. inclusive of effective contraception, that health care was provided to all, and that childcare was available to all.
That way you take away most of the accidental pregnancies. You take away the fear of not being able to pay for a baby's and a woman's health care. You take away the fear that of losing one's job or education for having (and keeping)a baby.
You can wish to make abortion illegal, but until there's real support out there for women and their babies, you're fighting a battle to control women's bodies and place a higher value on the unborn then those already born.
And that takes me back to that 13 year old girl who got pregant and had an abortion. If that girl had gotten the kind of care she deserved, this discussion would be moot. And if we learn from this situation, it's not to force abortion back to being criminalized. It's to focus on those who are already here and in need of our help. If you want to prevent an abortion better you should take in a foster child than stand outside a clinic waving a sign.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
And I thought it was pretty disgusting of some of you to use a nine month gestation to illustrate a point about all abortions. It's just emotional manipulation and it completely disregards the privacy of the woman.
What? Where does "privacy of the woman" figure into bringing up partial birth abortions?
Once the fetus can survive outside its mother's body, I don't think it should be aborted unless the mother is then forced to parent this unwanted baby.
You should proof-read before you hit that post button.
If, however, I wanted to reduce if not eliminate abortions, I would focus on making sure sex education was complete, i.e. inclusive of effective contraception, that health care was provided to all, and that childcare was available to all.
Way to include that socialist pitch. It almost never fails. It is not an either/or proposition. A lot of us want abortion to be illegal. And no, we're not going to accept government socialist programs and government health care and "effective contraception" (like don't already have that in the Western World, get real) and whatever else you want to throw in there.
That way you take away most of the accidental pregnancies.
Don't have sex or have responsible sex. This isn't complicated.
You take away the fear of not being able to pay for a baby's and a woman's health care.
Don't have sex or have responsible sex. This isn't complicated.
You take away the fear that of losing one's job or education for having (and keeping)a baby.
Don't have sex or have responsible sex. This isn't complicated.
You can wish to make abortion illegal, but until there's real support out there for women and their babies...
Oh give me a break. What a shitty excuse for a lack of responsibility.
...you're fighting a battle to control women's bodies...
"Control women's bodies"? You are off your rocker. The concern here is that there are one or more lives involved in addition to the pregnant woman. You say that you understand that, but your rhetoric either suggests that you don't or that you are cold-hearted.
...place a higher value on the unborn then those already born.
Try "equal value up to the time that a mother's life is in danger, at which point the mother's life takes precedence." Did you think of that one?
And that takes me back to that 13 year old girl who got pregant and had an abortion. If that girl had gotten the kind of care she deserved, this discussion would be moot.
Maybe. The girl's attitude suggests otherwise. But we don't know.
And if we learn from this situation, it's not to force abortion back to being criminalized.
Funny. I didn't take this story to mean that at all.
If you want to prevent an abortion better you should take in a foster child than stand outside a clinic waving a sign.
Or make it illegal.
Aaron
· 4 years ago
I do not believe that a first trimester fetus and a baby are equal in value. I've been pregant; I have a daughter. I know that a pregnancy is not just a bunch of indeterminate cells that mean nothing. It's life, of course it's life. But it's not a baby.
Jen, how do you call something life... and then wish to legalize the taking of that life? As you said yourself, this is the difference in our views (I see it as a baby/life whereas you don't)
And one other question: What is it that changes about a fetus from 5 months to 6 months that makes you uneasy? Where is that line in your mind? Is is just that the fetus is potentially viable outside the mother at that point? Is that what makes it life worth keeping? I wish to hear your view on this...
Aaron
· 4 years ago
I don't know how else to articulate this point: prenatal life in general has intrinsic value, but its value does not supersede the value of its mother's autonomy as a human being.
This is a good, vague summation of how you seem to view this issue.
If it's not a self-sustaining life, it's not life. If it's viable but still unborn, it has some value but not enough to stop you from stopping the murder. If it's born and viable then it's a life and taking that life is murder...
Viability seems to be the key to you. But you really haven't answered my question. What changes? There is nothing different other than the fetus is more developed. So then, could we say a 1 month old is less of a life than a 10 year old because a 1 month old is completely dependent on his mother for sustenance?
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
Aaron, a baby is different from a fetus in my view. A fetus has life, represents life, and I take the termination of that life seriously. Before I had my baby, I had a miscarriage. I grieved that pregnancy. I grieved what might have been. But I did not grieve a baby. I don't know how else to articulate this point: prenatal life in general has intrinsic value, but its value does not supersede the value of its mother's autonomy as a human being.
If you could somehow remove a six week old fetus from its mother and implant it into some other means of support without killing it, then the privacy issue of abortion would lose its meaning. You would have an option for women who want to terminate their pregnancy that does not end the life of the fetus. But that kind of science does not yet exist as far as I know. If a woman finds out she's pregnant and wants to or needs to end that pregnancy, she can only terminate the fetus because it is entirely dependent on her body.
A baby born at six months gestational age, on the other hand, can do very well without its mother's body. So, abortion at that point seems particularly distasteful to me; it's a waste. It's unnecessary. If, for example, a woman who is six months pregnant and suffering some sort of psychosis was told that if she continued on with a pregnancy she would suffer irreparable psychological harm, she could end the pregnancy without abortion. She could have a C-section and give the baby up for adoption, and the pregnancy would have been ended.
The 13 year old girl in this case was carrying in the first trimester as far as I know, and, as in the vast majority of abortion cases, the fetus could not have survived outside this girl's body.
Jen Goldszmidt
· 4 years ago
"could we say a 1 month old is less of a life than a 10 year old because a 1 month old is completely dependent on his mother for sustenance?"
No. Infants can receive sustenance from someone else. A fetus in early pregnancy cannot. Yet.
Aaron
· 4 years ago
So where do you draw the line on murder then? You stated that late-term abortion made you uncomfortable (or some such word, can't remember exactly) but you seem not to deem such a life. You also seem agree that a newborn is a life and therefore taking that life would constitute murder... but a baby about to be born being killed does not... right?
Where is that line in your mind where a woman should be and should not be charged with murder for killing her child?
Molly
· 3 years ago
why would u get an abortion think about all the other women who can't have a child and you go and have an abortion. you must be one big loser
All Comments
So lets say Florida's law hadn't been struck down. Who's the person who needs to be notified about the abortion- her Natural Parents, an unnamed "Guardian" ... who precisely?
It seems to me that this case worked the way it should have- without a clear or obvious "guardian" to notify, what was the girl to do other than petition the court to proceed.
As for whether or not she should have an abortion, the idea that her child might have a hard life isn't convincing enough for me to say, "Ok then, lets kill it."
You all must be kidding!
Well, at least we're not killing anybody in that scenario.
What"s happened to that Shiavo dance?
Why does DeLay delay?
You say that while advocating for abortion rights.
Abortion - no respect for herself or anybody else's body.
More horrible than killing an unborn child?
I realize you think abortion itself is horrible. However, if you accept the fact that abortion is legal and a medical procedure â€" and I do, then you must understand that no one but the patient and doctor should be making this medical decision.
I don't accept that abortion is legal. I think it should be illegal. And while an abortion is a medical procedure, it is one that impacts three people: The mother, the father and the unborn child. Saying that it should only be between the woman and her doctor is patently ridiculous.
In this case, the patient, because of her age, was represented by her guardian, but the court decided that her rights superseded those of her guardian. In my view and in my experience as a mother, this is appropriate because going through a full-term pregnancy or aborting a fetus is an intensely personal decision.
An intensely personal decision...that results in the ending of the life that was created when this young girl chose to have sex. Contrary to popular belief, abortions are not a simple medical decision a woman makes about her body, though framing the issue in that manner is no doubt effective for the pro-abortion activists.
Didn’t anyone teach this girl respect for herself and her body? It’s all very sad.
Apparently not. Given the way she talked to the court, I'd guess that she's been under the impression that should she have to face the consequences of her decision to have sex (getting pregnant) she could make all her problems go away by killing off the root of her problems.
But reality is much more complicated than that. There's so much more to life than just existing. Once a child is born we can't just forget about them. Our care for children can't stop with preventing them from being aborted. They need decent homes, food, education, and love. Then when they are grown up they deserve equality, opportunities to make a fair and decent living, and protection from mistreatment by others and their government. All these things need to be considered and supported if one is to truly claim to be "pro-life" and not just "anti-abortion".
As do I. It's how you define "choice" that makes the difference.
Right on! And to those who have written that I "advocate abortion" let me say that I do not. I advocate choice. I believe that every woman must choose for herself what is right to do with her pregnancy if she's pregnant, her reproductive health, her body in general.
This is the prelude to the coming socialist argument.
Great. Fine. We can talk about all of those things...just as soon as we refrain from killing the child before it even gets a chance to have a life, whether it be good or bad.
There are couples in this country who are lining up to adopt children. Why kill a child when you could give it a life with somebody who wants it?
Right on! And to those who have written that I ""advocate abortion" let me say that I do not. I advocate choice.
A person supporting the legalization of murder could also say that they do not support murder, but rather a person's right to choose to kill somebody who is a hinderance to them.
Calling this a matter of "choice" is rather silly. The person who the "choice" affects the most doesn't even get a voice in the matter.
Also, having a baby at 13 is extremely dangerous. Why should she be forced to place her life in danger based on a rape that should never have been allowed to take place in the first place. Whether or not you think abortion is moral or not, it is a medical procedure that is often used to save the life of the mother.
also, to say that a 13 year old girl CONSENTS to sex is a justification for statutory rape. this law was put into effect to make sure our children are not being taken advantage of, something we cannot deny when looking at this situation. the man who raped this girl has lost all rights because he committed a CRIME.
Just because she was under age does not mean she didn't consent to the sex.
Anyone who thinks that any woman or girl should be forced to continue to be violated after that most ultimate violation of rape by carrying the baby of her rapist is a monster and could only be a man who would never understand the humiliation of being raped.
I'm sorry, but rape is not a convincing enough argument to kill the unborn child. Its just not. If this girl was raped (and I don't think she was as I pointed out before) why should the child have to die for that? The child didn't rape anybody.
Bad things happen to people all the time. People get cancer. People die in car accidents. People get raped. A tragedy, yes, but that doesn't mean we should compound the tragedy with death.
Also, having a baby at 13 is extremely dangerous.
Baloney. Throughout history women have had children at ages this young. Its not the optimal age, but certainly not dangerous enough to warrant killing the unborn child.
Why should she be forced to place her life in danger based on a rape that should never have been allowed to take place in the first place.
This wasn't a rape. She consented to the sex. The fact that she was underage doesn't automatically make it a rape.
Whether or not you think abortion is moral or not, it is a medical procedure that is often used to save the life of the mother.
I'll agree with you there. If a pregnancy will result in the death of the mother than an abortion should be considered. But that's pretty much the only time.
Most important is that this is her choice â€"she must have control over her own body and her own life.
What about the baby's life?
For those who don't accept that abortion is legal: You're not facing reality.
And the reality is what, that millions of unborn children should die every year because its too inconvenient for the mother's to carry them to term?
That's not reality, that's lunacy.
And don't tell me that men cannot talk about abortion. Lets not forget that it takes two people, one man and one woman, to create children. Certainly there are instances where the father shouldn't be involved (rape, etc.) but those instances are the exception and not the rule.
Says Who?
Where are you getting this information? I haven't seen it reported anywhere. And I'm pretty sure that, given the media blitz surrounding this, that we'd have heard about it.
whether or not any of you agree with the MORALITY of abortion, the ETHICS of this situation also need to be considered. if anti-abortionists are so concerned with saving lives, why will no one save the girl's life and adopt her? she's been in the system since the age of 9 because of neglectful parents. i haven't heard one person offer her a life line. also, no one spoke in behalf of this girl before she was pregnant, DCF didn't even inform the courts that she was missing for a MONTH so they could try to find her and possibly avoid any harm (such as rape).
So...we should favor killing her unborn child because nobody stepped forward to adopt her?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
also, to say that a 13 year old girl CONSENTS to sex is a justification for statutory rape.
I'm not saying that statutory rape is ok. What I am saying is that a girl choosing to have sex with somebody else is a much different thing than somebody else forcing this girl to have sex with them.
And we still don't know, outside of your baseless allegation, if this was a case of statutory rape.
Yes it is. If she chooses to have an abortion her unborn child dies.
Are you seriously implying that this young girl doesn't have a life growing inside of her?
without anyone but she and her doctor making decisions about her medical care.
Its not just her medical care that's being considered here. Its the medical care of her and her unborn child.
It translates into support for caring for children after they are born.
That's a point we can talk about, after we stop killing the children before they're born.
Agreed.
And this while she was supposed to be a ward of the state. Floridians must be outraged over how incompetent their DCF has proved to be.
Right. A point I made in the post.
Still not seeing where any of this translates into support for killing the unborn child.
Proof please.
...and shown that they are God's gift to the world and are therefore too precious to be wasted like that.
Wow. God's unaborted gift to the world. You have a lot of hutzpah to bring God into this while supporting abortion.
I believe that if we want to stop unwanted pregnancies, we must focus on those already born.
Or we could make it illegal.
And it's rather sickening. You go to great lengths to explain away the fact that this child-to-be is a life and is growing and developing inside of her mother. You wish to have this child killed because the mother seems to think her life would be easier without a child.
Well, it would be easier on Florida's system without this 13-year-old, so I propose we perform an abortion on the both of them and end the problem altogether. I mean, neither the child nor the teenager have any sort of "quality of life". Do you really want to force either one of them to grow up in the foster system with no parents? Abort them both, solve all the problems!
No, the essential difference between our viewpoints is that I believe life begins at conception. You believe it begins at birth. I don't believe that a child, in its mother's womb, is a "potential" life. I believe it is a life. A life with a beating heart which abortion stops.
If we did, if we really cared for these kids â€" just like this unfortunate 13 year old who was impregnated at the age of 12 â€" we could prevent a whole lot more unwanted pregnancies than we can by trying to stop abortions in and of themselves.
So...you're saying that if we just kill off enough of these unborn (unwanted, to use your term) children we'd stop abortions? Or at least greatly reduce them?
Nonsense. This assumes that the majority of abortions take place in instances where the mother is incapable, either through poverty or other circumstances, to care for the child. Which isn't the case. The majority of abortions in this country come in instances where the mother is capable of caring for the child but would merely be inconvenienced by it.
Your "we could take better care of the children if we just thinned their numbers a bit" plan is sort of sickening. We could probably take better care of homeless people too if there were fewer of them, but does that mean we should go around culling out the ones we don't want any more?
To be fair, I think you have slightly skewed what he said. His specific comment, which you quoted, is that people that are already born should take priority over those that are not.
You have interpreted this to mean that any trivial wish ('an easier life', as you suggest) of a born human should take preference over the life of an unborn human.
What he actually argued was that the life of a born human should have greater weight than that of an unborn human (presumably, although I am guessing here, in virtue of its sense of identity, personhood, et cetera).
Um, I never said these things. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Well, you implied that abortion should be legal so that we can kill the unborn children that won't be cared for adequately. That's pretty clear support for "thinning the numbers" or "culling the heard," as it were.
You can't possibly believe that terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a 13 year old girl.
Well, perhaps not to you, but to somebody who believes that abortion is taking a life its not so different. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't place varying degrees of importance on life based on age.
Pro-life? Look at the fruits
by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen
I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.
I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.
Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology or ethics.
For example:
"Well, it would be easier on Florida's system without this 13-year-old, so I propose we perform an abortion on the both of them and end the problem altogether. I mean, neither the child nor the teenager have any sort of ""quality of life". Do you really want to force either one of them to grow up in the foster system with no parents? Abort them both, solve all the problems!"
You can't possibly believe that terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a 13 year old girl. You may be opposed to abortion, but that's like saying someone who performs an abortion deserves the same fate as a murderer.
"So…you're saying that if we just kill off enough of these unborn (unwanted, to use your term) children we'd stop abortions? Or at least greatly reduce them?"
Huh? And...
"Your ""we could take better care of the children if we just thinned their numbers a bit" plan is sort of sickening."
Um, I never said these things. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Can we not disagree with some degree of civility?
And then you didn't give me proof. You gave us one Bush hater's guess based on very incomplete data. Nice try Jen, but no cigar.
You may be opposed to abortion, but that's like saying someone who performs an abortion deserves the same fate as a murderer.
Aaron, did you say that? If you didn't, I will: someone who performs an abortion for purposes other than saving a mother's life deserves the same fate as a murderer. Namely: lifelong imprisonment and an eternity in Hell. Abortionists are a pox upon humanity and should be shunned and disdained.
And back off of Jen just a little bit. I think she's wrong in the typical pro-choice way (i.e., ignore the existence of the baby). But we pro-life people get charged with ignoring the plight of the woman, and there's enough to that to give us pause. Just because she's got Gold in her name doesn't make her another JadeGold. She's being civil, so cut her some slack.
That said, the question for Jen is: do you take the existence of the child seriously, and do you deny that child's essential innocence in the circumstances of her conception? Finally, let's stipulate this girl was not raped in the emotion-packed meaning of the term (i.e., forced sex through violence) even though it may have been statutory rape (in which prosecute the man to the fullest extent of the law.) If the girl carries the child to term and gives it up for adoption, what happens to most of your objections about the alleged quality of life for both mother and child?
Yes, I take the pregnancy seriously. I consider prenatal care essential and wish all women who have babies would have access to that care. But no, I do not consider a pregnancy to have the same value as a baby.
I never argued for the mother's quality of life as a reason for her to terminate her pregnancy. What I argue is that she must be the one to decide what is best to do. You've heard it before: Her body, her choice.
I would be a little worried about her health if she decided to carry to term (because she's so young), but again, if that's what she decided to do, then I would respect that decision. In fact, I have great admiration for women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term and then give their babies up for adoption. But I have a great fear of laws that force women to give birth to unwanted babies.
As to this particular case, I am appalled by what has happened to this very young woman. If this girl had been properly taken care of she wouldn't have become pregnant. I would love to see a world in which young women would not even consider engaging in sexual intercourse until they were in a sanctioned, loving, committed relationship because they would know they were valued far beyond some sort of object to be used for another's sexual gratification. If we want people to stop having abortions, we must work toward creating a community in which abortions are not perceived as needed because unwanted pregnancy happens far less often.
It's not just her body we are talking about. This is the kind of narcissistic rhetoric that tends to piss off those who are against abortion. It's like the one in the womb is totally ignored and it doesn't exist. In fact, that's exactly what it says.
Imagine, if you will, a world in which a baby absolutely needs his mother's breast milk to survive. No formulas from the store, no surrogate mother breast milk, only his mom's. Or he dies. Would you use the "her body, her choice" argument then? What would be different? (besides the obvious difference)
If we want people to stop having abortions, we must work toward creating a community in which abortions are not perceived as needed because unwanted pregnancy happens far less often.
And make it illegal.
I think there are still a few conceptual problems with the "her body, her choice" formulation, though. For one thing, at one point does the entity inside a woman stop being just another part of her body and start being someone to be respected in his own right? When my wife was pregnant with our son and we could feel him kick, we never thought of it as her body acting up. He was kicking my wife; she wasn't kicking herself. Who would talk like that? But saying "her body, her choice" obscures that rather clear distinction, doesn't it?
Here's another wrinkle: two women conceive at the same time under similar circumstances. They find out on the same day. Both fetuses are developing normally. One starts buying baby clothes and taking prenatal vitamins that very afternoon; the other schedules an appointment with an abortion clinic. Which fetus is human and which one isn't, and do you see the danger in defining that based on the opinions of another person?
At bottom, the formulation "her body, her choice" disappoints me because it just punts on tough questions like these. And I too would love to see a world where women "would not even consider engaging in sexual intercourse until they were in a sanctioned, loving, committed relationship". I call that "marriage" (and for so thinking sex outside marriage is wrong, not least in part because of the harm it can cause, I get called a troglodyte. It's a funny old world.) But by no means is the existence of that state of affairs a precursor for seriously considering abortion. The world need not be perfect in all other respects before we can try to stop abortions.
I'll take your wrinkle in a different direction.
These two women carry their children to term. One gives birth to her child 3 weeks early. Two weeks later (one week before both of their original "due dates") both women kill their child. The pregnant woman has a partial-birth abortion, the other woman takes scissors and cuts open the back of her childs head (like they do in partial birth abortions)
What's the difference? Both children are identical except one is outside of the womb and one is inside. Why is one legally allowed to kill her child and one is given 10-20 years for murder?
This is the kind of stuff that makes abortions look ridiculous...
Same scenario with the two women. One wants her child, one goes to the aboriton clinic. On the same day the second woman goes to the abortion clinic the first woman is attacked by a mugger. The mugger punches her in the stomach and kills her unborn child.
Both babies die, but one is considered a murder and the other is not.
The vast majority of abortions that take place in this country are in the first term. Late term abortion is a whole other topic. And I thought it was pretty disgusting of some of you to use a nine month gestation to illustrate a point about all abortions. It's just emotional manipulation and it completely disregards the privacy of the woman.
Late term abortions make me very uncomfortable because it cuts too close to infanticide in my mind. So, I choose generally to stay off of that topic since most abortions take place during the first trimester.
However, I decided that I was being closed-minded and needed to think about the whole issue some more.
If you could terminate a pregnancy without killing the fetus, and if you could then relieve the mother of parental responsibility for the resulting baby, then you would remove the privacy issue from the table and the whole discussion of abortion would be changed.
Right now a fetus with a gestational age of six months has a very good chance of survival outside the mother's body. So a woman who wants to or needs to abort at that stage or later in the pregnancy could probably have a C-section instead and the baby could then live.
Once the fetus can survive outside its mother's body, I don't think it should be aborted unless the mother is then forced to parent this unwanted baby.
Premature babies often do very well, and therefore I think the state does have an interest in late term abortions.
However, you have to be very careful here. If you criminalize late term abortion, you relegate women who want or need a late term abortion to unlicensed and probably dangerous procedures.
Now, if I believed -- as many of you appear to -- that an embryo is equivalent to a baby in terms of its right to live, then I would be furious and outraged at the legal status of abortions.
I do not believe that a first trimester fetus and a baby are equal in value. I've been pregant; I have a daughter. I know that a pregnancy is not just a bunch of indeterminate cells that mean nothing. It's life, of course it's life. But it's not a baby.
If, however, I wanted to reduce if not eliminate abortions, I would focus on making sure sex education was complete, i.e. inclusive of effective contraception, that health care was provided to all, and that childcare was available to all.
That way you take away most of the accidental pregnancies. You take away the fear of not being able to pay for a baby's and a woman's health care. You take away the fear that of losing one's job or education for having (and keeping)a baby.
You can wish to make abortion illegal, but until there's real support out there for women and their babies, you're fighting a battle to control women's bodies and place a higher value on the unborn then those already born.
And that takes me back to that 13 year old girl who got pregant and had an abortion. If that girl had gotten the kind of care she deserved, this discussion would be moot. And if we learn from this situation, it's not to force abortion back to being criminalized. It's to focus on those who are already here and in need of our help. If you want to prevent an abortion better you should take in a foster child than stand outside a clinic waving a sign.
What? Where does "privacy of the woman" figure into bringing up partial birth abortions?
Once the fetus can survive outside its mother's body, I don't think it should be aborted unless the mother is then forced to parent this unwanted baby.
You should proof-read before you hit that post button.
If, however, I wanted to reduce if not eliminate abortions, I would focus on making sure sex education was complete, i.e. inclusive of effective contraception, that health care was provided to all, and that childcare was available to all.
Way to include that socialist pitch. It almost never fails. It is not an either/or proposition. A lot of us want abortion to be illegal. And no, we're not going to accept government socialist programs and government health care and "effective contraception" (like don't already have that in the Western World, get real) and whatever else you want to throw in there.
That way you take away most of the accidental pregnancies.
Don't have sex or have responsible sex. This isn't complicated.
You take away the fear of not being able to pay for a baby's and a woman's health care.
Don't have sex or have responsible sex. This isn't complicated.
You take away the fear that of losing one's job or education for having (and keeping)a baby.
Don't have sex or have responsible sex. This isn't complicated.
You can wish to make abortion illegal, but until there's real support out there for women and their babies...
Oh give me a break. What a shitty excuse for a lack of responsibility.
...you're fighting a battle to control women's bodies...
"Control women's bodies"? You are off your rocker. The concern here is that there are one or more lives involved in addition to the pregnant woman. You say that you understand that, but your rhetoric either suggests that you don't or that you are cold-hearted.
...place a higher value on the unborn then those already born.
Try "equal value up to the time that a mother's life is in danger, at which point the mother's life takes precedence." Did you think of that one?
And that takes me back to that 13 year old girl who got pregant and had an abortion. If that girl had gotten the kind of care she deserved, this discussion would be moot.
Maybe. The girl's attitude suggests otherwise. But we don't know.
And if we learn from this situation, it's not to force abortion back to being criminalized.
Funny. I didn't take this story to mean that at all.
If you want to prevent an abortion better you should take in a foster child than stand outside a clinic waving a sign.
Or make it illegal.
Jen, how do you call something life... and then wish to legalize the taking of that life? As you said yourself, this is the difference in our views (I see it as a baby/life whereas you don't)
And one other question: What is it that changes about a fetus from 5 months to 6 months that makes you uneasy? Where is that line in your mind? Is is just that the fetus is potentially viable outside the mother at that point? Is that what makes it life worth keeping? I wish to hear your view on this...
This is a good, vague summation of how you seem to view this issue.
If it's not a self-sustaining life, it's not life. If it's viable but still unborn, it has some value but not enough to stop you from stopping the murder. If it's born and viable then it's a life and taking that life is murder...
Viability seems to be the key to you. But you really haven't answered my question. What changes? There is nothing different other than the fetus is more developed. So then, could we say a 1 month old is less of a life than a 10 year old because a 1 month old is completely dependent on his mother for sustenance?
If you could somehow remove a six week old fetus from its mother and implant it into some other means of support without killing it, then the privacy issue of abortion would lose its meaning. You would have an option for women who want to terminate their pregnancy that does not end the life of the fetus. But that kind of science does not yet exist as far as I know. If a woman finds out she's pregnant and wants to or needs to end that pregnancy, she can only terminate the fetus because it is entirely dependent on her body.
A baby born at six months gestational age, on the other hand, can do very well without its mother's body. So, abortion at that point seems particularly distasteful to me; it's a waste. It's unnecessary. If, for example, a woman who is six months pregnant and suffering some sort of psychosis was told that if she continued on with a pregnancy she would suffer irreparable psychological harm, she could end the pregnancy without abortion. She could have a C-section and give the baby up for adoption, and the pregnancy would have been ended.
The 13 year old girl in this case was carrying in the first trimester as far as I know, and, as in the vast majority of abortion cases, the fetus could not have survived outside this girl's body.
No. Infants can receive sustenance from someone else. A fetus in early pregnancy cannot. Yet.
Where is that line in your mind where a woman should be and should not be charged with murder for killing her child?
why would u get an abortion think about all the other women who can't have a child and you go and have an abortion. you must be one big loser