Abortion in America
27 comments | Permalink
Recently a group of progressives, operating under the think tank Third Way, made headlines with their new study, The Politics of Polarization. It was intended to be a wakeup call to fellow Democrats, urging them to abandon a number of myths in order to start winning elections and appealing to moderates in the center.
Who are the folks behind Third Way? According to their website, "The management team of Third Way, and its sister organization, the Third Way Institute, is composed of political entrepreneurs who have served in senior positions in Congress and the Clinton Administration and also have extensive experience running successful national advocacy groups."
What then is their purpose? "Third Way is a new and unique political organization: a strategy center for progressives. Third Way develops policy and communications products to help senators and other progressive leaders better advance their values in red states and counties where progressive ideas have lost resonance."
They have now released an "issues brief" on the issue of abortion: The Demographics of Abortion: The Great Divide Between Abortion Rhetoric and Abortion Reality.
One of their goals is to put "the right on defensive." Far from feeling defensive, however, I found their study to be very illuminating and very well put together, and highly recommend it to all who are concerned about abortion. It has five parts:
Part I: Who Has Abortions?
Part II: Why Do Women Have Abortions?
Part III: When Do Women Have Abortions?
Part IV: Where Do Women Have Abortions?
Part V: What Does It Mean To Be Pregnant and Unmarried?
Most of us know that since 1973 (the landmark year of Roe v. Wade) there have been 40 million abortions in America. But if you are like me, that number has become an abstraction. One of the most helpful things about reading this brief is to see that number broken down. 1 of every 3 American women will have an abortion by the age of 45.
What follows is an outline and recap of their study:
Part I: Who Has Abortions?
1. More than 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion. (Typical year = 4.1 million live births, 1.3 million abortions, 900,000 miscarriages. 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, 14% in miscarriage, and 65% in birth. When miscarriages are factored out, one in four of the remaining pregnancies end in abortion.)
2. Abortion rates in the U.S. have been steadily declining. (All-time high was 1.6 million in 1990; the latest year available for info, 2000, showed the number at 1.3 million. From 1995 to 2002, the number of teens having sex declined. Also during this time period, contraceptive use was on the rise.)
3. 75% of all abortions are to women under 30. (Median age = 24. Nearly 1 in 5 abortions are performed on teenages. 1 in 3 are performed on women between ages 20 and 24. 1 in 4 are performed on women over 30.)
4. Most women who have abortions are unmarried. (Less than 1 in 5 are married.)
5. When a teenager becomes pregnant, abortion is a likely result. (For girls under 15, there are 8 abortions to ever 10 live births. For girls 15-19, there are 4 abortion to ever 10 live births.)
6. Women who have abortions tend to be low income, but that could be a factor of their age rather than their poverty status. (Only 1 in 5 cite inadequate finances as a reason for seeking an abortion.)
7. Whites account for the most abortions, but relative to their population, Blacks and Hispanics have a disproportionate share of abortions. (Whites are 69% of the national population and have 41% of the nation's abortions. Blacks are 12% of the population and have 32% of the abortions. Hispanics are 13% of the population and have 20% of the abortions.)
8. There is a vast gap between the rhetorical positions that religious leaders take on abortion and the actual practices of the laity in those religions. (Catholics are 24% of the population and have 27% of the abortions. Protestants are 49% of the population and have 43% of the abortions. 13% of those having abortions are self-described Born-Again or Evangelical Christians.)
9. At the time most women have an abortion they already have a child. Half have had a previous abortion.
Part II: Why Do Women Have Abortions?
"Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by 10% would eliminate more abortions in three days than would banning late term abortions over the course of a full year."
1. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned; most unplanned pregnancies lead to abortion.
(For every 100 pregancies in America, 52 were planned and 48 were unplanned. Among the unintended 48%, the percentage of abortions to live births is 54% to 46%.
2. Very few abortions are performed because of fetal abnormalities, health of the mother, rape or incest. (3% cite fetal abnormalities; 3% cite health; 1% cite rape or incest.)
3. There is no single dominant reason that women choose to have an abortion, but there is one overwhelming factor: the pregnancy was unplanned.
4. When a teenager has an abortion, parents are often a factor in the decision. (30% of minors seeking abortion attributed their decision in part to the fact that their parents wanted them to have an abortion. Parents of pregnant daughters favor abortion over childbirth 4 to 1.)
Part III: When Do Women Have Abortions?
1. Roughly 9 out of 10 abortions are performed in the first trimester. (88% occur within 12 weeks--the end of the first trimester.)
2. The reason most women give for having an abortion after 16 weeks was not realizing they were pregnant.
3. The most likely person to have a later term abortion is a girl under age 15.
Part IV: Where Do Women Have Abortions?
1. Though abortion rates are generally lower in culturally conservative states, they are still very high.
2. Most abortions occur in the state where the woman lives.
3. It is unclear whether strict parental consent laws have an impact on teen abortion rates. (9 of the 10 states that attract the most out-of-state abortions have moderate to strict parental consent laws.)
Part V: What Does It Mean To Be Pregnant and Unmarried?
1. There is no correlation between out-of-wedlock births and abortion rates.
2. The ratio of teen abortions to adult abortions is the same in states with strong, moderate, and weak parental consent laws. ("It is quite possible that if teens were forced to notify
parents of a pregnancy, abortion rates would go up, not down.")
Who are the folks behind Third Way? According to their website, "The management team of Third Way, and its sister organization, the Third Way Institute, is composed of political entrepreneurs who have served in senior positions in Congress and the Clinton Administration and also have extensive experience running successful national advocacy groups."
What then is their purpose? "Third Way is a new and unique political organization: a strategy center for progressives. Third Way develops policy and communications products to help senators and other progressive leaders better advance their values in red states and counties where progressive ideas have lost resonance."
They have now released an "issues brief" on the issue of abortion: The Demographics of Abortion: The Great Divide Between Abortion Rhetoric and Abortion Reality.
One of their goals is to put "the right on defensive." Far from feeling defensive, however, I found their study to be very illuminating and very well put together, and highly recommend it to all who are concerned about abortion. It has five parts:
Part I: Who Has Abortions?
Part II: Why Do Women Have Abortions?
Part III: When Do Women Have Abortions?
Part IV: Where Do Women Have Abortions?
Part V: What Does It Mean To Be Pregnant and Unmarried?
Most of us know that since 1973 (the landmark year of Roe v. Wade) there have been 40 million abortions in America. But if you are like me, that number has become an abstraction. One of the most helpful things about reading this brief is to see that number broken down. 1 of every 3 American women will have an abortion by the age of 45.
What follows is an outline and recap of their study:
Part I: Who Has Abortions?
1. More than 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion. (Typical year = 4.1 million live births, 1.3 million abortions, 900,000 miscarriages. 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, 14% in miscarriage, and 65% in birth. When miscarriages are factored out, one in four of the remaining pregnancies end in abortion.)
2. Abortion rates in the U.S. have been steadily declining. (All-time high was 1.6 million in 1990; the latest year available for info, 2000, showed the number at 1.3 million. From 1995 to 2002, the number of teens having sex declined. Also during this time period, contraceptive use was on the rise.)
3. 75% of all abortions are to women under 30. (Median age = 24. Nearly 1 in 5 abortions are performed on teenages. 1 in 3 are performed on women between ages 20 and 24. 1 in 4 are performed on women over 30.)
4. Most women who have abortions are unmarried. (Less than 1 in 5 are married.)
5. When a teenager becomes pregnant, abortion is a likely result. (For girls under 15, there are 8 abortions to ever 10 live births. For girls 15-19, there are 4 abortion to ever 10 live births.)
6. Women who have abortions tend to be low income, but that could be a factor of their age rather than their poverty status. (Only 1 in 5 cite inadequate finances as a reason for seeking an abortion.)
7. Whites account for the most abortions, but relative to their population, Blacks and Hispanics have a disproportionate share of abortions. (Whites are 69% of the national population and have 41% of the nation's abortions. Blacks are 12% of the population and have 32% of the abortions. Hispanics are 13% of the population and have 20% of the abortions.)
8. There is a vast gap between the rhetorical positions that religious leaders take on abortion and the actual practices of the laity in those religions. (Catholics are 24% of the population and have 27% of the abortions. Protestants are 49% of the population and have 43% of the abortions. 13% of those having abortions are self-described Born-Again or Evangelical Christians.)
9. At the time most women have an abortion they already have a child. Half have had a previous abortion.
Part II: Why Do Women Have Abortions?
"Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by 10% would eliminate more abortions in three days than would banning late term abortions over the course of a full year."
1. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned; most unplanned pregnancies lead to abortion.
(For every 100 pregancies in America, 52 were planned and 48 were unplanned. Among the unintended 48%, the percentage of abortions to live births is 54% to 46%.
2. Very few abortions are performed because of fetal abnormalities, health of the mother, rape or incest. (3% cite fetal abnormalities; 3% cite health; 1% cite rape or incest.)
3. There is no single dominant reason that women choose to have an abortion, but there is one overwhelming factor: the pregnancy was unplanned.
4. When a teenager has an abortion, parents are often a factor in the decision. (30% of minors seeking abortion attributed their decision in part to the fact that their parents wanted them to have an abortion. Parents of pregnant daughters favor abortion over childbirth 4 to 1.)
Part III: When Do Women Have Abortions?
1. Roughly 9 out of 10 abortions are performed in the first trimester. (88% occur within 12 weeks--the end of the first trimester.)
2. The reason most women give for having an abortion after 16 weeks was not realizing they were pregnant.
3. The most likely person to have a later term abortion is a girl under age 15.
Part IV: Where Do Women Have Abortions?
1. Though abortion rates are generally lower in culturally conservative states, they are still very high.
2. Most abortions occur in the state where the woman lives.
3. It is unclear whether strict parental consent laws have an impact on teen abortion rates. (9 of the 10 states that attract the most out-of-state abortions have moderate to strict parental consent laws.)
Part V: What Does It Mean To Be Pregnant and Unmarried?
1. There is no correlation between out-of-wedlock births and abortion rates.
2. The ratio of teen abortions to adult abortions is the same in states with strong, moderate, and weak parental consent laws. ("It is quite possible that if teens were forced to notify
parents of a pregnancy, abortion rates would go up, not down.")
posted by JT at Monday, October 31, 2005
27 Comments:
Just a quick comment about this claim, "1 of every 3 American women will have an abortion by the age of 45." I am not in a position to refute, but I would question it on the basis that the post also points out that a large number of abortions are done for women who have already had an abortion. That is a long way of saying that there isn't a direct correlation between the number of women and the number of abortions since some women have multiple abortions.
JT,
I'm reading the issue brief and laughing at this claim -
"In fact, at least one pro-life
political tactic — parental consent —could possibly increase the prevalence of abortions. Indeed, the reason parental consent laws have failed to reduce teen abortions is that parents are often the impetus behind teen abortions, not the
barrier."
So when a teen wants an abortion and needs to get her parents' consent for that abortion - that will somehow lead more parents into convincing pregnant teens who might not want abortions into having abortions? Huh?
The stupidity of that statement overwhelming especially when you factor in the reality that a number of states have seen a dramatic decrease in teen abortions since the passage of their parental consent laws.
a number of states have seen a dramatic decrease in teen abortions since the passage of their parental consent laws.
J...do you have anything to support this? I am not saying that it is not true - I would just be interested in seeing these numbers.
I would question it on the basis that the post also points out that a large number of abortions are done for women who have already had an abortion.
I would expect that the study has factored in multiple abortions in their numbers. The study does not give the actual data for their numbers, but I think it is safe to assume that they factored in those that received multiple abortions.
JT...thanks for posting this - this was interesting information.
It say 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion. But in the Why section, it states that 26% of all pregnancies are unplanned and have abortions. So there are more women who abort unplanned pregnancies that total? Check the figs!
Hi Dave,
In Michigan, the number of abortions performed on girls aged 15-17 has decreased from 3,820 in 1990 to 1,770 in 2005 (our consent law took affect in 1991.
http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/abortion/Tab_B.asp
Another state I'd point to is Pennsylvania - there parental consent law probably took affect around 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). In 1990, there were 12,052 performed on girls 15-19 - in 2003 there were 6,245 abortions for the same age. The Penn. stats aren't perfect because girls who are 18 and 19 wouldn't have been affected by the parental consent law.
Michael New from the Heritage Foundation did a bunch of research during the whole Glen Stassen fiasco.
National RIght to Life sums up his research
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL02/prolife_laws_make.htm
i'm sure you can take what you want away from anything - but regarding the decrease in teenage abortions you cite - what is the deviation from the national average?
in other words, if california had 10 teenage abortions in 1990, and 5 in 2005 (with no consent law), and michigan had 2 abortions in 1990 and 1 in 2005 (with consent laws going in in 1991), then both have the same 50% change...
Another big flag though are the dates you cite - if the consent laws went into effect in '91. Why not compare 1990 with 1992?
Also... out of state abortions need to be figured.
I knew 3 girls who lived in PA. One had an abortion. She went out of state. Meaningless personal experience true... but I thought I'd kick that in also
"So when a teen wants an abortion and needs to get her parents' consent for that abortion - that will somehow lead more parents into convincing pregnant teens who might not want abortions into having abortions? Huh?"
That's in the summary, and it doesn't make sense if you take "consent" to be "of abortion" rather than "of prenatal care" (which would be called "notification", not "consent"). If you read the body of the study, the actual claim (which does make sense) is that if states required notification of [i]pregnancy[/i] (ie, not abortion, but pregnancy), then the rates would likely increase. Might be correct, according to their data.
IMHO, I can't point to specific instances, but my understanding is that some groups [i]are[/i] calling for required parental notification of prenatal care. The point being: you're shooting yourselves in the foot there.
As the saying goes, people oppose abortion except for three instances: "rape, incest, and me". For "me" subsitite your teen daughter.
If your 14, 15, or 16 year old daughter comes to you pregnant and inclined to abort, what kind of person is going to say No. A moral monster. A person who doesn't deserve to have children.
I bet -- and hope -- that, when push comes to shove, most Big Talk Prigs would do the right thing by their daughters.
On the other hand I can definitely imagine a 14, 15, or 16 year old girl getting pregnant and:
1) Just going into denial until it's too late to abort.
2) Being utterly paralyzed by the situation until it's too late to abort.
3) Getting bad advice from people outside the family and being too immature to realize that she's being played for a fool by prigs.
4) Figuring it'll turn out OK, she'll have a baby to love her and it'll be fun and the father will marry her and whatever else 15 years olds think.
So I can kind of see where parental knowledge of the situation migh tend to reduce teen abortions. I don't know the figures but it makes sense.
Incidenteally, if abortion were to be outlawed -- really, effectively prevented -- we could expect an increase in suicide among teen girls, n'est-ca pas? Oh sorry it's not pro-life to worry about that.
Democracys,
So in your mind, does the age of the mother determine the nature of the baby?
You think that a parent who allows a young teen to give birth is a "moral monster."
Let me ask you: what would you say about a young teen who had already given birth and now has a 1 week old baby home from the hospital. Let's say that she informs her parents that she wants to kill her baby. What would you advise the parents to say? If they said "no," would you still regard them as "moral monsters"?
I assume you'd advise them to say "no." So the question you must answer is: what is the difference between a baby inside a womb and outside a womb? Size? Level of development? Environment? Degree of dependency? None of those are morally relevant to determining the nature of the baby.
It's a pretty scary society when people can suggest that trying to stop the murder of an innocent child is moral monstrosity.
JT
Nick,
Some of the questions you ask are difficult to answer because not every state records the abortions of girls under the age of 18. Most record teen abortions but this includes the abortions of 18 and 19 year-old girls who aren't affected by parental consent laws. Third Way's analysis never mentions this very relevant fact. If Third Way wanted to they could have compared just under 18 abortions. They didn't. The stats are available from the CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm#tab5
The Michigan 92 data isn't online at the MDCH website. The closest stats to 92 is 95 - 2,798 abortions for minors - a decrease of 1,000 or approximately 1/4 of teen abortions in 3 years. You've spurred me onto action though the Michigan under 18 abortion stats are available from the CDC - there were 3081 abortions performed on girls under 18 in Michigan in 1992. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041486.htm#00001646.htm) A drop of 739 (around 20%) under 18 abortions the first year the law was implemented for the whole year.
I'm not saying this data proves that Michigan's parental consent law led to fewer teen abortions but I think it puts a large hole in the patently absurd statement that parental consent laws may lead to more abortions for girls under 18.
True, some Michigan girls may have gone out of state to avoid parental consent laws but the number of girls who received abortions in Michigan has gone down dramatically since the law was passed. Michigan can't control what its residents do out of state.
JT said, "what is the difference between a baby inside a womb and outside a womb? Size? Level of development? Environment? Degree of dependency? None of those are morally relevant to determining the nature of the baby."
Degree of Dependency is morally relevant. Liberty in America means that I have no legal obligation to take any action to save someone I see drowning (or dying in any other manner). Whether I take action or not to save the life of another human being is moral choice I must make every time I walk past a drowning man, and I can't be put in jail for walking on. Why should a woman with a helpless fetus growing inside her be held to a higher standard than I am?
Morally, I oppose abortion. Morally, I believe life begins at conception. But, civily, I would not jail anyone who terminates a pregnancy.
If my teenage daughter became pregnant, I would encourage her to carry the pregnancy to term, then I would help her raise the child. I would give financial and child care support to her so she could complete her education and develop a career. I would encourage her to work on developing a constructive relationship with the father of the child, whatever form that relationship might take over time. But, I would not want my daughter going to jail if she chose not to throw her lifeline to the fetus which would become my grandchild. Liberty in America says that she and only she can decide to throw the lifeline or not.
Also, if my daughter and I were walking by a lake and saw a drowning swimmer, I would help her use the best available means possible to safely give assistance to the swimmer. I hope she would help me if I was the first to come to the rescue, but it wouldn't be a crime if she didn't help.
Degree of Dependency is morally relevant. Liberty in America means that I have no legal obligation to take any action to save someone I see drowning (or dying in any other manner). Whether I take action or not to save the life of another human being is moral choice I must make every time I walk past a drowning man, and I can't be put in jail for walking on. Why should a woman with a helpless fetus growing inside her be held to a higher standard than I am?
This is faulty logic. You are correct that you have no legal obligation to save someone else's life. But you do have a legal obligation not to end another person's life.
A better analogy would be like this: if you have a child who is helpless due to medical reasons, should you kill them?
Giving a lifeline is very different than intentionally drowning a person.
re: the degree of dependancy argument, I do not think the analogy holds. Let us examine the act in each instance.
To save a drowning perosn, you have to actively go find a lifesaver, throw it into the water, help pull the person out of the water, or just make a cell phone call to 911. (Don't dive into the water if you haven't been trained as a lifeguard, because the drowning person will likely pull you under with them.)
Alternately, you have to reach into the uterus with a metal object, grab hold of the fetus' leg, and start to dismember the fetus, to kill the fetus. (even if you are using a drug to end a pregnancy, you are still active in directly ending the life of the fetus.)
As I see it, walking past a drowning person without seeking help may be grossly selfish, or morally questionable depending upon whether or not you are in a position to help or not, but may not be criminal. It is a failure to act to do something good. Actively seeking the ending of the life of a fetus is directly, intentionally participating in a moral evil, akin to pushing the drowning person's head under the water until they stop struggling.
Dave and Erico,
Respectfully, I disagree.
"A better analogy would be like this: if you have a child who is helpless due to medical reasons, should you kill them?"
No, prior to viability, a pregnant woman having an abortion is analagous to a parent of a medically helpless child turning the child over to an agency because the parent can't care for the child any longer.
"Giving a lifeline is very different than intentionally drowning a person." and
"Actively seeking the ending of the life of a fetus is directly, intentionally participating in a moral evil, akin to pushing the drowning person's head under the water until they stop struggling."
No, an abortion does not have to be an intentional killing. The pregnant woman could say, "Just induce labor and get this fetus out of me. If it lives, great; if it doesn't I'm sorry, but I just can't emotionally or physically support it any more." Now, prior to viability, and depending upon the procedure used, the fetus will most certainly die, but the act of having the abortion is not necessarily an intentional killing. The death arises because the fetus is not able to survive without the support of this one particular human being. In no other instance, do we force one human being to physically and emotionally support another life.
If you are known to be the only possible kidney donor who could give a kidney to save the life of someone in need of a kidney transplant and you say, "I'm sorry, I just can't give up a kidney." Have you intentionally killed the person in need of the kidney when he or she dies for lack of the transplant? It's not a crime to deny a kidney when you are the only possible donor (though I could never say no myself) and it's not a crime to sever ties with a fetus when you are the only possible mother.
A follow up thought--
Does this whole issue go away when medical technology allows for the removal of a fetus from the womb of a woman who does not want a child and transplantation into the womb of a woman who wants to be pregnant?
And, if that is so, shouldn't we be focusing our attention on developing that technology rather than attmepting to criminalize something that pregnant women have been doing frequently for over 2000 years?
Doug,
How is the intentional killing of a pre-viability unborn child analogous to handing that child over to state agency? One action intentionally kills the child while the other action is an attempt to provide better care. Please explain.
Every act of abortion is intentional killing. That's what abortion is. That's the goal of abortion - to kill the child. If the child is born alive then it's a botched/failed abortion. How long would an abortionist stay in business if he continued to deliver living children?
Would your argument work with a newborn child? Say the mother no longer wants the child. Does that give her the right to commit an action that would intentionally end that child's life?
The length of time people have been doing an action is a very poor deciding factor in whether something should be legal or not. Rape, murder, theft have all been committed throughout the ages. Should they be legal as well?
What I wonder is why no one at all has studied the fact that now unmarried fathers have rights they never had when I was a young person, so it was far easier to place a child for adoption.
I think changes in adoption law make abortion much more likely and I think the changes over the last 20 years in father's rights make abortion more likely as well.
jivinj,
I think I see where we differ and it is very important:
"Every act of abortion is intentional killing. That's what abortion is. That's the goal of abortion - to kill the child. If the child is born alive then it's a botched/failed abortion. How long would an abortionist stay in business if he continued to deliver living children?"
No, No, No. 1)An abortion is not an intentional killing. It is an intentional termination of a pregnancy. At this time, abortions result in the death of the fetus all too frequently, probably 100% of the time. But I believe that the pregnant woman, all things considered, would prefer to have the fetus live rather than die, if that were possible.
2) The goal of abortion is the termination of the pregnancy, not the death of the child. We're just not capable of transfering a living fetus from one womb to another now. Except, maybe we are for a certain period of time with invitro fertilization. So, we're talking about the time between transfer of a fertilized egg in invitro to the time of viable induced delivery, which is getting shorter and shorter each year.
3) If the child is born alive, it's not a botched abortion; it's a miracle. We need more miracles.
4) An abortionist who delivered living children would probably win the Nobel Prize for medicine, although he or she might "go out of business" depending upon how you define the term "abortion."
When the time comes that a living fetus can be safely transfered from womb to womb, then doing anything less than that can be criminalized. Until then, however, I do not believe that we should criminalize the moral failing of women who do not have the strength or courage to carry a pre-vaible fetus to term. It's a tragedy,not a crime.
Doug,
Your definition for abortion is plainly wrong. If abortion is just the intentional terminiation of pregnancy then birth or ceasarean section would also be considered abortion because they intentionally terminate pregnancy as well. Abortion is different because the goal is to kill the child.
All too frequently? Yeah like 99.9999% of the time because the abortionist's sole goal is to kill the child.
A miracle? Yes, I'd look at it that way. The abortionist and the woman getting the abortion wouldn't. No abortionist screws up, delivers a living child, and says, "Sweet, this one made it out alive. Awesome! That's what I've always wanted."
Do you understand abortion methods, especially late term abortion methods? Every abortion method is designed to kill the child, not simply remove it.
I'm going to take one of your paragraphs and replace the unborn child with the born child and you tell me if the paragraph makes sense.
"When the time comes that a newborn child can live on its own without help, then doing anything less than that can be criminalized. Until then, however, I do not believe that we should criminalize the moral failing of women who do not have the strength or courage to not kill their born child. It's a tragedy,not a crime. "
abortion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. b. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and
"the abortionist's sole goal is to kill the child"
jivinj:
I don't understand why you believe that the killing is the goal in an abortion. This is very important. Remember, I believe that life begins at conception. If this is done primarily to kill, then it should be punished. But, I don't believe that killing is the goal. Have you ever heard anyone who performs abortions say their goal is to kill? Do you have any quotes from anyone who performs abortions which say that their goal is to kill? Maybe there are some interviews with people who have performed abortions where they actually talk about why they did what they did. I'll try to find them.
Doug,
Taking a dictionary defintion doesn't help. Dictionary defintions aren't designed to be used the way you're using this one.
Plus - I could do the same thing _ from Merriam-Webster: "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"
Do you know how abortion procedures are performed? If so, take a second and think about those various abortion procedures. Are any of them designed to solely remove the child (and then if the child dies, he or she dies) or are those procedure designed to kill the child and then remove him or her?
Of course, most abortionists aren't going to use the term "kill." That doesn't help their cause/business. But have you ever heard an abortionist say "I'd be excited if a child survived the abortion!"
In 1993, abortionist Diane Gianelli stated in the American Medical News that, "I have angry feelings at myself for feeling good about doing a technically procedure which destroys a fetus, kills a baby."
Infamous abortionist Warren Hern once wrote in a 1978 paper, "We have reached a point in this particular technology where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator."
Priests for Life also has the testimony of a variety of ex-abortionists -
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/formerabort.html
Doug,
I'm also like to point out that your dictionary's definition of abortion would also include the births of children who aren't able to survive. Do you think that the birth of a premature child who dies is an abortion or is the dictionary definition now 100% accurate?
Just a note that some quotes from medical professionals involved in abortions with unintentional live births can be found by searching for news stories related to the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" and NARAL.
For instance, http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/bornaliveinfantsdrawsfire.htm
Here's an example:
"A former nurse at the same facility, Allison Baker, testified that she personally witnessed three babies who had been born alive during such abortions.
"On the first occasion, 'I happened to walk into a soiled utility room and saw, lying on a medical counter, a [22-week] fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs. The fetus was visibly alive, and was gasping for breath. . . . I did wrap the fetus and place him in a warmer and for 22 hours he maintained a heartbeat, and then finally expired,' she said."
Now, you -could- argue that because the doctor involved in the procedure didn't toss the baby on the floor and stomp on his/her skull as if he were crushing a cockroach, he only could merely "foresee" but did not "intend" that the baby would die by being abandoned in a utility room.
Such an argument would be abusive to what ethicists call the "Principle of Double Effect", but I fear someone will make the argument anyway.
The reality in today's day and age is that abortion really -is- about terminating or eliminating the fetus, not just the pregnancy. I sincerely doubt that as technology improves, the morality of our culture will also improve and women (and their families and their boyfriends who pressure them into abortions) would suddenly embrace "fetal transplants." When I read accounts of (or talk to) women who have had abortions, they usually wanted "it" totally gone -- with no reminders of their "mistake".
No amount of technology will soften a heart that chooses to hold onto that attitude.
(Today, those whose hearts are already convicted of the reality of abortion will pursue adoption; a few months of pregnancy is a bit less convenient than a hypothetical "fetus transplant" but if the birth mothers can put up with a few months of inconvenience, they achieve the same end of a baby-free life without the guilt of using murder as a means.)
I feel that if you are in a situation to where you are raped and you just so happen become pregenant then you should have the right to have an abortion. If you lay down and produce that baby then you take the responsibilty and be a mature mother.
I just wanted to make a comment to the blogger democracy regarding your statement that if abortion is illegalized again then it will increase teen suicide....so are you aware of a high number of teen suicides before Roe v.Wade??Hmm...don't think that was much of an issue. I actually cousel crisis pregnancy women at a clinic that is notorious for it's abortions up to 9 months and let me tell you that MOST of these women are NOT teenagers...there is NO justice in not providing protection to the MOST innocent part of our society. I am not worried about teen suicide, alothough I certainly care about those who would consider this...but if the truth be told I am certain that teen girls who have abortions have a much higher risk for drug/alcohol abuse/ careless, wreckless behavior and I'm sure suicide can be spurred on from the after-effects of abortion?? I'm sorry but I doubt you have seen an actual live abortion...if so, I don't know how you could even consider this to be a decent choice for not just teen girls, but any woman. The greatest issue to me though still remains that if we don't protect the most innocent part of our civilization then no one is safe.
I just read Doug's comment in asking if anyone has heard an abortionist say they want to kill a child...well, speaking from personal experience in counseling women from the sidewalks of an abortion clinic...yes, I have heard this statement from abortionists AND clinic workers have expressed contempt against women who come to abort. I have actually heard women and men outside the clinic who are preparing to abort their child say,"Yes I'm killing my child and I'm happy to do so" As sick as this sounds...it's true. Not only that, but everyone else I meet at the clinic agrees that abortion is murder and wrong-even if they decide to still abort. This clinic performs abortions up to 9 months and let me tell you, 99.9 % of them are done out of pure selfishness...most of these women do not have health, rape or incest issues. Also, many of the babies are born alive and left to die. Yes, a couple women have testified against the clinic, charges were pressed, but the clinic still operates. I do not understand have you can argue that abortion is not the intentional taking of a life?? You say it's "termination of pregnancy" That is the same thing as ending a life!!!! Seriously, your arguement makes no sense. The women I meet do not want the child they are carrying...if they go through with the abortion, they are no longer pregnant...and why? the life of their baby was taken, terminated, killed...it is all the same. The goal of abortion is not to just end a pregnancy...it's to end the life of the child. Without the child, there's no pregnancy, so again, how could abortion be anything except the murder of an innocent baby? Have you watched a live abortion? If not, it is quite graphic and in my opinion there is no other way to see abortion except murder.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home