Over the last month, America has been witnessing one of the biggest abortion battles in the country since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Today, Bari shares her thoughts on the case of Kate Cox. She explains why it’s an appalling example of the cruelty of near-total abortion bans, and a tragic rebuttal to the pro-life claim that exceptions to these bans allow for a doctor and patient to make decisions in the woman’s best medical interest. And, Bari explains why she still grapples with the other side of the abortion debate—and why we all need to.
your "honesty video" just reminded me and reinforced my opinion why i know i made a good choice in subscribing to TFP. You made me think about a vivid and painful experience in my life and why it still haunts me and makes it so difficult to take a solid stance on this issue. The short story is I am living i Hollywood in the late fifties, abortion is illegal. For a weird confluence of events I have a best friend (Guy) who gets his girlfriend pregnant and a family friend ( girl and not a dating girl friend ) who gets pregnant. Avoiding many details I know here, but to keep it short, I am the person who drives the girls, the incidents are 6 months apart, down to Tijuana Mexico for the removal of a "Pelvic Tumor". I had to borrow my Moms car and make multiple excuses why I needed the car. TJ, as it was known then was dark , scary mysterious and caused me tremendous stress driving there to a specific address. The girls were silent, shaking, crying often , and I did my best to help but sorry to put it this way, but I was dumb shit kid who had no idea what they were about to experience. Again to shorten the story, they did what they had to do and in both cases it was a very long dark drive back to Hollywood and I delivered them to their mothers. Whom to this day I harbor ill will, anger towards them and confusion as to why me and why did they allow their daughters to endure this. Years forward I am interning at Cook County Hospital in Chicago as a Student at Northwestern University and I am assisting at what i was told was a routine "D& C" ( abortions were illegal ). The Dr. was performing the curettage and asked me to take the tray. When inspecting the tray I noticed much to my incredible naive eyes were portions of the early fetus. tiny sections of hands and feet, legs and a section of the skull. To say I was stunned does not begin to examine my thoughts which to this day still remain as I close my eyes to day at the age of 82 and they are vivid. So my point here, as I can say I lost contact with both girls and do not allow any conjecture on their mental health today as compared to back then. Both girls dropped out of school and one father left the mother. I know what is a viable fetus , I can hear the heart beats and i can see the little human being forming and I still have great difficulty just accepting the cavalier attitude, which I think many people have, of the Mom is not ready, it is not a good time, financially a disaster to the rest of the family, father is a monster, she was raped. So the "best" the reasonable , the fair thing for the mother is to, and sorry to put it this way, but as a doctor, the absolute correct term is to say terminate the child. Lets us solve that mothers "problem" by just terminating the fetus. To make it clear, I am able to mentally adjust now to reaching a common ground of some reasonable time frame when a termination of a pregnancy is going to be the best solution to an intractable political and emotional issue. Not all things in our life have simple or acceptable outcomes depending on which side you are on but I think I have to just realize that. Final point>> it is not just a clump of cells, it is not really a human, it is really not a baby, then what do we call it.
Bari, I admire you, and think you are right on most things, but I will make a few arguments here about why I think you are wrong on this. The “playing God” argument your colleague and many others make may already be the winner; it rightly carries shadows of eugenics. Also - and I’m sorry to sound hyperbolic - but aborting a child for convenience or for the prospect of some future good is literally human sacrifice. Even with the case of Kate Cox, she sacrificed her current unborn child for the possibility of a future one. (Of course, I am not talking about situations where the mother’s life is in peril).
Secondly, not only who are we to decide who lives and who doesn’t get a chance at life, but who are we to decide when someone is “human” and when they are merely a “fetus”? So an unborn child can just be unlucky if their mother decides to abort on “day x” or “week x” because the law doesn’t consider them human yet, but if the mom had waited one more day - “day y” or “week y” - suddenly this child is declared human and has the full protection of the law? You know how absurd that sounds!
Also, to be honest, I’m surprised that a person of faith such as yourself isn’t pro-life. What does Judaisim teach about this? (Maybe someone can enlighten me in the comments?). And anyone - whether religious or not - who has seen their child on the week 9 ultrasound should feel an instinctual moral compulsion to protect that innocent life, no?
Finally, you say that Republicans losing recent elections shows that they don’t represent the will of the people. Now, I can’t speak for Texas or other states where more restrictive laws on abortion were proposed, but here in Virginia - where the Democrats recently won back both chambers of the legislature - the Democrat candidates and their campaigns lied about Republican intentions (imagine that!). The Dems spoke repeatedly of state Republican “bans”, when Governor Youngkin clearly had proposed a compromise of a 15-week limit with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. But the Democrats lied about it.
Finally, when you hear Democrats speak of bodily “autonomy”, can you educate them that “auto” means “self”, as in “one”, when clearly there is another, second human life inside the pregnant woman?
I couldn't agree more with your thoughts above on this Honestly segment. It was interesting to hear thoughts/opinions from several contributors on both sides. but one comment Bari made near the end of the segment especially left me at a loss. The statement was, "abortion in the
1st trimester is morally
different then abortions later in the term." To this I ask why? The end result is exactly the same correct..a life is extinguished? Lastly, society may operate based on popular opinion and prevailing policy, but we don't always get it right.
Yeah if we were to go off opinion polls for issues like this, such as to determine if Israel’s fight against Hamas is justified or morally correct we might find her objecting to using polls to answer questions of moral/ethical policy.
Clearly media and cultural institutions can affect the mood/morality of the public and this is the case both in their perception of Israel and of their perception of the value of a baby’s life.
Also, there was a comment in her roundtable from a libertarian about how the state shouldn’t be inserting themselves into decisions between a woman and her doctor and her pro-choice position was born out of a desire for less government involvement.
But I just kept thinking ... if there was any purpose to government surely it would be to protect the vulnerable from harm. The government is the only party in that interaction that can step in and speak for and protect the interests of the baby that is unable to speak for itself. If we start saying that those people who cannot speak for themselves or exercise agency have no moral claim to a basic right to life then we’ve lost the entire plot.
The politicization of abortion is a tragic stain on our nation. As someone who is pro-life, and the parent of adopted children, I am clearly sensitive to the interests of the unborn. I also believe, however, that we have made incredible strides to providing “choices” for women, including universally available (non-abortifacient) birth control. Incidentally, this has been no gift to women in general.
The fact that we have gone seemingly backwards in this debate is tragic. We now have two political parties who spend 90% of their time attacking the most extreme views in their opponents’ platforms. Anyone who listens to leaders like Senator Schumer should understand that pro-life voters have become horrified by the abortion-on-demand lobby on the Left. Horrified. Your comment takes Bari’s views up a notch. We are getting very close to deciding who lives and who dies, and you need only look at social media to see our worst impulses in their germinating stages. The way in which we are picking winners and losers among races, sexes, and social classes is appalling, and seems to be only increasing. Both parties are drunk on freedom and the providing of more freedom, but a nation that has lost its self-control and moral compass get the leaders they deserve.
”For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.“
Psalm 139:13-14 ESV
”"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."“
What makes me horribly saddened by any pro-choice position is that as soon as you replace the words “she gets an abortion” with “she kills her baby” then there is only one justification for it that works.
And that’s why it has to be the life of the mother. If her life isn’t at risk, then no inconvenience or suffering or pain is a justifiable reason for killing an innocent child.
No one wants the mother to suffer, be in pain or be inconvenienced. But it is a reality that happens to us all throughout life. The same woman would suffer if her child was diagnosed with a terminal illness after birth. But that doesn’t mean she has the right to kill her child to end her own suffering.
And she doesn’t have the right to kill a child to protect her future fertility either.
Unless her own life is at risk, I just do not see how you can make a moral argument for it.
I used to be pro-choice. But that was because I never really engaged with the pro-life argument because I agreed with Bari. But there are just such massive flaws to the pro-choice argument. Yes horrible things will happen if we don’t legalize child murder except if the life of the mother is at risk. But i believe much more horrible things have come from us allowing it.
And we mostly cannot see it because the victims are flushed down toilets and thrown in the trash.
I have always been pro-life. In her case I would have no issue with Kate Cox's need for an abortion. I was put on earth to spread God's law not to enforce it. My issue with medical exemptions would be the trustworthiness of the doctors involved. I also don't think that abortion on demand is good for the future of our society.
I am a former pro life Republican. I believe your own life experiences cement your beliefs. I am a psych nurse. I see the 10 year olds that have been molested or raped. Most of these babies had to deliver because they were too far along to have abortions. They are usually suicidal/homicidal when they come in.
I have also worked in ICU, MedSurg and MotherBaby. I have seen life and death up close and personal.
In my opinion I believe the soul enters your body with your first breath and leaves with your last.
There has to be exceptions for rape, incest, and well being of the mother. Not just literal death of mother.
Working in psych for the past 20 years has made me pro-choice.
I no longer belong in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.
As someone from outside the US... As someone who has been influenced by the Jewish view on termination of pregnancy... As someone who has been influenced by the Australian philosopher Leslie Cannold and her writings on abortion... As a medical practitioner... As someone with an interest in history, including feminist history and political history... I find the American politicization and hand wringing about termination of pregnancy perplexing.
Americans are markedly out of step with the rest of the developed world. Even deeply Catholic countries such as Ireland and Poland.
[Sidenote: the situation in Ireland is very recent. At the same time as I was pregnant, an Indian woman - who was the same stage of pregnancy as I was at the time - died in Ireland because the medical staff were too scared to terminate the pregnancy that was killing her because of the unclear laws at the time. The outcry was such that the laws were rapidly changed to ensure that such a tragedy never happened again. It was a horror story and I was very glad that I am in Australia where such a scenario would not occur.]
The Jewish view of terminating a pregnancy: the unborn fetus has no legal status until it is born and separate from the mother. It is an extension of the mother's body until such time as it is a breathing and living baby that exists in the world as a separate being. Thus, terminating a pregnancy in order to preserve the health of the mother is permissible. Giving treatment to the mother that might endanger the unborn baby is also permissible.
Leslie Cannold's view: women have the right to determine their own reproduction. Children have the right to be adequately parented. Forcing a child to be born with the knowledge that the child will not able to be adequately parented is actually infringing on that child's rights. A woman will know whether she has the capacity to adequately parent a child.
A medical view: as one of my wise teachers once said it is hubris to think that we can control fertility. Just as IVF will not work for everyone, there will always be a role for terminating pregnancies. And that is both for family planning considerations, as well as all sorts of scenarios where continuing a pregnancy will result in harm to the mother (and possibly the fetus or unborn baby.)
Generally, the changeover from "fetus" to "unborn baby" is around 22-25 weeks because this is the point of viability. That is, the point where if the woman goes into labour the premature baby may have a chance of surviving. However, a LOT of technology goes into keeping such a premature baby alive. Genuine viability is more at the 30+ weeks stage.
Every woman's story and need for a termination of pregnancy is different. Like any other health care decision, it is a decision that is no-one's business except for the woman and her doctor. In a healthy relationship, the woman's partner would be privy to the discussion but not everyone is in a healthy relationship. The state's role is to regulate the safety of the health care provided, ie that the health care facility providing care is kept at the same standards as a health care facility providing any other medical or surgical care.
(My father has told me stories of his junior doctor days looking after women who had endured backyard terminations before such regulation was in place. Chilling!)
Much of what I have read about the history of women's health care has centered on European and American history, therefore, with a significant Christian influence on laws surrounding abortion. If anyone knows of a comparative history looking at the women's health care in other parts of the world through the ages, I would love to hear about it!
As I understand it, the Republican obsession with women's reproductive rights and agency is a very modern phenomenon, which arose out of political expediency and has since taken on a life of its own. To an outsider, this obsession is bewildering.
An observation: the Free Press has many interesting contributors but very obviously has no-one on staff with a health/medical background. This has been very obvious with the discussions about mental health. For example, the very first Honestly I listened to was about the Jordan Neele incident and the participants' ignorance about psychiatric illness was painful, yet coloured the discussion and led it in misguided directions. I was yelling at the radio!
Similarly, with some of the discussion about termination of pregnancy I want to yell at the computer.
No, my concern with abortion is that it starts and ends with selfishness. Yes, I’m a guy and I am a hypocrite, blessed in myriad ways but especially with good luck. Pre-marital sex? Yes, please! Get a girl pregnant? Nope - played Russian Roulette and won.
There I acknowledged that so you can go ahead and tell me I have no right to an opinion…
Anyway, by trivializing conception, don’t we trivialize life a bit? And if we can trivialize life at the beginning, couldn’t we perhaps trivialize its ending, too? Nana is making my life difficult and limiting my choices, after all…
Here’s where many would say say I’m going whole a$$hole, but ask European Jews of the 1930’s and 1940’s who lived through the horror (and I have) what they think about eugenics and, by extension, abortion.
“I look at laws in places like Denmark and Ireland which bar abortion after twelve weeks, or Germany and France which bar it at fourteen, and those to me seem like sensible compromises. This is also basically where the American people stand Polling consistently shows that the majority of Americans agree on a moderate, limited, pro-choice position like Europe. Seventy-three percent of adult Americans agree on allowing abortion in the first six weeks.”
Yet the case that came before the Texas court involved a woman who was 20 weeks pregnant. According to the Mayo website, “Genetic amniocentesis is usually done between weeks 14 and 20 of pregnancy.” Was the test not done at 14-15 weeks? According to Bari, Cox delayed to be certain of the diagnosis. Did she also delay in order to be a 21st century Jane Roe? If so, I’m willing to believe Cox made this sacrifice on behalf of other Texas women when she opted for a legal fight rather than immediately heading for the border. However, her legal team chose her as a test case, knowing as the process wound its way through the courts, Cox would need permission for a late term abortion. This is legal theater.
Also I believe Bari has mischaracterized the case in Ohio.
The woman was charged with abuse of a corpse because she flushed and plunged her fetus in the toilet and then left her house pretty immediately after and didn’t tell her mother who was in the house what had happened. First responders found mutilated body parts in the toilet.
As an EMT I have seen almost 22 week old babies like the one in this case, they are fully formed. We don’t know what condition the child was in when it was born but children at this age make gasping noises and appear alive though they have little to no chance of survival beyond moments. It’s horrific to think anyone would think of treating the child’s remains this way. But
This woman is not being charged for having a miscarriage or anything related to her pregnancy. She was charged for what she did with her child’s body after it happened. She was probably extremely distressed, yes. The hospital should have kept her to care for her and help her properly care for her child’s body yes. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t make a poor choice and that her actions shouldn’t be illegal.
I believe that there is a lot of money being raised to fan the flames around the abortion issue. The only ones to benefit are the fund-raisers and politicians. Politicizing this issue isn't helping anyone.
We need leaders who, as you say respect both sides, because they are both right. I think Nikki Haley spoke to this in the first debate very well.
I would vote for anyone who says they personally don't have the answer on policies and believes we need a coalition of relevant voices to help form policy. There are many questions to answer to prevent unintended consequences. For example:
1) We need to consider the precedence set by limiting a doctor's choices. For example, if it is okay for laws to limit the use of abortion as a procedure, doesn't it then become okay for laws to limit other procedures. There are other procedures which involve the decision of risking one individual's quality of life (or worse) for another, e.g., donating stem cells, bone marrow, or organs?
2) How about considering that a doctor pledges an oath to do no harm. Maybe policy should respect that a professionally trained doctor and supervisors are more prepared to make decisions on a case by case basis than a bunch of politicians on a broad basis.
3) How about considering that a policy that everyone agrees to (e.g., XX weeks) should apply to the use of tax dollars for abortion but not to private funds or donations.
4) How about a law that requires diverting all the money raised, to make abortion political, to research alternatives to abortion for unwanted pregnancy, e.g., preventing pregnancy through education, mental health care, etc.
And there are many more good questions to explore once we embrace that both sides of this issue have a point.
"The idea that a nine-week old fetus is the same as a baby is ... obviously untrue."
So, what's the difference?
Instead of asking the pro-life side to compromise at 12 or 15 weeks, your energy is better spent trying to get the pro-choice side to agree to such a compromise. And while they're at it, to stop using euphemisms like "reproductive justice" or saying that abortion is health care. And to stop depicting pro-life as akin to the Handmaid's Tale. And so on. George W. Bush said "good people can disagree about this issue", but I have yet to see the pro-choice side engage in a good-faith honest debate, in many decades.
I support access to abortion services, like I do access to all other health care services. I found the quote by the FP staffer about “abortion as euthanasia” thought-provoking; it has in fact has helped me refine my views a bit.
I support the ability of a pregnant female person to terminate her state of pregnancy. If this termination occurs before fetal viability, the fetus will die during ( or immediately after) life-sustaining support of the mother’s body is withdrawn.
In cases of pregnancy termination after fetal viability outside the womb ( such as where the fetus has an abnormality incompatible with life), I think the pregnant woman should be delivered of the fetus if that’s what she wishes and that the fetus should be given comfort care by staff until it dies.
The above approach affirms an American person’s bodily autonomy rights ( government should not force a person to use their own internal organs to sustain or extend the life of another human against their will) while concurrently avoiding euthanasia. Which - for very valid reasons as detailed by the FP staffer - should be assiduously avoided.
your "honesty video" just reminded me and reinforced my opinion why i know i made a good choice in subscribing to TFP. You made me think about a vivid and painful experience in my life and why it still haunts me and makes it so difficult to take a solid stance on this issue. The short story is I am living i Hollywood in the late fifties, abortion is illegal. For a weird confluence of events I have a best friend (Guy) who gets his girlfriend pregnant and a family friend ( girl and not a dating girl friend ) who gets pregnant. Avoiding many details I know here, but to keep it short, I am the person who drives the girls, the incidents are 6 months apart, down to Tijuana Mexico for the removal of a "Pelvic Tumor". I had to borrow my Moms car and make multiple excuses why I needed the car. TJ, as it was known then was dark , scary mysterious and caused me tremendous stress driving there to a specific address. The girls were silent, shaking, crying often , and I did my best to help but sorry to put it this way, but I was dumb shit kid who had no idea what they were about to experience. Again to shorten the story, they did what they had to do and in both cases it was a very long dark drive back to Hollywood and I delivered them to their mothers. Whom to this day I harbor ill will, anger towards them and confusion as to why me and why did they allow their daughters to endure this. Years forward I am interning at Cook County Hospital in Chicago as a Student at Northwestern University and I am assisting at what i was told was a routine "D& C" ( abortions were illegal ). The Dr. was performing the curettage and asked me to take the tray. When inspecting the tray I noticed much to my incredible naive eyes were portions of the early fetus. tiny sections of hands and feet, legs and a section of the skull. To say I was stunned does not begin to examine my thoughts which to this day still remain as I close my eyes to day at the age of 82 and they are vivid. So my point here, as I can say I lost contact with both girls and do not allow any conjecture on their mental health today as compared to back then. Both girls dropped out of school and one father left the mother. I know what is a viable fetus , I can hear the heart beats and i can see the little human being forming and I still have great difficulty just accepting the cavalier attitude, which I think many people have, of the Mom is not ready, it is not a good time, financially a disaster to the rest of the family, father is a monster, she was raped. So the "best" the reasonable , the fair thing for the mother is to, and sorry to put it this way, but as a doctor, the absolute correct term is to say terminate the child. Lets us solve that mothers "problem" by just terminating the fetus. To make it clear, I am able to mentally adjust now to reaching a common ground of some reasonable time frame when a termination of a pregnancy is going to be the best solution to an intractable political and emotional issue. Not all things in our life have simple or acceptable outcomes depending on which side you are on but I think I have to just realize that. Final point>> it is not just a clump of cells, it is not really a human, it is really not a baby, then what do we call it.
Bari, I admire you, and think you are right on most things, but I will make a few arguments here about why I think you are wrong on this. The “playing God” argument your colleague and many others make may already be the winner; it rightly carries shadows of eugenics. Also - and I’m sorry to sound hyperbolic - but aborting a child for convenience or for the prospect of some future good is literally human sacrifice. Even with the case of Kate Cox, she sacrificed her current unborn child for the possibility of a future one. (Of course, I am not talking about situations where the mother’s life is in peril).
Secondly, not only who are we to decide who lives and who doesn’t get a chance at life, but who are we to decide when someone is “human” and when they are merely a “fetus”? So an unborn child can just be unlucky if their mother decides to abort on “day x” or “week x” because the law doesn’t consider them human yet, but if the mom had waited one more day - “day y” or “week y” - suddenly this child is declared human and has the full protection of the law? You know how absurd that sounds!
Also, to be honest, I’m surprised that a person of faith such as yourself isn’t pro-life. What does Judaisim teach about this? (Maybe someone can enlighten me in the comments?). And anyone - whether religious or not - who has seen their child on the week 9 ultrasound should feel an instinctual moral compulsion to protect that innocent life, no?
Finally, you say that Republicans losing recent elections shows that they don’t represent the will of the people. Now, I can’t speak for Texas or other states where more restrictive laws on abortion were proposed, but here in Virginia - where the Democrats recently won back both chambers of the legislature - the Democrat candidates and their campaigns lied about Republican intentions (imagine that!). The Dems spoke repeatedly of state Republican “bans”, when Governor Youngkin clearly had proposed a compromise of a 15-week limit with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. But the Democrats lied about it.
Finally, when you hear Democrats speak of bodily “autonomy”, can you educate them that “auto” means “self”, as in “one”, when clearly there is another, second human life inside the pregnant woman?
I couldn't agree more with your thoughts above on this Honestly segment. It was interesting to hear thoughts/opinions from several contributors on both sides. but one comment Bari made near the end of the segment especially left me at a loss. The statement was, "abortion in the
1st trimester is morally
different then abortions later in the term." To this I ask why? The end result is exactly the same correct..a life is extinguished? Lastly, society may operate based on popular opinion and prevailing policy, but we don't always get it right.
Yeah if we were to go off opinion polls for issues like this, such as to determine if Israel’s fight against Hamas is justified or morally correct we might find her objecting to using polls to answer questions of moral/ethical policy.
Clearly media and cultural institutions can affect the mood/morality of the public and this is the case both in their perception of Israel and of their perception of the value of a baby’s life.
I love this comment.
Also, there was a comment in her roundtable from a libertarian about how the state shouldn’t be inserting themselves into decisions between a woman and her doctor and her pro-choice position was born out of a desire for less government involvement.
But I just kept thinking ... if there was any purpose to government surely it would be to protect the vulnerable from harm. The government is the only party in that interaction that can step in and speak for and protect the interests of the baby that is unable to speak for itself. If we start saying that those people who cannot speak for themselves or exercise agency have no moral claim to a basic right to life then we’ve lost the entire plot.
The politicization of abortion is a tragic stain on our nation. As someone who is pro-life, and the parent of adopted children, I am clearly sensitive to the interests of the unborn. I also believe, however, that we have made incredible strides to providing “choices” for women, including universally available (non-abortifacient) birth control. Incidentally, this has been no gift to women in general.
The fact that we have gone seemingly backwards in this debate is tragic. We now have two political parties who spend 90% of their time attacking the most extreme views in their opponents’ platforms. Anyone who listens to leaders like Senator Schumer should understand that pro-life voters have become horrified by the abortion-on-demand lobby on the Left. Horrified. Your comment takes Bari’s views up a notch. We are getting very close to deciding who lives and who dies, and you need only look at social media to see our worst impulses in their germinating stages. The way in which we are picking winners and losers among races, sexes, and social classes is appalling, and seems to be only increasing. Both parties are drunk on freedom and the providing of more freedom, but a nation that has lost its self-control and moral compass get the leaders they deserve.
Both are Old Testament:
”For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.“
Psalm 139:13-14 ESV
”"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."“
Jeremiah 1:5 ESV
David
What makes me horribly saddened by any pro-choice position is that as soon as you replace the words “she gets an abortion” with “she kills her baby” then there is only one justification for it that works.
And that’s why it has to be the life of the mother. If her life isn’t at risk, then no inconvenience or suffering or pain is a justifiable reason for killing an innocent child.
No one wants the mother to suffer, be in pain or be inconvenienced. But it is a reality that happens to us all throughout life. The same woman would suffer if her child was diagnosed with a terminal illness after birth. But that doesn’t mean she has the right to kill her child to end her own suffering.
And she doesn’t have the right to kill a child to protect her future fertility either.
Unless her own life is at risk, I just do not see how you can make a moral argument for it.
I used to be pro-choice. But that was because I never really engaged with the pro-life argument because I agreed with Bari. But there are just such massive flaws to the pro-choice argument. Yes horrible things will happen if we don’t legalize child murder except if the life of the mother is at risk. But i believe much more horrible things have come from us allowing it.
And we mostly cannot see it because the victims are flushed down toilets and thrown in the trash.
I have always been pro-life. In her case I would have no issue with Kate Cox's need for an abortion. I was put on earth to spread God's law not to enforce it. My issue with medical exemptions would be the trustworthiness of the doctors involved. I also don't think that abortion on demand is good for the future of our society.
I am a former pro life Republican. I believe your own life experiences cement your beliefs. I am a psych nurse. I see the 10 year olds that have been molested or raped. Most of these babies had to deliver because they were too far along to have abortions. They are usually suicidal/homicidal when they come in.
I have also worked in ICU, MedSurg and MotherBaby. I have seen life and death up close and personal.
In my opinion I believe the soul enters your body with your first breath and leaves with your last.
There has to be exceptions for rape, incest, and well being of the mother. Not just literal death of mother.
Working in psych for the past 20 years has made me pro-choice.
I no longer belong in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.
As someone from outside the US... As someone who has been influenced by the Jewish view on termination of pregnancy... As someone who has been influenced by the Australian philosopher Leslie Cannold and her writings on abortion... As a medical practitioner... As someone with an interest in history, including feminist history and political history... I find the American politicization and hand wringing about termination of pregnancy perplexing.
Americans are markedly out of step with the rest of the developed world. Even deeply Catholic countries such as Ireland and Poland.
[Sidenote: the situation in Ireland is very recent. At the same time as I was pregnant, an Indian woman - who was the same stage of pregnancy as I was at the time - died in Ireland because the medical staff were too scared to terminate the pregnancy that was killing her because of the unclear laws at the time. The outcry was such that the laws were rapidly changed to ensure that such a tragedy never happened again. It was a horror story and I was very glad that I am in Australia where such a scenario would not occur.]
The Jewish view of terminating a pregnancy: the unborn fetus has no legal status until it is born and separate from the mother. It is an extension of the mother's body until such time as it is a breathing and living baby that exists in the world as a separate being. Thus, terminating a pregnancy in order to preserve the health of the mother is permissible. Giving treatment to the mother that might endanger the unborn baby is also permissible.
Leslie Cannold's view: women have the right to determine their own reproduction. Children have the right to be adequately parented. Forcing a child to be born with the knowledge that the child will not able to be adequately parented is actually infringing on that child's rights. A woman will know whether she has the capacity to adequately parent a child.
A medical view: as one of my wise teachers once said it is hubris to think that we can control fertility. Just as IVF will not work for everyone, there will always be a role for terminating pregnancies. And that is both for family planning considerations, as well as all sorts of scenarios where continuing a pregnancy will result in harm to the mother (and possibly the fetus or unborn baby.)
Generally, the changeover from "fetus" to "unborn baby" is around 22-25 weeks because this is the point of viability. That is, the point where if the woman goes into labour the premature baby may have a chance of surviving. However, a LOT of technology goes into keeping such a premature baby alive. Genuine viability is more at the 30+ weeks stage.
Every woman's story and need for a termination of pregnancy is different. Like any other health care decision, it is a decision that is no-one's business except for the woman and her doctor. In a healthy relationship, the woman's partner would be privy to the discussion but not everyone is in a healthy relationship. The state's role is to regulate the safety of the health care provided, ie that the health care facility providing care is kept at the same standards as a health care facility providing any other medical or surgical care.
(My father has told me stories of his junior doctor days looking after women who had endured backyard terminations before such regulation was in place. Chilling!)
Much of what I have read about the history of women's health care has centered on European and American history, therefore, with a significant Christian influence on laws surrounding abortion. If anyone knows of a comparative history looking at the women's health care in other parts of the world through the ages, I would love to hear about it!
As I understand it, the Republican obsession with women's reproductive rights and agency is a very modern phenomenon, which arose out of political expediency and has since taken on a life of its own. To an outsider, this obsession is bewildering.
An observation: the Free Press has many interesting contributors but very obviously has no-one on staff with a health/medical background. This has been very obvious with the discussions about mental health. For example, the very first Honestly I listened to was about the Jordan Neele incident and the participants' ignorance about psychiatric illness was painful, yet coloured the discussion and led it in misguided directions. I was yelling at the radio!
Similarly, with some of the discussion about termination of pregnancy I want to yell at the computer.
No, my concern with abortion is that it starts and ends with selfishness. Yes, I’m a guy and I am a hypocrite, blessed in myriad ways but especially with good luck. Pre-marital sex? Yes, please! Get a girl pregnant? Nope - played Russian Roulette and won.
There I acknowledged that so you can go ahead and tell me I have no right to an opinion…
Anyway, by trivializing conception, don’t we trivialize life a bit? And if we can trivialize life at the beginning, couldn’t we perhaps trivialize its ending, too? Nana is making my life difficult and limiting my choices, after all…
Here’s where many would say say I’m going whole a$$hole, but ask European Jews of the 1930’s and 1940’s who lived through the horror (and I have) what they think about eugenics and, by extension, abortion.
“I look at laws in places like Denmark and Ireland which bar abortion after twelve weeks, or Germany and France which bar it at fourteen, and those to me seem like sensible compromises. This is also basically where the American people stand Polling consistently shows that the majority of Americans agree on a moderate, limited, pro-choice position like Europe. Seventy-three percent of adult Americans agree on allowing abortion in the first six weeks.”
Yet the case that came before the Texas court involved a woman who was 20 weeks pregnant. According to the Mayo website, “Genetic amniocentesis is usually done between weeks 14 and 20 of pregnancy.” Was the test not done at 14-15 weeks? According to Bari, Cox delayed to be certain of the diagnosis. Did she also delay in order to be a 21st century Jane Roe? If so, I’m willing to believe Cox made this sacrifice on behalf of other Texas women when she opted for a legal fight rather than immediately heading for the border. However, her legal team chose her as a test case, knowing as the process wound its way through the courts, Cox would need permission for a late term abortion. This is legal theater.
Also I believe Bari has mischaracterized the case in Ohio.
The woman was charged with abuse of a corpse because she flushed and plunged her fetus in the toilet and then left her house pretty immediately after and didn’t tell her mother who was in the house what had happened. First responders found mutilated body parts in the toilet.
As an EMT I have seen almost 22 week old babies like the one in this case, they are fully formed. We don’t know what condition the child was in when it was born but children at this age make gasping noises and appear alive though they have little to no chance of survival beyond moments. It’s horrific to think anyone would think of treating the child’s remains this way. But
This woman is not being charged for having a miscarriage or anything related to her pregnancy. She was charged for what she did with her child’s body after it happened. She was probably extremely distressed, yes. The hospital should have kept her to care for her and help her properly care for her child’s body yes. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t make a poor choice and that her actions shouldn’t be illegal.
I believe that there is a lot of money being raised to fan the flames around the abortion issue. The only ones to benefit are the fund-raisers and politicians. Politicizing this issue isn't helping anyone.
We need leaders who, as you say respect both sides, because they are both right. I think Nikki Haley spoke to this in the first debate very well.
I would vote for anyone who says they personally don't have the answer on policies and believes we need a coalition of relevant voices to help form policy. There are many questions to answer to prevent unintended consequences. For example:
1) We need to consider the precedence set by limiting a doctor's choices. For example, if it is okay for laws to limit the use of abortion as a procedure, doesn't it then become okay for laws to limit other procedures. There are other procedures which involve the decision of risking one individual's quality of life (or worse) for another, e.g., donating stem cells, bone marrow, or organs?
2) How about considering that a doctor pledges an oath to do no harm. Maybe policy should respect that a professionally trained doctor and supervisors are more prepared to make decisions on a case by case basis than a bunch of politicians on a broad basis.
3) How about considering that a policy that everyone agrees to (e.g., XX weeks) should apply to the use of tax dollars for abortion but not to private funds or donations.
4) How about a law that requires diverting all the money raised, to make abortion political, to research alternatives to abortion for unwanted pregnancy, e.g., preventing pregnancy through education, mental health care, etc.
And there are many more good questions to explore once we embrace that both sides of this issue have a point.
"The idea that a nine-week old fetus is the same as a baby is ... obviously untrue."
So, what's the difference?
Instead of asking the pro-life side to compromise at 12 or 15 weeks, your energy is better spent trying to get the pro-choice side to agree to such a compromise. And while they're at it, to stop using euphemisms like "reproductive justice" or saying that abortion is health care. And to stop depicting pro-life as akin to the Handmaid's Tale. And so on. George W. Bush said "good people can disagree about this issue", but I have yet to see the pro-choice side engage in a good-faith honest debate, in many decades.
Right on
I support access to abortion services, like I do access to all other health care services. I found the quote by the FP staffer about “abortion as euthanasia” thought-provoking; it has in fact has helped me refine my views a bit.
I support the ability of a pregnant female person to terminate her state of pregnancy. If this termination occurs before fetal viability, the fetus will die during ( or immediately after) life-sustaining support of the mother’s body is withdrawn.
In cases of pregnancy termination after fetal viability outside the womb ( such as where the fetus has an abnormality incompatible with life), I think the pregnant woman should be delivered of the fetus if that’s what she wishes and that the fetus should be given comfort care by staff until it dies.
The above approach affirms an American person’s bodily autonomy rights ( government should not force a person to use their own internal organs to sustain or extend the life of another human against their will) while concurrently avoiding euthanasia. Which - for very valid reasons as detailed by the FP staffer - should be assiduously avoided.