A.) I hear you, but I disagree that the 2 person's rights are equal. For one, it is the federal gov that is charged with protecting rights, and the gov does not require information about the person inside you until it is out. The baby in fact does not exist prior to a date of birth. Second reason is that the baby is literally dependent …
A.) I hear you, but I disagree that the 2 person's rights are equal. For one, it is the federal gov that is charged with protecting rights, and the gov does not require information about the person inside you until it is out. The baby in fact does not exist prior to a date of birth. Second reason is that the baby is literally dependent on the mother's body for all major organ function, which makes it impossible for them to be equal. Even if we can ignore/change #1, we cannot assume equal rights of the unborn, until some agreed-upon reference coordinated with viability. Giving the baby rights before viability necessarily means that protecting those rights requires quashing the woman's.
B.) One of the reasons that pro-lifers feel strongly is because if abortion is legal, some will wrecklessly use it as birth control, or choose it for convenience, or otherwise choose it without truly considering what they are doing morally. And this does occur. And then there's the next group of women that like having abortion as a back-up to their birth control. It is true that increased acceptance of abortion means more abortion.
C.) As a society, we need to handle this issue in a way where rights don't conflict. Something like national right to abortion up to 12 weeks, with required minimum interventions before it can be done (and streamline those interventions). And have the most robust (but discreet) interaction with the mother as possible. Finding out what she would need 1) to not abort & give thru adoption or 2) keep the child herself. And then connect her to those things. And allow abortions later than 12 weeks for the exceptional cases, requiring affadavits from doctors and/or law enforcement. The goal of both sides should be to minimize abortion, not criminalize it. And screw Clarence Thomas for saying abortion right is not ingrained in our history - women from the beginning of time have experienced desperate situations.
Maybe you haven’t had terrible complications in pregnancy. I had an abortion in the second trimester because my pregnancy was not viable, baby had defects, was not growing and that meant it wouldn’t survive to delivery. The abortion wasn’t the tragedy. The tragedy is how difficult it is to have a successful pregnancy with our very high maternal mortality among western nations and how expensive it is. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting we compound that trauma with government officials adjudicating a medical procedure that should be safe and legal. Who are you to think you have the right to make me or anyone else property of the state?
I apologize for coming across that way. With the Dobbs decision, Ohio has started with the 6 week ban on abortion which is a ridiculous amount of time for a woman to both know she is pregnant and make a decision about abortion and then schedule it. I was brainstorming compromise, wondering what the left would have to give up in order to possibly get a national right to abortion up to x weeks. I don't truly want women to have to jump through hoops, explain themselves, etc. Decisions like you made are hard enough without my opinion or red tape, I apologize.
No need to apologize. I appreciate your thoughtful and caring response. So many are so callous in this debate. It goes to show that no one knows enough about each person’s experience nor do we have an agreement on what is right or wrong in each circumstance. All the more reason to leave it to a woman and her doctor.
It’s so terrible. I haven’t wanted to talk about it as it happened a few years ago and I found a way to tuck it away. But everything happening now and how we talk about it is so callous and painful. I hope at the end of the day we can get to a place in this country where we recognize every person has dignity, basic human rights and self-determination.
Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true that baby is dependent on his/her mother's body until the point of viability. I guess one of my problems is that the point of viability is a moving target as medical interventions improve. Another problem is that I just can't help feeling all kinds of protectiveness for that little baby sucking his thumb in the sonogram.
But again, I will say that I totally understand that some people truly don't see it the way I do, and have very good arguments for their viewpoint.
Thank you as well for taking the time to converse.
I wonder, if we updated viabilty frequently from the medical field, and we picked a number, say 80% of babies will survive if born at x weeks. Could a woman have an option of giving up the baby for adoption at birth induced at viability? Most women would be able to hide the pregnancy from the public.
That would be a possibility, Carolyn. What comes to mind for me:
I think it's too bad that a woman giving up her baby for adoption is sometimes seen by society as a shameful thing(not saying you think that). I am the mother of two wonderful adult children, in their forties, whom we adopted as infants. My son, his family, and I have been in contact with his birth mother for several years (the beauty of DNA testing). She, my son, and I are all thrilled. There was no way she could have kept him, and she is so grateful that he had a loving upbringing.
To my knowledge, adoption most often turns out as fine as families consisting of bio members.
So to continue on with that theme, if the woman decides she would like her baby to live and be adopted, maybe she could carry the baby to term rather than feel she needed to hide her pregnancy?
What you suggest, though, would be a compromise for a woman who wants to give her baby a chance at life but cannot or chooses not , for whatever reason, to carry to term.
I confess that I have a bias in favor of babies being born instead of aborted because I have seen that families can be made in different ways and, of course, I look at my kids and grandkids and realize their birth moms could have chosen not to have them be in the world.
With all that, I continue to be sympathetic and understanding of women whose beliefs about their pregnancies are different from mine and whose situations are their own.
A.) I hear you, but I disagree that the 2 person's rights are equal. For one, it is the federal gov that is charged with protecting rights, and the gov does not require information about the person inside you until it is out. The baby in fact does not exist prior to a date of birth. Second reason is that the baby is literally dependent on the mother's body for all major organ function, which makes it impossible for them to be equal. Even if we can ignore/change #1, we cannot assume equal rights of the unborn, until some agreed-upon reference coordinated with viability. Giving the baby rights before viability necessarily means that protecting those rights requires quashing the woman's.
B.) One of the reasons that pro-lifers feel strongly is because if abortion is legal, some will wrecklessly use it as birth control, or choose it for convenience, or otherwise choose it without truly considering what they are doing morally. And this does occur. And then there's the next group of women that like having abortion as a back-up to their birth control. It is true that increased acceptance of abortion means more abortion.
C.) As a society, we need to handle this issue in a way where rights don't conflict. Something like national right to abortion up to 12 weeks, with required minimum interventions before it can be done (and streamline those interventions). And have the most robust (but discreet) interaction with the mother as possible. Finding out what she would need 1) to not abort & give thru adoption or 2) keep the child herself. And then connect her to those things. And allow abortions later than 12 weeks for the exceptional cases, requiring affadavits from doctors and/or law enforcement. The goal of both sides should be to minimize abortion, not criminalize it. And screw Clarence Thomas for saying abortion right is not ingrained in our history - women from the beginning of time have experienced desperate situations.
Maybe you haven’t had terrible complications in pregnancy. I had an abortion in the second trimester because my pregnancy was not viable, baby had defects, was not growing and that meant it wouldn’t survive to delivery. The abortion wasn’t the tragedy. The tragedy is how difficult it is to have a successful pregnancy with our very high maternal mortality among western nations and how expensive it is. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting we compound that trauma with government officials adjudicating a medical procedure that should be safe and legal. Who are you to think you have the right to make me or anyone else property of the state?
I apologize for coming across that way. With the Dobbs decision, Ohio has started with the 6 week ban on abortion which is a ridiculous amount of time for a woman to both know she is pregnant and make a decision about abortion and then schedule it. I was brainstorming compromise, wondering what the left would have to give up in order to possibly get a national right to abortion up to x weeks. I don't truly want women to have to jump through hoops, explain themselves, etc. Decisions like you made are hard enough without my opinion or red tape, I apologize.
No need to apologize. I appreciate your thoughtful and caring response. So many are so callous in this debate. It goes to show that no one knows enough about each person’s experience nor do we have an agreement on what is right or wrong in each circumstance. All the more reason to leave it to a woman and her doctor.
It’s so terrible. I haven’t wanted to talk about it as it happened a few years ago and I found a way to tuck it away. But everything happening now and how we talk about it is so callous and painful. I hope at the end of the day we can get to a place in this country where we recognize every person has dignity, basic human rights and self-determination.
Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true that baby is dependent on his/her mother's body until the point of viability. I guess one of my problems is that the point of viability is a moving target as medical interventions improve. Another problem is that I just can't help feeling all kinds of protectiveness for that little baby sucking his thumb in the sonogram.
But again, I will say that I totally understand that some people truly don't see it the way I do, and have very good arguments for their viewpoint.
Thank you as well for taking the time to converse.
I wonder, if we updated viabilty frequently from the medical field, and we picked a number, say 80% of babies will survive if born at x weeks. Could a woman have an option of giving up the baby for adoption at birth induced at viability? Most women would be able to hide the pregnancy from the public.
That would be a possibility, Carolyn. What comes to mind for me:
I think it's too bad that a woman giving up her baby for adoption is sometimes seen by society as a shameful thing(not saying you think that). I am the mother of two wonderful adult children, in their forties, whom we adopted as infants. My son, his family, and I have been in contact with his birth mother for several years (the beauty of DNA testing). She, my son, and I are all thrilled. There was no way she could have kept him, and she is so grateful that he had a loving upbringing.
To my knowledge, adoption most often turns out as fine as families consisting of bio members.
So to continue on with that theme, if the woman decides she would like her baby to live and be adopted, maybe she could carry the baby to term rather than feel she needed to hide her pregnancy?
What you suggest, though, would be a compromise for a woman who wants to give her baby a chance at life but cannot or chooses not , for whatever reason, to carry to term.
I confess that I have a bias in favor of babies being born instead of aborted because I have seen that families can be made in different ways and, of course, I look at my kids and grandkids and realize their birth moms could have chosen not to have them be in the world.
With all that, I continue to be sympathetic and understanding of women whose beliefs about their pregnancies are different from mine and whose situations are their own.
You're ok. I was just thinking of ways that might guarantee access to abortion but still try to prevent some of them.