Can there be Middle Ground on Abortion?

[Lyion]

This article is interesting, but I'm not sure if there can be middle ground, for people on both sides.. Those who consider abortion a privilege and right, and those who feel its child murder...

From the Washington Post

NEW YORK -- For many staunch supporters and opponents of abortion rights, the search for a third way on the issue seems like so much phony political positioning.

But the truth is that politicians are already engaging in strained positioning on abortion. They know there is a large ambivalent middle ground of public opinion that is uneasy with abortion itself and also uneasy with a government ban on the procedure. So they fudge.

No one has been more masterful at holding his pro-life base and appealing to the middle than President Bush. He speaks regularly of his support for a "culture of life" but never says he would overturn Roe v. Wade. In Congress, supporters of abortion rights in both parties will signal their moderation by opposing partial-birth abortion or favoring parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions. Whatever their merits, such laws do little to cut the abortion rate.

But there is a new argument on abortion that may establish a more authentic middle ground. It would use government not to outlaw abortion altogether but to reduce its likelihood. And at least one politician, Thomas R. Suozzi, the county executive of New York's Nassau County, has shown that the position involves more than soothing rhetoric.

Last May Suozzi, a Democrat, gave an important speech calling on both sides to create "a better world where there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, and where women who face unplanned pregnancies receive greater support and where men take more responsibility for their actions."

Last week Suozzi put money behind his words. He announced nearly $1 million in county government grants to groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to Catholic Charities for an array of programs -- adoption and housing, sex education, and abstinence promotion -- to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to help pregnant women who want to bring their children into the world. Suozzi calls his initiative "Common Sense for the Common Good" and, as Newsday reported, he was joined at his news conference by people at both ends of the abortion debate.

This is a matter on which no good deed goes unpunished, and Suozzi was immediately denounced by Kelli Conlin, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, for the grants that went to abstinence-only programs, which, she insisted, do not work.

As the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has argued for years, the best approach to the problem involves neither abstinence-only nor contraception-only programs but a combination of the two. But the merits of the issue aside, it's unfortunate that Suozzi's initiative is caught in the cross fire of this year's campaign for governor of New York. Suozzi is expected to challenge state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. NARAL strongly supports Spitzer, who opposes the ban on partial-birth abortion that Suozzi -- otherwise an abortion rights supporter -- favors.

Still, it's a good sign for the long run that in an interview on Monday, Conlin was careful to praise most of Suozzi's grants program -- "the vast majority of it we are totally in agreement with" -- adding that "prevention is the key."

Nancy Keenan, the president of the national NARAL group, is also stressing prevention. Her organization ran an advertisement last year explicitly inviting the "right-to-life movement" to join in an effort to "help us prevent abortions." Usually NARAL's allies refer to abortion opponents as "anti-choice," so the conciliatory language itself was a welcome departure. At the federal level, NARAL is pushing for a bill promoting contraception introduced by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, an opponent of abortion.

Right about this point, I can see my friends in the right-to-life movement rolling their eyes and insisting that all this prevention talk is a dodge. Maybe so, but my question to them is whether they honestly think that their current political strategy, focused on knocking down Roe and making abortion illegal, will actually protect fetal life by substantially reducing the number of abortions.

Even if Roe falls, legislatures in the most populous states are likely to keep abortion legal. And if a ban on abortion were ever to take hold, does anyone doubt that a large, illegal abortion industry would quickly come into being?

I have more sympathy than most liberals with the right-to-life movement because I believe most right-to-lifers are animated not by sexism or some punitive attitude toward sexuality but by a genuine desire to defend the defenseless. Surely that view should encompass efforts to reduce the number of abortions in our nation. That's why I hope Tom Suozzi finds imitators, and allies on both sides of the question.

[Diekan]

Aborition is more or less nothing more than a means of birth control for the irresponsible.

[The Kizzy]

please don't generalize, Diekan

[Lyion]

Well, many women on birth control get pregnant, and do not wish to carry the child to term. I wouldn't call them irresponsible.

My problem is the fact so many of the women having abortions, end up having multiple ones. It's really not that hard not to get pregnant.

I'm absolutely digusted with the continued support of partial birth abortion by these far left groups like NARAL. I can empathise with women getting quick abortions early first term even if I oppose it morally, but there is no justification for this overt killing of viable babies. It's reprehensible and evil.

[Eldred]

I agree. I'm personally pro choice. But I don't think that it schould be used as a means of birth controll. If I had any power I would limit the number of abortions a woman could get in her lifetime to 1. San's any crimes committed against her. i.e. incest or rape.

[Ouchyfish]

I would limit the number of abortions a woman could get in her lifetime to 1. San's any crimes committed against her. i.e. incest or rape.

Feminazis would crucify you for saying that. To them it's like me limiting how many kids you can have.

[Diekan]

Don't you just love the whole idea of pro-choice. The man, who would end up having to pay out the ass for child support, who would play a significant role in raising the child has no say.

I've always had the impression that pro-choice is more about power and independence than anything else...

[Lyion]

Exactly. The Female body is their own, and an unborn child has no rights as long as he's in the womb period.

Morally, many have problems with this mindset. Especially as they crush the head of an unborn viable child and kill it without a good reason.

[The Kizzy]

Don't you just love the whole idea of pro-choice. The man, who would end up having to pay out the ass for child support, who would play a significant role in raising the child has no say.

I've always had the impression that pro-choice is more about power and independence than anything else...

Many men don't want the responsibility of a child. They were looking for an easy lay.

[Ouchyfish]

I was looking for both...

Score: 2 kids, 1100 easy lays.

[Spazz]

Isnt it just as immoral to tell someone they HAVE to have a child they dont want? Thats allways struck me as a pretty facist idea. Second who gives 2 shits and a fuck about how many abortions a woman has... it has no effect on any of us whatso ever.

[Ouchyfish]

Allowing someone to go to your house and crush your skull and suck it up with a shop vac doesn't affect me but I still want a law against it.

[Zanchief]

Allowing someone to go to your house and crush your skull and suck it up with a shop vac doesn't affect me but I still want a law against it.

That would really depend on whose skull is getting squished.

[Spazz]

Yea ouchyfish im alive and that would be murder. A fetus is a maybe baybe.

[Ouchyfish]

A fetus isn't alive?

[Spazz]

pro lifers get up and arms and demand that child be born but once it is alot of them cease to care. Or you got the same people demanding these kids be born then they are pissed off bout the " hand out" programs people need when they have a kid they shouldnt have had in the first place

[Arlos]

Actually, many on the pro-abortion side of the fence don't care much for that particular abortion procedure either, and it is, in fact, a very very small percentage of the total number of abortions performed. The reason that none of the bans ever pass, is for one simple reason: they don't have a proviso allowing for the procedure in cases where it is necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Sorry, but if that's the only procedure that'll work, and the mother is going to die if it's not done (taking the fetus with her anyway), then do the damn procedure.

If the right-to-lifers had been willing to include that proviso from the beginning, the ban would've passed long ago.

-Arlos

[Spazz]

No dude a fetus isnt alive like you or I .

[Ouchyfish]

So by that reasoning we can kill off the people sucking on the welfare tit too? Shit I might become pro choice after all.



jk..I see where you're coming from though..it all boils down to when someone thinks it can be considered a human with human rights I guess.

[Arlos]

Yeah, fish. Some people think it's conception, other people consider it to be at birth. Me, it's kind of a nebulous point, but it's about when the fetus is completely viable and could survive on its own outside it's mother. Basically, anything before about 22 weeks, definitely non-viable, at 28 weeks it's getting fairly viable, so the dividing line is in the middle there somewhere. Medical science has gotten better at keeping highly premature fetuses alive, but even those that do make it have a much higher incidence of serious medical conditions later, including emotional disorders, learning disorders, pulmonary issues & cardiac issues.

-Arlos

[Kramer]

yeah. This is one of those issues where ideology only serves to confuse and polarize people.

I am a christian, with a degree in theology and I firmly believe that a fetus is fully human from conception.

BUT. I also work with very underpriveleged populations, and having the mindset that it is murder will only serve to:

1) Force people to back alley abortions or illegal abortions which typically means healthcare circumstances that are not of high quality and therefore dangerous
2) Alienate you from the people who actually need help. When someone has a pregnancy they don't want, it typically is not because they hate babies, it is because they are scared out of their minds and/or have a pretty clear idea of what reality is. which is often that they couldn't possibly care for the child well.
3) Blind you from the reality that people are going to do stupid things every moment they can.... and you railing against them for it does not help.... So you might as well meet them where they are and try to help from there. People know what kills them, and they will do it anyway, whether it is unprotected sex, hard drugs, binge drinking, smoking, speeding,........
4) Cause you to ignore the fact that there are not enough foster families out there to take that child who will be raised in potentially awful circumstances, and will you take responsibility for the child's life and upbringing once you get off your pedestal?

I don't know... it is a complex issue.

[Lyion]

Actually, many on the pro-abortion side of the fence don't care much for that particular abortion procedure either, and it is, in fact, a very very small percentage of the total number of abortions performed. The reason that none of the bans ever pass, is for one simple reason: they don't have a proviso allowing for the procedure in cases where it is necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Sorry, but if that's the only procedure that'll work, and the mother is going to die if it's not done (taking the fetus with her anyway), then do the damn procedure.

If the right-to-lifers had been willing to include that proviso from the beginning, the ban would've passed long ago.

The partial birth abortion ban had a provisio for the womans health, and the arguement against it was the ban was unconstitutional, and that abortion is a guaranteed right. The problem is it's usually misrepresented in the press.

Around 15% of Abortions are done past 16 weeks where the baby is considered viable, and by any scientific standard is cognizant and alive, and yet not protected at all.

What is microscopic is the number of abortions done for valid health reasons.

The simple truth is many pro choice people want unfettered access to abortion, which is strongly against the majorities opinion. That's fine, but hopefully the Supreme Court with its newer justices will slap down the 9th and other courts that are possibly overturning valid legislation that is not unconstitutional, but political volatile.

[Arlos]

Sorry, fetuses are NOT viable at 16 weeks. Hell, they barely have a 2% survival rate at 22 weeks, and those that DO survive have significant chances of being screwed for life due to major medical conditions.

From a journal from a hospital ICU (so from actual medical professionals, not from propaganda from either side): http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/

Extremely premature babies are often classified as born before 28 weeks-a normal pregnancy lasts 40 weeks. Generally, premature babies are babies who are born before 37 weeks of pregnancy (see, "The facts about premature delivery," page 7). And in addition to being classified as extremely premature, they can also be classified as premature (below 37 weeks) and very premature (below 32 weeks). Babies born earlier than 22 weeks may have a heartbeat or pulse, but do not survive and gestation periods that end before 20 weeks result in a 'miscarriage.'

Barrington [director of Neurology for the hospital] says that in recent years survival rates for premature babies have increased due to the medical technology now available. At 28 weeks more than 96 percent of babies survive; at 24 weeks the rate is 50 percent; and at 22 weeks, two percent. At the MUHC the majority of parents of 24 week-old babies will opt for intensive care. The baby's condition is then reassessed on a daily basis to see if it is still appropriate to proceed. Barrington says most of the babies who are not going to survive die within the first 24 to 72 hours of being born.

Extremely premature babies that do survive most commonly experience neurological and pulmonary side effects. While neurological problems may persist, pulmonary problems are commonly resolved within a few months after discharge. And while some babies go home with oxygen tanks to assist their breathing, almost all of these babies are off them by their first year. Barrington estimates, how-ever, that 20 percent of premature babies born before 28 weeks will develop a significant medical condition. An even greater proportion will develop more minor conditions, such as behavioural and learning disorders.

Oh, and no, you're wrong, the partial birth abortion ban WAS struck down because it DID lack the health provision.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Appeals courts find 'partial-birth' abortion ban unconstitutional
Joshua Pantesco at 8:13 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals ruled [2nd opinion, PDF; 9th opinion, PDF] in two separate decisions Tuesday that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act [text, PDF] is unconstitutional because it does not provide an exception for the health of the mother. The Ninth Circuit struck down the law 3-0 and issued an injunction against its enforcement, while the Second Circuit decided not to issue an injunction following a 2-1 vote, instead soliciting further arguments on the case. Both opinions cited the 2006 US Supreme Court decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England [text], decided earlier this month, though Ayotte involved a minor challenging a state abortion parental notification law. A similar Eighth Circuit ruling [JURIST report] was appealed to the Supreme Court [JURIST report] by the Bush administration last September, though certiorari has not yet been granted for that case. AP has more.

from the online law library at University of Pittsburgh: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2 ... -birth.php

I'd think an entry in a law libary is going to be as devoid of spin as possible, yes?

-Arlos

[Diekan]

I can see the use of abortion for rape and incest vicitims, and I can see it being used to save the life of the mother if need be. But, other than that? No. You spread your legs to have a good time, you stuck your slong in her to get off - deal with it. You made the choice - you pay for it.

[Ouchyfish]

Then you have to look at the religious aspect of, "maybe God meant for it to be. It had to be that way for the human that God wanted, etc"

If abortion is ok in rape and incest then you must include a provision for the death penalty for the male perp.