One more thing…
October 30, 2008
Updated at the bottom
In response to a comment on my previous post, I just want to clarify…
First of all, I am so incredibly sorry for what you had to go through. That is a situation that I cannot possibly even comprehend and I do not even know myself what decision I would have made if placed in a similar situation where my life was at risk. I am sure you did not make the decision lightly and I am sorry that the article I posted hurt you.
I think that when it comes to the value of human life, the mother’s life is just as valuable as the baby’s life. Therefore, in a situation where a woman, armed with information from her doctor, is told that she must end her baby’s life or risk her own life, I absolutely can not pass any judgement. Her life is just as important and my heart breaks that she is even in that position. Only she can decide what to do at that point.
But to be fair, these instances account for only about 0.2 % of all abortions in the United States.
In addition only about 1 % of abortions are performed that compromise the physical health of the mother at all (i.e. her life is not at stake but her health could be compromised by continuing the pregnancy). 98% of abortions are performed due “personal choice.”
(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#7)
The facts speak for themselves.
I will have to look it up, but I highly doubt that abortions done because the mother’s life was at risk was not illegal before Roe v. Wade. But I will try and get the facts on that.
Oh and one last thing when it comes to late term abortions, Obama says he would only restrict those type of abortions if there is an exception for the health of the mother.
So if a women is pregnant and 7 or 8 months along and she develops a health issue that puts her health at risk if she stays pregnant, why would having an abortion be any safer than just giving birth at that time (despite it being premature) and immediately signing away parental rights?
When would it be safer for the mother to half deliver the baby, then shove something into its brain to kill it, then deliver it the rest of the way? That doesn’t seem to lessen the overall risk to the mother does it?
———— Updated ————
By the way, I can see how confusing my last paragraph was. I guess I meant in the instance where the mother’s health is specified as her mental health, i.e. meaning she did not want the baby anymore and it would affect her mental health to have the baby. Sorry, my question really didn’t make sense in instances where the physical health of the mother was the reason for the abortion. Obviously if that was the only reason for an abortion than signing away parental rights is irrelevant because obviously the baby was wanted. I apologize for this confusion.
Also, Sarah posted a comment where she gave a link to another blog of a woman who had to have what a “partial birth abortion” to save her life. Apparently a C-section was not possible because she was not far enough along and her pre-eclampsia was so severe that an induced labor alone was a serious risk to her life. Thanks for sharing this as I did not know of this possibility and it answers my question I asked above.
October 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm
When a woman is delivering a baby, as in the case of pre-eclampsia, or if one of the babies has passed away, and there is a significant risk of septic shock, then, I assure you that no one is shoving a knife into the back of a baby’s head. In fact, that particular type of abortion only occurs in China, where women who are pregnant with a second child, in defiance of China’s One Child Policy.
The existing legislation on partial birth contains a reasonably accurate medical description of what happens in a late term abortion. I would suggest that you read it. You should also be aware that a baby born at 7 or 8 months gestation (between 32 and 36 weeks) has over a 90 percent chance of survival. Perhaps you could explain to me why on earth you are suggesting that a woman who had to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons would wish to surrender her parental rights to her child.
Where a woman is delivering a baby as a result of medical conditions requiring her to not be pregnant, the delivery is performed by cesarean section, or by induction. I chose to deliver my son by induction. I assure you, Gabriel was born alive, lived for 30 minutes, and died on his own, as a result of asphyxiation. Not because he was smothered, but because his lungs were insufficiently mature to breathe on their own. I further assure you, that in the case of medically necessary delivery, these forms of delivery are always used. The medical profession, despite your dim opinion of them has no wish to further traumatize families that are already broken.
You are correct, in the case of both Canada and the US – Pre Roe v. Wade and Pre the 1988 decision in Cannada- if a mother’s life was in danger a woman could end a pregnancy. In both countries, that required a panel of doctor’s to agree that the mother’s life was in danger. From a practical point of view, in a small hospital, this would required some time to organize, and I’m sure that you can appreciate, as my blood pressure was 215/120, with kidney failure, I didn’t have a lot of time to spare.
Perhaps more significantly, it would have required me to beg for my life, to a panel of doctors. I’m assuming that you did not have to appear before a panel of doctors to get pregnant, to make your case about why you should be pregnant, and perhaps you could explain to me why you feel it’s acceptable that I should have to appear before doctors to beg for mine? I assume that you think I must be unable to decide if the circumstances warrant the delivery of a much loved and wanted baby, and must have another person make that decision for me? Tell me, do you believe that someone should be able to make that decision for you? Or would you prefer to hash it out between you and your husband and whatever spiritual authorities you chose to consult?
But the bigger issue is this. The article you posted asserts that it is always wrong to have an abortion, because you are murdering another human, and it is never morally right to do this. Leaving aside issues of war and self defense (which are significant), if you believe that the premise above is true in the cases described, you are unable to say that you believe that is acceptable to end a human life because it places another in jeopardy. That’s not logical. It forms an argument that says you can’t have an abortion if X and Y is true, but if case Z occurs, an abortion is acceptable. If abortion is always morally wrong, because it takes the life of a human, and it is always wrong to take the life of a human, it doesn’t matter what circumstances led to the decision to end a pregnancy, it is always wrong to end it. If it is always morally wrong to take a human’s life, it does not mean that you can decide that it is suddenly not wrong, because you believe my case should engender some form of sympathy.
Brought down to brass tacks, this says that you believe that abortion should be outlawed, based on what you believe is morally correct. Certainly that’s your choice. However, in a democracy, your rights to make that moral choice for you, based on what you believe, is guaranteed for you. Your right to impose that choice upon me, or to suggest that I am morally substandard because I don’t agree with you, is not.
I respect your right to believe that abortion is wrong. In general cases I happen to agree with you. It breaks my heart that so many women feel they have no choice but to end their pregnancies. Having said that, I believe that there is no test case for abortion, and God would rather we were compassionate and humble in our choices, and in the way we present our morals to others.
I saw evidence of neither in the article you posted, and frankly, that repels me.
October 30, 2008 at 4:10 pm
You pose an interesting point, about delivering the baby, rather than aborting it. I am the mother of a micropreemie due to severe preeclampsia, I am a Christian, and I support late-term abortion for the health of the mother …. say, a woman who is 20 weeks’ and has no chance of delivering a live baby. -BUT- when someone delivers at 23, 24, or 25 weeks’ it is a very gray area as the babies can and do have significant medical and physical complications. Most parents don’t want to sign away rights because it is their baby, and yet they are faced with a lifetime of very critical and difficult medical decisions they will face caring for a micropreemie.
As a Christian I find myself torn. This is what I know from my experience. I would prefer to deliver the baby and hold him/her, see his/her face even if the baby would die rather than abort it, but that is me. At 18 weeks’ it would be much safer to abort as opposed to delivering, especially in an instance of preeclampsia.
http://www.uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2008/03/speaking-to-the.html
This is a prime example of ‘abortion for the health of the mother.’
Also, http://thepreemieexperiment.blogspot.com is blog that discusses the effects of microprematurity and poses some very important questions about delivering and resuscitating very early babies. I wish it was a simple decision, and I’m actually appalled that 98% of abortions are for personal choice.
October 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“When a woman is delivering a baby, as in the case of pre-eclampsia, or if one of the babies has passed away, and there is a significant risk of septic shock,
then, I assure you that no one is shoving a knife into the back of a baby’s head. In fact, that particular type of abortion only occurs in China, where women who are pregnant with a second child, in defiance of China’s One Child Policy.”
I am not sure about this. I will have to do more digging but if you’d like to offer up your sources I’d be happy to read them.
“The existing legislation on partial birth contains a reasonably accurate medical description of what happens in a late term abortion. I would suggest that you read it. You should also be aware that a baby born at 7 or 8 months gestation (between 32 and 36 weeks) has over a 90 percent chance of survival. Perhaps you could explain to me why on earth you are suggesting that a woman who had to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons would wish to surrender her parental rights to her child.”
I am quite aware that babies can be viable earlier than 32 weeks. As for signing over parental rights I was referring to the case where a mother choses to have a late term abortion because she does not want the child (not due to health reasons), nor does she want to give it up for adoption. Yes, I’m sure this is rare, but somehow I wouldn’t be surprised if it did happen. Again, I will have to do some digging to find out before I state it explicitly. I am sorry that you choose to read every sentence I wrote as if I were writing to your specific case. I was not. I was writing with respect to 98% of abortions that are for not for the life of the mother.
“Where a woman is delivering a baby as a result of medical conditions requiring her to not be pregnant, the delivery is performed by cesarean section, or by
induction. I chose to deliver my son by induction. I assure you, Gabriel was born alive, lived for 30 minutes, and died on his own, as a result of
asphyxiation. Not because he was smothered, but because his lungs were insufficiently mature to breathe on their own. I further assure you, that in the
case of medically necessary delivery, these forms of delivery are always used. The medical profession, despite your dim opinion of them has no wish to further
traumatize families that are already broken.”
Again, I was not speaking to your specific case or one similar. I am actually good friends with a couple who did the same (induced labor) around 20 weeks. Their son had the same condition Ann’s did. I know they do not actively kill the babies in these instances, instead they just induce labor prematurely.
“You are correct, in the case of both Canada and the US Pre Roe v. Wade and Pre the 1988 decision in Cannada- if a mother’s life was in danger a woman could end a pregnancy. In both countries, that required a panel of doctor’s to agree that the mother’s life was in danger. From a practical point of view, in a small hospital, this would required some time to organize, and I’m sure that you can appreciate, as my blood pressure was 215/120, with kidney failure, I didn’t have a lot of time to spare.
Perhaps more significantly, it would have required me to beg for my life, to a panel of doctors. I’m assuming that you did not have to appear before a panel of doctors to get pregnant, to make your case about why you should be pregnant, and perhaps you could explain to me why you feel it’s acceptable that I should have to appear before doctors to beg for mine? I assume that you think I must be unable to decide if the circumstances warrant the delivery of a much loved and wanted baby, and must have another person make that decision for me? Tell me, do you believe that someone should be able to make that decision for you? Or would you prefer to hash it out between you and your husband and whatever spiritual authorities you chose to consult?”
I cannot say with any certainty how it would have been pre-Roe v. Wade for you or anyone else making that decision since I was not there. Nor do I think even you know exactly how it would have been. I find it hard to believe that they would have made you wait longer than it took for you to come to the decision yourself. (I would imagine they would start the process so that by the time you made your decision it would be fine whatever you ended up deciding) I also don’t think they would literally have made you “beg” for your life. Please don’t think I’m trying to be trite or belittle your experience, I just think that hospitals have a way of dealing with tough decisions (I’ve seen it) and they do usually do it with speed, when necessary, and compassion. The goal is not to drag the family through the mud before/after they are forced to make a terribly difficult decision. But I really don’t know 100% for sure and really, you don’t know 100% for sure either. You are assuming the worst case scenario.
“But the bigger issue is this. The article you posted asserts that it is always wrong to have an abortion, because you are murdering another human, and it is
never morally right to do this. Leaving aside issues of war and self defense(which are significant), if you believe that the premise above is true in the
cases described, you are unable to say that you believe that is acceptable to end a human life because it places another in jeopardy. That’s not logical.
It forms an argument that says you can’t have an abortion if X and Y is true, but if case Z occurs, an abortion is acceptable. If abortion is always
morally wrong, because it takes the life of a human, and it is always wrong to take the life of a human, it doesn’t matter what circumstances led to the decision to end a pregnancy, it is always wrong to end it. If it is always morally wrong to take a human’s life, it does not mean that you can decide that it is suddenly not wrong, because you believe my case should engender
some form of sympathy.”
No, I believe the article was not stating that abortion is not acceptable in any circumstance although I can see now reading through it that it was not clearly stated as such. I concede on that point. But the whole point of the article is to show the importance of human life. When “life” is at stake you must consider all life, not just the life of the mother or the life of the unborn. And just so you know, I do not believe in abortion even in the case of rape or incest. As hard as that is, I don’t believe it. I only believe that it is justified in the case where the life of the mother is at risk.
“Brought down to brass tacks, this says that you believe that abortion should be outlawed, based on what you believe is morally correct. Certainly that’s
your choice. However, in a democracy, your rights to make that moral choice for you, based on what you believe, is guaranteed for you. Your right to impose that choice upon me, or to suggest that I am morally substandard because I don’t agree with you, is not.”
I never suggested that you were morally substandard. This country already legislates all sorts of morality (homicide, child abuse) so why is abortion an exception. It goes back to the question of is the unborn a person, a human life (the whole point of the article). Why don’t the unborn get the benefit of a “anti-homicide” law. And going back to your issue of having to defend your decision to a panel of doctors…even in homicide there are exceptions for self-defense. Is the process rigorous to prove self-defense, of course. They want to be sure that the homicide really was committed as self-defense. Is it fair that a person who kills another in self-defense must go to the police or to court to prove it? No, not really. It sucks. It is not fair because they did not choose to have someone try to kill them in the first place. And yet to protect human life in our country we have to make sure that people don’t just go around killing each other and calling it self-defense. And is it sad for those people who have to suffer further trauma by going to court and essentially begging for their innocence of homicide? Yes, it is sad and yes they deserve our utmost compassion.
“I respect your right to believe that abortion is wrong. In general cases I happen to agree with you. It breaks my heart that so many women feel they have
no choice but to end their pregnancies. Having said that, I believe that there is no test case for abortion, and God would rather we were compassionate and
humble in our choices, and in the way we present our morals to others.”
But your argument does not hold up. It still goes back to the toddler question. Should we have compassion on a mother who drowns her child in a bathtub because she cannot mentally handle the responsibility of raising him? Yes, of course we should have compassion. No where in that article did it state that we should not have compassion. But there must also be laws that show that we as a society do not condone the action either.
“I saw evidence of neither in the article you posted, and frankly, that repels me.”
I’m sorry you felt that way. I did not think that the article was presenting in a degrading way but you feel differently and for that I am sorry. I believe your past experience has naturally made you extra sensitive to articles of this nature as expected. I’m sorry that my posting it contributed to your pain in any way but I do not feel like the information it presented was done so in a hateful way.
You obviously have your beliefs on the topic and I have mine. Hence why I shared my beliefs on my blog and I know you have shared your beliefs on yours. You will not convince me and I will not convince you. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree. Ok?
October 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I wrote this before KC posted her comment, so this will be a little bit out of order!
Mrs. Spit, I am so sorry for the loss of your beloved son and the terrible choice you were faced with. I really don’t know what I would have done in your situation.
Having read what you two wrote (though I haven’t read the linked article in detail), and Mrs. Spit’s entry that she linked in her comment on the previous message, I would respectfully suggest that you two are arguing at cross-purposes.
I am certainly not a moral theologian. And I have a more complex understanding of abortion now than I did before experiencing infertility and miscarriage. I’m going to talk about this a bit dispassionately in an attempt to lay out the issues clearly, but I do not mean to convey a lack of compassion for those who find themselves facing such terrible circumstances.
From what I understand, the combination of one’s intentions and one’s actions are extremely important in determining whether an action is morally acceptable or not. It is never all right to deliberately kill an innocent person. But, according to the principle of double effect, it can be acceptable to take an action to achieve a positive outcome, with the foresight that the action may also result in an undesired and unintended negative outcome.
So, for instance, I believe that the action of delivering a baby early in order to save the life of a mother who is dying as a result of the pregnancy would come under the principle of double effect. The delivery of the baby is performed in order to save the mother’s life, with the foreseen and heartbreaking consequence that the baby will likely die (though with some small chance of life for the baby).
Similarly, an ectopic pregnancy does not currently offer the possibility that the baby will survive to be born (though doctors are working on methods to transplant the baby to the mother’s uterus), but certainly can threaten the life of the mother. Removing a portion of the mother’s fallopian tube may be necessary to save her life, with the foreseen consequence that the baby will certainly die.
In both of these cases, the death of the baby is not wished, intended, or directly carried out by the physician. Using a procedure that would directly kill a baby is not morally acceptable. For instance, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy in which the baby is demonstrably alive (e.g., there is a heartbeat), administering drugs that would kill the baby directly is not morally acceptable. Instead, a procedure (such as removal of part of the tube containing the baby) that would save the life of the mother without directly killing the baby would be the acceptable choice.
Similarly, if the mother is dying, delivering the baby very early and providing care, even with very slim chances that the baby might survive, would be morally acceptable. Administering drugs to kill the baby before delivery or deliberately piercing the baby’s skull during delivery to ensure the baby’s death would not be morally acceptable.
I don’t want to put words in KC’s mouth, but I believe that she would define abortion as the deliberate and direct killing of a baby before (or during) birth.
KC’s definition of partial-birth abortion is correct, at least according to US law: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html
As Section 2. 1 explains, this ban applies specifically to cases in which the baby’s skull is pierced and the brain is suctioned out before the head is delivered. And, sadly, this procedure was performed in the US prior to the ban. For instance, Priests for Life posted a scanned copy of a document published by the National Abortion Federation. In this document, a doctor’s presentation to a professional conference described his methods in detail and indicated that, as of 1992, he had performed the procedure over 700 times http://www.priestsforlife.org/prochoice/haskell1.htm. He also states that another doctor performed the procedure up to and beyond 32 weeks gestation.
I know that many women choose abortion (or are forced, pressured, or coerced into an abortion) in terrible circumstances. I would not presume to judge them as people, and we desperately need changes in our society to provide support for women who find themselves in these awful circumstances. But I think that clarifying what we mean when we talk about abortion is important, too.
October 31, 2008 at 11:25 am
I just wanted to send you a giant THANK YOU for everything you have been writing, researching, backing up, and responding to.
I am somebody who used to be staunchly pro-choice, and am now staunchly pro-life. What was the change for me? It was when I had my first m/c (it was an accidental pregnancy, a lot of other medical factors in play at that time, and I didn’t know I had been about 6 wks pregnant until the m/c occured). Anyway, I was very upset, and I male co-worker, who is pro-life, emailed me “I am sorry about the loss of your baby, even if you didn’t know you were pregnant.” I was floored. It rocked me to the core. And in that moment, I felt like God (who I sometimes have a rocky relationship with) had delivered me a message through that simple email. That ALL innocent, unborn, human life is precious, and wanted by SOMEONE, even if it is not necessarily you.
Please keep up your vocalism. You have loads of people standing in solidarity with you.
November 1, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Yes, I agree with Mrs J. I feel the same even though I haven’t experienced the same. This has been some hard stuff to read but I still stand. If it were my life or my child’s God alone would be the decider because I couldn’t live with myself any other way. JMHO