(Insert Title Here)
Seagypsy said:
I am not sure why the method of abortion makes any difference.
If I might, then, skip ahead (while also looking back) for a moment:
I may be able to help if you could restate in your own words what you think my point was. It is possible you may have misunderstood me in some way. Also, I have attempted to make several points throughout the thread, so I am not sure which one you are referring to.
Well, it has to do with certain implications:
Tiassa: The functional problem I encounter, then, is trying to draw a line at which a woman can no longer abort. If purely elective D&X (partial birth abortion) was more common, it is possible I would try to figure another line.
Seagypsy: This debate (late term personhood vs personhood at birth) is off topic but since it keeps getting addressed. The statistics that Neverfly and I found indicate that late term abortion is mostly elective and only rarely for the preservation of the life of the mother or for sake compassionate euthanasia for a diseased or deformed fetus.
Generally speaking, D&X is the procedure used in late-term abortions when there is a medical reason to do so. D&X is a powerful controversy in abortion politics; the anti-abortion argument would have us believe that a "partial birth abortion" is something undertaken on a whim; it is not. The general question of late-term abortion is a broader issue; your point on late-term abortions seemed a bit off as a response to considerations of D&X; hence, my note on referring to a specific method, and why the response about late-term abortions in general seemed odd.
Back to the points in order:
The end result is the same. The fetus is removed and dead in the end. The result is the concern of pro-lifers, not the process.
I would disagree insofar as D&X is such a controversial issue because it pushes about as close to the dry-foot line as one can get: The cervix is dilated, the fetus partially extracted, and then killed. The difference motivating Congressional action against D&X is found in the term "partial birth abortion". Insofar as the anti-abortion movement in general hopes to end the medical abortion—
Meaning, to a pro-life advocate, you cannot present any method of abortion that will result in them saying, " Oh well if you want to kill it THAT way, then that's cool." They do not care how or when you are ending the development of the fetus, they only care that you are.
—I would agree that a dead "person" is all the same to them, but they have chosen to make a specific point about D&X.
In terms that to some abortion is seen as murder, I offer this analogy/question. Would murder by strangulation, be more or less acceptable to you than some other form of murder? (rhetorical question- but feel free to answer if you like)
Well, about the only answer I can formulate is to point out that we do have a crime of passion provision in the law. A shot to the head is probably a better way to die than having the skin flayed from your still living body until one subdues to shock or blood loss. The law, at present, generally seems to think so.
First of all, much to my surprise, it is not actually a myth.
Well, let us be specific: "the idea that a woman, two-thirds or more through a pregnancy, would decide to abort on a lark ... is a stock myth of the anti-abortion canon".
I feel comfortable standing on that point. I mean, sure, I'm only male, but I can't figure how it comes about that a woman would wait until the third trimester, endure the swollen body parts and stretch marks, take the bazillion kicks in the bladder, suffer the sore back and joints, and even spend the money on wardrobe, only to wake up one morning and say, "Hell, I'm tired of this. I think I'll have an abortion."
Second, the question begs us to comprehend the state of mind that a person may be in as a result of all their life experiences up to a particular point. Gladly most people have not had the experiences required to be able to relate to the feelings a 3rd trimester mother, finding herself in desire of an abortion, may be feeling. I can't imagine that her life has been all puppies and lollipops. But who knows? Maybe it would be an arrogant spoiled little rich girl who would choose to do so just to hurt someone else. Maybe the girl has a mental illness. Maybe she had a fascination with pregnancy itself but not motherhood.
All are fine maybes, to be certain, but are there case histories in the literature?
I personally enjoy being pregnant, even when it made me sick as a dog, I still enjoyed it. Labor was traumatizing though and raising the kids is far more difficult than birthing them. I met a surrogate mother who told me she also loved being pregnant but could not see herself as a mother. She feared not raising a child right and ruining their lives.
There is nothing I can reasonably say here; after all, it's a circumstance I will never experience personally.
The same kind of question can be asked about any one who makes a decisions to do something that we can not bring ourselves to do. Like putting a child up for adoption after going through the pregnancy. I don't think I could do it and I can't imagine what a woman must be thinking or feeling when she makes the decision and then follows through with it. But my inability to relate does not mean it doesn't happen, or even that it is a rare occurrence.
I can't prove to you that God doesn't exist. The fact that I know how to make flying ointment (the key ingredients are clove oil to irritate the skin at the temples in order to access the capillaries, and hashish oil to do the "flying"), cannot be said to be conclusive evidence that there has never been a witch who actually hopped on a besom and flew through the air.
What I'm getting at is that while I would not be at all surprised when someone brings me the literature on a case reflecting such caprice, I will also need more conclusive proof that it is a common occurrence.
This is true, I did say that. During the course of this discussion I have been researching and learning; I hope we all have. I am not going to pretend I didn't see the statistics just because they go against an assumption that I made earlier. We have all been making assumptions. It's time to lay them aside.
One would certainly hope that these sorts of discussions do move people to research and learning. To the other, a lot of this is familiar ground; this is hardly the first exploration of some depth I've undertaken on the subject. Indeed, looking back to the topic post, much of what I've learned and understood over the years brought me to a certain nexus in the political season that inspired the underlying question about the implications of LACP.
I am not sure who brought up the question of methods. Methods have never been a concern of mine. My concern was late term in general where the mother's life or the life of the fetus was not threatened in any way.
The question of methods arose for the reasons I mentioned above, trying to figure the application of your general consideration of late-term abortion to the particular consideration of D&X.
So of the 48% that had trouble arranging abortion in the 1st or 2nd trimester, 60% said money was the issue, while 32% said they wanted to use a different clinic and 26% said there was no nearby provider.
If insurance companies and/or medicaid (and I believe medicaid should be approved automatically for the duration of when an application is being evaluated- but that is another thread) would cover abortions and even provide transportation as many do for routine doctor visits this would be less of a problem, add to that abortion should be something available in all state hospitals. This, in my opinion, could greatly reduce late term abortions.
I don't disagree with your point, but there is a functional challenge. An image I can't seem to use enough:
The Rachel Maddow Show, June 23, 2011
What you're looking at is part of a political fight that took place in Kansas. There is some irony about Republicans trying to use bureaucratic red tape to eliminate abortion services, of course, but that's beside the point. Essentially, with
three clinics providing abortion services remaining in Kansas, officials went out, figured out what building codes they could enact that would force all three to close down, and passed a law intended to accomplish that goal. These regulations included things like closet space. They gave the clinics something like seventy-two hours to fall into compliance, and of course they could not. The area highlighted in red
would have been an abortion-free zone for lack of any clinic providing such services; unfortunately for Republicans, one clinic managed to stay open.
Such an outcome would provide something of a challenge to providing transportation.
In Kansas, a doctor actually moved her practice to Wichita to ensure there was at least one clinic providing abortion services. Anti-abortion advocates attempted the same sort of intimidation—including distribution of the doctor's home address and other vital information—that circulated in advance of the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. Someone even
threatened the doctor's life.
After Kansas, Mississippi tried a similar bureaucratic stunt, but the politicians, feeling cocky, actually bragged that they were successfully using government to end abortion services in the state. With that on the record, a court
quashed the attempt.
And if
domestic terrorists get their way, the question of abortion access will be settled simply by making it too dangerous to the doctors to provide services.
____________________
Notes:
Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. June 23, 2011. Television.
Dryden, Rebekah. "#Kansas abortion ban starts tomorrow (UPDATE: One clinic remains)". The Maddow Blog. June 30, 2011. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. November 7, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...ban-starts-tomorrow-update-one-clinic-remains
Deam, Jenny. "Doctor struggles to fill role of slain Kansas abortion provider". Los Angeles Times. March 5, 2012. Articles.LATimes.com. November 7, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/05/nation/la-na-kansas-abortion-20120305
Conaway, Laura. "Federal judge blocks law that would close only abortion clinic in Mississippi". The Maddow Blog. July 1, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. November 7, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...uld-close-only-abortion-clinic-in-mississippi