A Reasonable Decision
April 20, 2007 on 11:12 am | In Main, National |I know it must sound like I get my talking points from Gene Burns, but he reiterated his view on abortion last night in the wake of the split decision by SCOTUS to uphold the federal ban on the partial birth abortion procedure.
Gene’s position (and mine for the last 15 years) has been that he is pro-choice to a point. When a mother first becomes pregant, terminating the pregnancy is clearly a decision she needs to make in consultation with her doctor, her family and perhaps her church. It seems a stretch to argue (as the pro-life extremists do) that pulling out a bunch of cells is cold-blooded murder.
But when that fetus becomes viable outside the womb (typically now at about 5 1/2 to 6 months), you can make a very compelling case that an abortion would be tantamount to infanticide. The state (Platonically speaking) therefore has an interest in protecting life because at that point it’s no longer a “choice” but a child.
This is the sensible center that polls consistently show most Americans occupy on this matter. So it’s discouraging that the debate continues to be driven by those on the extremes: those who want a ban on all abortions and those who think there should be no restrictions, even in the latter stages as the head is in the birth canal.
I must say the reax of some pro-choice groups who have assailed the decision as “an assault on women’s health” are way off base. If Roe is indeed overturned, I think it’s a safe bet that the majority of states (including those in our tri-state region) will still allow abortions in all but the latest stages of pregnancy.
Is this a tragedy for all women? I would venture to say the children who will not be aborted would disagree.
Correction to the original: The SCOTUS decision upheld a federal ban on the partial birth procedure. It did not explicitly uphold the right of states to do so. See first paragraph for the corrected sentence.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Level II Ultrasounds in high risk pregnancies happen between weeks 18 and 22. These can detect significant birth defects and abnormalities that are not usually apparent before this stage of development. A severely brain damaged fetus can be viable outside the womb as early as 23 weeks (in fact, babies delivered at this time are almost always brain damaged). I would want the parents to be able to decide whether to carry forward a pregnancy like this and the SCOTUS just took that right away.
Comment by Tim Abbott — April 20, 2007 #
I don’t think they just took that right away, Tim. My understanding is SCOTUS merely upheld the right to ban this particular procedure, which is not the only one that can be used in very late term.
But your point is a good one. Some exceptions of the kind you cite need to be considered if there is ever a ban on late-term abortions.
Comment by Terry — April 20, 2007 #
i dont ever for see a total ban on abortion.. there will always be greay areas like when the helth of a mother is at stake….but what this does do is bring america one step closer to women no longer having the right…. if the pro-life movement had their way… a woman could be raped and still not choose to terminate the pregnancy.
Comment by fred — April 20, 2007 #
I recently got a copy of the first season of “House”, and in it, Dr. House refers to a fetus as a parasite, which in fact it is. Parasites can be either harmful or helpful, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. In some cases, it is medically necessary to abort a pregnancy in the later stages. I’m not up on the details of the SCOTUS decision, but perhaps there should have been a clause that allows the procedure when it is absolutely medically necessary, i.e. the health of the mother is at stake.
Comment by Amy — April 20, 2007 #
Amy,
I believe the exception is to preserve the life of the mother, not her health. This is a much narrower exception. I think the pro-lifers argument is that you could drive a truck through the health exception (e.g. any doctor could state the woman would plunge into a deep depression if she carried the pregnancy to term, therefore her health will be adversely affected).
Comment by Terry — April 20, 2007 #
Sorry Terry, my mistake. I did mean the life of the mother.
Comment by Amy — April 20, 2007 #
Ya know, this debate will end at some point in the future. And there will be no abortion on demand, Roe will be recognized as a bad decision by SCOTUS, perhaps even a decision they had no business making.
Why will there be no abortion on demand? Elementary, my dear Watson.
Which generic group is more likely to have an abortion? “Pro Life” or “Pro Choice?” Obviously, that group which views the result of human contraception as “a clump of cells,” or “a parasite,” the “Pro Choice.”
So, this group is killing off the progeny that is most likely to share their views and beliefs. It will take time, but the “Pro Choice” gang is slowly committing genocide on their beliefs.
God does have a sense of humor.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — April 20, 2007 #
The procedure that has been banned by this legislation has been deemed necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. If I am going into the hospital for an operation and there are options in how to proceed, I want my doctors making the decission, not politicians. This is a bad law and a bad SCOTUS decission.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — April 20, 2007 #
ah, yes. But, since it has been deemed wise for “the government” to interfere in our lives, this is only a logical progression. Many still think we live in a constitutional republic, but the reality is that socialism has been gaining for decades. Something for nothing and your chicks for free is a great song, but poor public policy.
Back in the 30s, many thought Social Security a good idea.
Remember the most dangerous phrase in our country:
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — April 21, 2007 #
One cannot pick which constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms one supports and which to oppose and maintain one’s bona fides as a supporter of liberty. That so many of our elected officials on the federal level choose to do this is both morally and intellectually reprehensible. Both Republicans and Democrats have turned the Bill of Rights into birdcage liner with passage of the Patriot Act; one either has freedom–to own a gun, to have dominion over one’s own body, to speak freely– or they don’t.
“Pro Choice” doe NOT mean “Pro Abortion.”
Comment by Doug Richardson — April 21, 2007 #
My point, though, was that this is an area where pro-choice and pro-life forces will have to find some common ground. Eventually Roe was doomed to go by the wayside, since most Americans (and indeed most constitutional scholars) do not perceive a right to unlimited abortion on demand.
Since members of the judiciary are nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by the duly elected members of a legislative body, rulings by the courts were bound to catch up to the prevailing sentiment that some restrictions on abortion are reasonable — perhaps even desirable.
Very few people I know believe that all abortion is murder or that every abortion is protected by the constitution. But you wouldn’t know it from listening to a lot of the debates.
Comment by Terry — April 21, 2007 #
What business does any government have telling anyone what they can or cannot do? Why do we allow this intrusion into our lives?
The change needs to happen, now. Where in the Constitution is abortion mentioned? Gay Marriage? Civil Unions?
Unlimited abortion on demand was never the goal of Roe. Perhaps the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood saw that as the ultimate goal, but I don’t believe any of the parties directly involved saw that outcome. As I said earlier, give it time. The Roe Effect will end abortion as a supposed “right.” Maybe then it can return to being a medical decision between patient and doctor. That’s if there are any doctors willing to undertake the risk of lawsuit. But then, that’s another topic.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — April 21, 2007 #