Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[Calm]

In the vast majority of cases, the worst the mother would have to "suffer" is a trivial nine month period and a few hours of labor.

Having been pregnant twice, let me assure you that the nine months was not only not trivial, but the effects of the two pregnancies on my physical body can be described as crippling in some ways, definitely they were life altering...and not in a healthy way. I know of many women who have had a variety of life altering health issues resulting from carrying a child a 'trivial' nine months.

Having said that, the sacrifice was worth a hundredfold to have my children.

[thesometimesaint]

Want to decrease the number of abortions? Keep it safe, keep it legal, and keep it rare.

[Jeff K.]

Only the third portion reduces abortions. Safe and legal do not in and of themselves reduce the number of abortions. If that were so why does Cuba have over a 70 percent abortion rate where it is legal and supposedly safe? Imagine 70% of all conceptions ending in abortion. Where sex education is mandatory and birth control and their use taught a great deal, at least during my time working a project there in 89.

[CV75]

But, couldn't I simply argue that we should err <snip> but who could say that one is obligated to?

Let’s see if I can sort through the levels on which I think about this subject before I address your questions:

1. The two underlying spiritual principles for me are that we perform no abortion contrary to God’s will, and we pray to know and follow His will, and that each person is responsible for her decision and for influencing those around her in following God’s will.

2. For church administration purposes, abortion is an acceptable exception to the rule only under certain circumstances. These rare cases seem to be of the type that might allow room for confirmation from the Lord to proceed with the abortion. The additional ecclesiastical guidance here is to pray and obtain a confirmation, and just not automatically proceed, but whatever the decision, these circumstances allow for continued fellowship. http://lds.org/new-era/1973/04/policies-and-procedures-statement-on-abortion?lang=eng&query=abortion

3. For public policy purposes, no abortion should be performed without some kind of review, supports for the mother and unwanted children, incentives for protecting the baby and disincentives for not, and penalties ranging from fines to incarceration for infractions. This leaves it open for abortions at any stage of pregnancy to be performed under the right conditions.

I think each of the three levels considers and addresses the needs of the unborn, the mother, her associates, and the community/society at large through different means.

In any of the levels, it doesn’t matter when life or personhood is understood to begin. In the third, the proposition to structure the policy as if life begins at conception is a matter of discipline in covering all bases in public policy. So “abortion” by IUD is hardly an issue; partial birth abortions for convenience not so much.

The proposition to structure the policy as if life or personhood is understood to begin at a certain (some might argue arbitrary) stage is not sound because we simply do not know how or when they begin. But since we certainly know how and when we can end them, erring with conception balances the power equation.

None of us acts alone, really. Everything we do, regardless of the level of privacy we might enjoy, affects others. Public policy is designed to specifically address this principle. Abortion is not just about the mother’s decisions, emotions, pain or goals. It is about those of others, the family, community, and society at large, many of whom are as superficially invisible as the fetus whose life and personhood are indeterminate, masked, misunderstood or unrecognized. Selflessness is a hallmark of an advanced society, becomes a moral obligation within that society, and its public policies would reflect that. The moral obligations of Zion are a good template for the moral obligations of other societies.

RE: the hypothetical, I’d have to think about that. I’ve seen it discussed on this board before and really have nothing to add to that debate. But it seems more analogous to one of the rare cases (kidnap/rape), and personally I would be inclined to stay plugged in while addressing the criminal issues of kidnap, the hospital’s conspiracy, etc. (and require lifetime private violin performances free of charge). Am I morally obligated to do so? At level 1, no, until the Lord so inspired me (and I am morally obligated to seek this); at level 2, likewise; at level 3, no, but I would be morally obligated to follow the public policy.

[LeSellers]

Sure math is math, but people are people. Your figures are based on "reported" cases and there is more to the story.

The fact that many do get raped and also don't report it, is a fact. Your numbers don't nor can quantify such. It's the human factor that such figures discount it IMO.

But the figures did account for unreported cases. I included a >80% unreported factor, that's why the number of rapes in the math is 100,000, rather than the reported 9,500. Further research last night disclosed that the number should be about ⁵/₆ (~83%), so I was not too far off the mark in any case, even by the most generous reading of the data.

Surely you would agree that if such cases were actually reported that the math would have a different look?

Given I did account for them, I can't see how it would be dramatically different.

Even if I were off by a factor of 100, rape would still cause only a minor fraction of all pregnancies: ~1:40. As I said, however, that large an error in my estimates has no basis in any kind of reality.

It's an important issue in this question, not because of the numbers (it clearly is not), but because it is an emotional thing. Pro-abortion advocates use "rape and incest" as their rallying point to justify the continued legality of and coerced funding of abortion on demand. They count on stories even worse than Silver Girl's to tug on our collective heart strings so we will accede to their demands that every child be a potential target for their "treatment".

I certainly don't blame [silver Girl] as being intentionally offended [my emphasis]. I imagine, given her experience in culmination with reading your post.. Her offense was quite natural.

Natural, perhaps. However, it was her choice to be offended or insulted. She had to read a lot into the words to arrive at that point. Insult was not at all my intent, and rape, per se, was not the focus of the discussion.

Lehi

[CV75]

Hi Eldwynn,

I don't mean to speak for CV, but it seems he and I stand fairly close on this particular topic.

I'll take it! (Thank you!)

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I think you mean 70 per 1000. Not 70%.

[bluebell]

Abortion is NOT an act of murder. It is an act of removing the fetus and letting it die. I strongly believe that letting die is different than taking initiative to kill something.

This isn't true. In fact, if a fetus does manage to emerge alive from the womb, it's considered a complication. It's not meant to happen and doctors usually try to make sure it doesn't.

In almost all cases, the act of abortion kills the fetus before it is completely delivered from the uterus. Late term abortions sometimes deliver the head of the fetus (which is far enough along that if the birth had been natural it would be considered merely premature and would probably live wit medical intervention) and then crush the skull while the baby is partially delivered. Other times they crush the skull while it is still in the womb, cut the baby up (again, we're talking about a fetus that would probably live if delivered naturally) while it's still in there and then the pieces are delivered out through the vagina.

2 trimester abortions always try to kill the baby in utero with chemicals (such as a saline solution, which takes a while, sometimes a few hours, for the baby to actually die. The baby will usually be covered with chemical burns when it is actually delivered and many mothers report feeling the baby thrashing around in the womb as they wait for it to die, so i'm sure it's a 'painfree' way to go. ) or with force before delivering it.

Even early term abortions usually kill the embyo in the act of detaching it from the uterian wall.

If you are going to support abortion, at least know what you are supporting.

[Silver Girl]

Bold mine Lehi. Sure math is math, but people are people. Your figures are based on "reported" cases and there is more to the story.

The fact that many do get raped and also don't report it, is a fact. Your numbers don't nor can quantify such. It's the human factor that such figures discount it IMO.

I know of a number of women who have such unreported cases in their skeleton closet. Surely you would agree that if such cases were actually reported that the math would have a different look?

Personally, I applaud Silver Girl and her ability to be forthcoming about such a sensitive issue. I certainly don't blame her as being intentionally offended. I imagine, given her experience in culmination with reading your post.. Her offense was quite natural.

Regards,

Mudcat

Thank You, Mudcat, for your insightful and senstitive remarks!!

I am a survivor!! Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the assistance of a wonderful Survivor's Group, I am in a really great place in my life!!

The last 11 years have been a journey of Faith and Healing... And, while I wish I had learned these truths in some other way, I am, nevertheless, thankful for the Mercy and Grace that have come into my life, in spite of trials... I have also had the oppertunity to share some of these insights with others, and have been grateful for the chance to do so!!

I guess what got my dander up in LeSeller's comment was the blantant statement that, "in spite of the news, there are very few rapes anywhere in the world", and then his complicated mathmamatical formualtions, based on so many assumptions...

Sexual assault is not a generic thing... It cannot be truly understood as a mathamatical formulation, or in generic terms... As you said, Mudcat, there is a Human Factor that the numbers don't represent!! Assault is a very REAL, horrifying, life altering event... And, there are some women who do concieve as a result of this event... Some of those women are strong enough to carry to term, and give a child up for adoption... Some women simply cannot... They are too broken, and mentally fragile...

I truly do not think that any person can judge a woman in this situation unless they have walked in her shoes... And, even then, every person responds to assault differently, so maybe people shouldn't judge at all...

Just my .02...

SIlver Girl

[emeliza]

Let me start off by saying I hate abortion. I think it is horrible. Having said that, I don't think it should be illegal and I am not Pro-Life. Sometimes I feel guilty for not being Pro-Life. I do think that late term abortion should be illegal. I agree with the church in that it should only be for rape, incest or life of mother/child at great risk, however even saying that, I still don't think it should be restricted on those criteria (though I do still think it should be restricted to how far along you are).

I'm a pragmatist. People are going to have abortions, legal or illegal. I would support making them illegal after the first trimester. If we really want to reduce the number of abortions and not just make ourselves feel good about taking a hard-line stance, we've got to improve our sex ed/birth control message and availability of contraceptives, including the morning after pill. Suppressing birth control and information about birth control will only lead to unwanted pregnancies, and unwanted pregnancies lead to abortion.

I agree with most of this, although the morning after pill is not necessarily something I agree with unless they make it safer.

Want to decrease the number of abortions? Keep it safe, keep it legal, and keep it rare.

I agree with this as well.

[mfbukowski]

Abortion is NOT an act of murder. It is an act of removing the fetus and letting it die. I strongly believe that letting die is different than taking initiative to kill something.

This is just plain silly. Removing the fetus is what causes it to die.

"No officer, I didn't murder the man, I just put a bullet in his head and let him die".

Try that one in court.

[mfbukowski]

First, I stated that a fetus does NOT feel pain, have autonomy, or have human emotions.

What is your evidence for this unwarranted assertion? Your faith? What is "autonomy"?

This is what totalitarian regimes have taught about their enemies, and similar arguments were used about slaves in this country.

"They don't love their children the way WE do!" Today if one makes the same argument ("They have no feelings or emotions") about, say, chimps or lab mice, the animal rights people would get go crazy.

You are on very thin ice with that one!

You base your entire criticism of religion on the fact that we have "no evidence" for God, and yet you live by a moral code for which you have "no evidence".

How do you manage that contradiction?

[mfbukowski]

Similarly, if you were dying, and a simple touch of my hand could heal you, it is not REQUIRED that I fly all the way to were you live to heal you- I have no obligation.

Another unwarranted moral assumption for which you have shown no evidence.

Please note I am not saying that "atheists have no morals". I was an atheist who lived by a very strict moral code when I was a youth, but it was based on very clear assumptions about the purpose of life. I see no evidence of any of that in your posts.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

I think you mean 70 per 1000. Not 70%.

No, I mean 70%

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Then you are incorrect. The abortion rate in Cuba stands at 70 per 1000 or 7%.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/cubasr1.doc

[Jeff K.]

Abortion rates, which are high in Cuba, increased dramatically during the 1980s, but had almost halved by 1999 and declined to near-1970s levels of 32.0 per 100 pregnancies. The rate is still among the highest in Latin America.

Health care Cuba

You may also want to review percentage abortions per 100 pregnancies

4 Decade evaluation of healthcare

I do not see such things as being rare, when it is legal. It goes back to my point that making it available does not make it rare.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

From http://www.un.org/es...doc/cubasr1.doc

Between 1968 and 1974, the rate of legal abortion quadrupled, increasing from 16.7 to 69.5 legal abortions performed per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Since then, abortion rates have fluctuated between 47 and 62 abortions per 1,000 women. Although an increase in contraceptive use in Cuba has reduced abortion rates in the past 15 years, levels remain fairly high.

[Jeff K.]

I think you are looking at it in terms of women and I am looking at it in terms of pregnancies. That is like looking at the effectiveness of cold medicine on people who do not suffer from colds.

You through out a piece of rhetoric, keep abortions legal safe and rare. Well, when they are legal and safe, they are NOT rare. That is my point. And it is a well documented point. When readily available it is a not rare at all, in fact it has a much higher incidence. Now the question is do we want that environment where the higher incidence is of course welcomed? Is it really legal safe and "rare" or should the statement be "legal, safe and common".

That is my point.

[Jeff K.]

If you want abortions to be

Legal, safe, and common.

Then you should just say so.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

From http://www.un.org/es...doc/cubasr1.doc

Between 1968 and 1974, the rate of legal abortion quadrupled, increasing from 16.7 to 69.5 legal abortions performed per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Since then, abortion rates have fluctuated between 47 and 62 abortions per 1,000 women. Although an increase in contraceptive use in Cuba has reduced abortion rates in the past 15 years, levels remain fairly high.

I cannot access your link, it might be my computer.

[Mudcat]

I think you are looking at it in terms of women and I am looking at it in terms of pregnancies. That is like looking at the effectiveness of cold medicine on people who do not suffer from colds.

You through out a piece of rhetoric, keep abortions legal safe and rare. Well, when they are legal and safe, they are NOT rare. That is my point. And it is a well documented point. When readily available it is a not rare at all, in fact it has a much higher incidence. Now the question is do we want that environment where the higher incidence is of course welcomed? Is it really legal safe and "rare" or should the statement be "legal, safe and common".

That is my point.

That is another great point Jeff.

I think the way people are reporting these figures seems to be skewed to make the figure seem underwhelming.

Using the statistics Lehi offered. In O4, roughly 1.3 million abortions were performed in the US. Also in 04 about 4.1 million children were born in the US. Crunching those numbers, you get a 24% abortion to pregnancy ratio.

IOW. 1 out of every 4 pregnancies in the US was aborted in 2004.

That is a staggering figure, IMO.

[Mudcat]

But the figures did account for unreported cases. I included a >80% unreported factor, that's why the number of rapes in the math is 100,000, rather than the reported 9,500. Further research last night disclosed that the number should be about ⁵/₆ (~83%), so I was not too far off the mark in any case, even by the most generous reading of the data.

I stand corrected.

Apologies.

Your Buddy,

Muddy

[Mudcat]

Let me start off by saying I hate abortion. I think it is horrible. Having said that, I don't think it should be illegal and I am not Pro-Life. Sometimes I feel guilty for not being Pro-Life. I do think that late term abortion should be illegal. I agree with the church in that it should only be for rape, incest or life of mother/child at great risk, however even saying that, I still don't think it should be restricted on those criteria (though I do still think it should be restricted to how far along you are).

I think this sums it up for a lot folks Emeliza.

I am bit out of sync with a good many of my fellow Evangelicals on this issue. The general view is that their isn't a good valid reason for termination of pregnancy.

I disagree and think rape, incest, life of mother and so forth seem reasonable causes to me. But I don't have much in the way of theological grounds to justify it. IOW, I am being inconsistent in my view and I know it. However, it makes sense to me, but I feel guilty about it at times too.

The most compelling argument to me, against what I think is valid cause for abortion, is that I have a niece who was raped and became pregnant. She opted to follow through with the birth. She has a beautiful 4 year old daughter... aptly named Grace.

[SilverKnight]

I think this sums it up for a lot folks Emeliza.

Myself included.

I have great discomfort with abortion, especially since I now have a baby daughter.

I am personally Pro-Life, but I would never support a legal initiative to criminalize abortion, or make it unavailable for women who want it.

It is an unpleasant, but necessary practice that must be allowed to exist. The implications for outlawing it are far-far worse than letting it remain readily available, medically safe and legal.

[krose]

The point of legality should be dropped worldwide to 20 weeks, beyond which it is MURDER to abort the unborn. If it occurs that a case of a 20 week old fetus is taken alive successfully, then the legal limit for abortion should be dropped to 18 weeks; and so on, until we have no survival possible whatsoever previous to that gestation period.

As a solidly pro-choice person, I have little argument with these time periods to determine legality (just not the charge of "murder" for anything but the last couple of months).