Reframing Abortion

Aired, Shows | katherine, November 15th, 2005

Throwing Out the Old Symbols [Jay Tamboli / Flickr]

Tonight we’ll be rebroadcasting a show we called Beyond Roe and Wade. It initially aired on July 20th, shortly after John Roberts’s Supreme Court nomination — and it seems particularly relevant again now that Samuel Alito’s nomination has refired the abortion wars. You can read the original comments here, but for the sake of clarity please write your November comments on this post.

Why are we rebroadcasting? Because Chris will be in Tunis for two days at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). We’re hoping he’ll come back with a thousand show ideas. Or at least a tan.

viagra
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen

download an mp3

comment | trackback

Protected by WP-Hardened-Trackback by Marco van Hylckama Vlieg

9 Responses to “Reframing Abortion”

1. Reginleif Says:
   November 17th, 2005 at 8:51 pm

   I listened to the first half-hour off and on. It annoyed but didn’t surprise me that the feminists on the show (Frances Kissling and Marlene Fried) were assuming that “woman” = “mother” … as in, “abortion is a stage of motherhood.” Some of us, like myself, do NOT want children, EVER. We are childfree. We do not HAVE “stages of motherhood” to go through. Unfortunately, the women’s movement has become so “mommy”-centered that most feminist leaders are oblivious to this distinction.

   I become pregnant, I will get an abortion. Case closed. I am sure there are women like the Melissa, the caller, who have “mourned” their fetus, but by and large, the claims of “post-abortion syndrome” are hype by the right. See the wonderful website I’m Not Sorry for tales from dozens of women who did not regret having abortions.

   I am also a libertarian, and although I should have expected the leftist slant from an NPR radio show, I am disgusted that the talk early on centered largely around handouts for mothers, especially single mothers. Those of us who have chosen not to reproduce are tired of funding other people’s life choices. Parents already get enormous tax breaks, extra benefits in the workplace, perks such as “stork spots” (which are not legally protected like handicapped spaces, and which I park in as often as possible), and the adulation of a child-centered society. Half the time, they don’t even bother to raise their children properly, as is obvious to any non-parent who goes out in public regularly.

   I say, make abortion and birth control very, very available … but make the raising of children a personal choice for which the parents should pay. Marlene Fried can natter on all she wants about “community justice.” Like its cousins “social justice” and “economic justice,” that half-baked notion seems to be all about income redistribution, especially from my wallet to those of parents. Sorry, but just because you’ve reproduced doesn’t mean I owe you either money or personal freedoms.

2. A little yellow bird Says:
   November 17th, 2005 at 9:04 pm

   One thing we could discuss differently about abortion is the idea of greatly reducing the need for it by not pretending to ignore the intensity of sexual desire in adolescents. It has been shown ad nauseum that kids whose sexuality is faced and dealt with (in a realistic way) by the adults in their lives have fewer pregnancies and STDs, and have much safer sex when they do indulge. The woman caller who aborted a baby very young, and then had three children with that man later, and the man caller whose mom had him at nineteen, both are examples of young people utterly without reasonable adult guidance left to their own devices in this sex-negative society where we believe that some biological needs are real and others can and should be prayed away or otherwise ignored or muted. Abortion, especially after it’s more than an undifferentiated blob of cells without organs, nerves, human features, and self-awareness, is a horror of mayhem to a defenseless creature with a beating heart. We are not squirrels: we need to have sex more than once a year for five minutes, and for more than just baby-making, and we live for decades. It’s time to face that truth fearlessly, and without regard for the primitive mindset, whether animist or other mystical, unquantifiable belief systems, that says a magic spirit begins to invade a womb along with semen at the moment of truth; but a tiny person in there is not a speck of lint on a suit to be brushed off, either. There! Is that a new way to discuss it? Actually, at least people were fairly civil on the show tonight–that in itself is a sort of reframing; and no Eric Rudolph type showed up, either. DAYENU!

3. francesrossi Says:
   November 18th, 2005 at 2:56 am

   If you want to reframe the abortion discussion in legal terms, you’ve got to look at rights. That’s what law and the justice system is all about. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. It does not guarantee the right to abort.
   Now, if I sound like a rabid Right to Lifer, I’m not. I think we need safe, legal, infrequent abortion rights for women. However, to reframe this discussion in terms that will tie it more closely to the Constitution, I think we have to step back from the sexual revolution and women’s rights to take a look at the rights of all concerned, beginning with the fetus/baby. Any honest discussion of this has to acknowledge that the fetus is the beginning of a person; that it begins its life as a human even in the womb. That little person has some rights. Does the father of that fetus/baby have rights? There again, I think he does. Now, he may have foregone his rights in the way he chose to create life–rape, incest, for example. But in principle, he is as much the parent of that child as is the mother. What of the grandparents–the mother’s or father’s parents? In their case, there is responsibility under the law for the welfare of their daughter or son. Consider that they would be criminally charged if through their negligence their daughter were sexually molested. Consider also, that once the mother has given birth, she can be charged with murder or gross neglect if she abandons the baby that, in her womb, she could, at this point, choose to abort.
   It is dishonest to approach the issue of abortion without considering the rights of all involved. What this would mean in actual practice would be a more involved process of arranging for abortion, in which all parties are accorded some kind of arena in which to agree upon a course of action.
   Even though, for a young person, this may mean a difficult confrontation with parents or with the impregnator, I think it could be worked out, even in the context of the abortion agency. There would be cases in which parents might not be brought in, but in such cases the young woman then needs help from other caregivers to determine what the proper course for her is, if the parents are not effective in helping her achieve sexual responsibility.
   To satisfy the rights/needs of all involve, the ideal solution would be to discover a safe way of transferring the new fetus to another woman’s womb, providing a childless woman the opportunity to raise a child she wants, allowing the fetus the right to life, and sparing a woman the burden of bringing to birth a child she has no desire for.
   But even if that were possible, it would be necessary to consider the rights of all.

4. sasha Says:
   November 18th, 2005 at 2:59 am

   There are so many things I have to say about this topic. I became pregnant as a teenager four times as a result of incest perpetrated by my father; the first time I was thirteen.

   Some people assert that abortion should be illegal even in the case of incest because the embryo is “innocent.” Wasn’t I innocent? Why should my life have been ruined (or ended, as I would have committed suicide if abortion had not been available) for the sake of an embryo my father implanted in me?

   Some “pro-life” people agree that abortion should be allowed in the case of incest. However, many other women’s and girl’s lives would be threatened, ruined or compromised by carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. I don’t believe that an embryo or fetus is “alive” in the same way a person already born is alive. So I don’t think a fetus is ever entitied to “rights” as people are. However, even if a person does believe a fetus is “alive” it doesn’t make sense to assert that it’s rights are more important than the mothers if it’s existence threatens her. Our laws give people the right to kill or harm others if it is necessary for self-defense. So I don’t understand how the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy can even be debatable or how it is anyone’s business but hers (and the father’s IF the woman didn’t become pregnant through abuse.)

   I have no respect for the “right to life” movement. In general those people have no concern for the quality of life for children born to women who don’t want them. They’re just obsessed fetuses before they actually become children.

   I apologize for not being more articulate. I just had to say something.

5. A little yellow bird Says:
   November 18th, 2005 at 7:55 am

   Response to Sasha: Sorry about your tribulations. You seem to be pretty clear-headed, so you must have healed a bit. Your argument, contrary to your impression of it, is quite cogent, and I must say I haven’t heard it before: the self-defense idea. I can tell you what the most rigid anti-abortion people would respond with, though: they would say that the unwanted baby doesn’t “threaten” you–it’s only an extreme inconvenience; and you, at thirteen, and utterly traumatized, should buck up and take care o’ bizniz with help from–nobody, except God, of course. By the way, I hope your Dad rots in a living hell, and then in a dying one. Keep the faith. Many people who come from a place like yours seem to feel that they do not express themselves sufficiently; it stems from not having been believed or helped or protected when one was being mistreated in such a way as a child, no matter how you tried to say or do something about it in whatever way you could. (Believe me–I really know, too…) Peace.

6. ema Says:
   November 19th, 2005 at 10:44 pm

   A little yellow bird,

   “…they would say that the unwanted baby doesn’t “threatenâ€? you–it’s only an extreme inconvenience…”

   If only reality would work according to other people’s beliefs/sayings. A pregnancy, especially one at extremes of age (13yo), is a very high risk state. The associated morbidity and mortality are significant.

   Quick example: Chance of death (per year)*

   - risk per pregnancy 1:10,000

   - risk from early 1st trimester [legal] abortion 1:263,000

   francesrossi,

   “If you want to reframe the abortion discussion in legal terms, you’ve got to look at rights.”

   Reframing the abortion discussion in legal terms is a very bad idea, with dangerous consequences in real life. See the “partial-birth” abortion ban, aka the ban against made up medical procedures. Or, your proposal to accord rights to the products of conception. [Contrary to popular belief, there is no fetus/baby/little person floating around in the uterus x 9 months. There's an embedded placenta, an umbilical cord, and an attached fetus.]

   “Any honest discussion of this has to acknowledge that the fetus is the beginning of a person”

   And any reality-based discussion has to define what “beginning of a person” means.

   “Consider also, that once the mother has given birth, she can be charged with murder or gross neglect if she abandons the baby that, in her womb, she could, at this point, choose to abort.”

   And consider also that the majority of in utero “babies” are spontaneously aborted.

   “What this would mean in actual practice would be a more involved process of arranging for abortion, in which all parties are accorded some kind of arena in which to agree upon a course of action.”

   Personal medical decisions should not be made by popular opinion even if [or just because] the patient happens to be female.

   “Even though, for a young person, this may mean a difficult confrontation with parents or with the impregnator, I think it could be worked out, even in the context of the abortion agency. There would be cases in which parents might not be brought in, but in such cases the young woman then needs help from other caregivers to determine what the proper course for her is, if the parents are not effective in helping her achieve sexual responsibility.”

   I think this is a very dangerous proposition. Presently, a pregnant minor is considered emancipated and can consent. Neither parents, nor other caregivers have a say in allowing her to carry a pregnancy to term. If you are saying that a pregnant minor is incapable of making her own decisions about having an abortion, you are saying she’s incapable of a responsible decision about carrying a pregnancy to term [a far greater risk vs. abortion]. Which leads us to the possibility of parents/caregivers forcing pregnant minors to terminate a pregnancy. I realize that some people don’t bat an eye at the idea of forced pregnancy and can easily rationalize it, but I have to wonder how they’d rationalize forced terminations.

   *Williams 21ed. p1518

7. manning120 Says:
   November 20th, 2005 at 9:49 pm

   In the program, Mr. Lydon asks if we can go beyond, or “out of the box of,� Roe v. Wade, or “re-cast� the issue. I agree that the rationale for the holding in Roe v. Wade isn’t satisfying to either side in the controversy. Accordingly, we should “re-cast� the argument.

   The pro-choice side, with which I sympathize, is ill-served by Roe v. Wade. The right to privacy argument isn’t persuasive. Privacy in common language relates to being allowed to conduct oneself away from public view, with assurance that one’s actions will be revealed only to persons to whom one chooses to reveal them. Some women want to obtain abortions privately, but others, like the Open Source callers and writers, and ardent defenders of abortion rights, have no concern about privacy. They just want women to have the right to obtain an abortion if they find it necessary, regardless of who finds out. So arguing that banning abortions would unconstitutionally infringe the right to privacy misses the point.

   Since the major ground upon which Justice Blackmun’s opinion is precarious, stare decisis gives the decision whatever remaining vitality it has. However, I believe those of us favoring abortion rights should identify other grounds to support the decision. The 9th Amendment – “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the peopleâ€? — provides one alternative discussed in the Roe v. Wade decision. But the argument that banning abortion would violate the First Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th) offers the strongest rationale, in my opinion.

   Those who favor banning abortion say that from the moment of conception, the human individual possesses full status as a person. Ergo, abortion is murder. I see this as a religious idea. Most anti-abortionists think a fertilized egg has a soul. They believe that since all souls are eternal and may go to heaven or hell, the soul defines a human being. But there’s no way to prove, or disprove, the existence of the incorporeal soul in a born person, let alone an unimplanted zygote. People who believe in the existence of the soul most likely believe this on religious grounds.

   People sometimes express non-religious beliefs in support of banning abortions. These include that the fetus feels pain or has mental function. Such arguments certainly don’t make sense as a reason to ban abortion of products of conception before the cells differentiate into nerves. Then there’s a slippery slope argument. If we allow complete freedom of abortion, some fetuses that can feel or think might be aborted; and not respecting the right to life of fetuses may derogate respect for life of born persons. While I don’t think these claims would justify banning all abortions, the Roe v. Wade scheme accommodates the slippery slope concerns.

   Abortion can be analogized to public display of religious symbols. According to the formula recently adopted, public display of any particular version of the Ten Commandments is okay if there isn’t a proselytizing motivation for the display. Since the Kentucky display was an attempt to promote religious belief, it was ruled unconstitutional. Similarly, because the banning of abortion would amount to requiring everyone to observe a religious belief, it would be unconstitutional.

   As mentioned in another post, I believe the pro-life position suffers from inconsistency and failure to consider rational consequences. Requiring everyone to accord the same right to life to a fertilized egg as to a born human being would raise questions like these: Why stop with outlawing killing the unborn? Why not issue conception certificates, and pre-natal death certificates? Why not identify and count as deceased human beings the 80% or so of fertilized eggs that never implant, or the majority of fetuses that spontaneously abort? Why not require medical examination of the possible products of conception excreted by women to see if one or more deceased human beings are present?

   The utter failure of pro-life advocates to carry their position to its logical limits shows that their beliefs result not from reasoned reflection, but from indoctrination. Limiting a basic right of women because of doctrinal teaching is inappropriate under the First Amendment.

8. zeninubasho Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 8:00 pm

   Is francesrossi Catholic? Posters ought to be required to state their religious upbringing. In fact, give the Catholics and the religious fanatics an inch and they will take a mile. What they want is to ban sex for pleasure. See Griswold. If they could ban or prevent contraception they would do it in a second, and complain that preventing fertilization is abortion. oy-vey. My religious orientation? see name on account.

9. elphaba Says:
   December 17th, 2005 at 3:32 pm

   A recent issue of The Economist had a good op-ed on the abortion issue in the US. Their take of the situation was that abortion isn’t much of an issue in Europe because it has been voted on.
   That is really something to think about. Most polls show that Americans support a womans right to choose abortion or not. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned and the decision was left up to the states, most would continue to protect a womans right to choose.
   I think most Americans are firmly in the middle of the issue. When you hear about abortion you wouldn’t believe there is a middle, but I do believe there is.
   Only a few radicals believe that a woman should be able to abort a third trimester fetus. Conversely, only a few radicals believe that an embryo or early term fetus has the same rights as its mother. Most people do believe that the health of the mother comes before that of an embryo or early term fetus. The middle ground runs a long spectrum.
   The middle ground is a long spectrum. There are cases of rape and incest. What about embryos with major defects found through amniocentisis? There are women with health issues that make pregnancy life threatening. What about a woman diagnosed with cancer? What about the working poor? Should a married couple be compelled to have a baby when both of them working can barely make ends meet? Then of course there is the teenage girl…..
   This is an issue that has become a focal point for extremist. It might be very interesting to stop and say, you know, you’re right, saying that abortion is a matter of privacy is pushing it a little. Let’s vote on it.

   A little comment on transferring an unwanted fetus from one womb to another as being an ideal solution to the abortion problem. I have done seven IVF (invitro fertilization) cycles. The result was three pregnancies and one live birth. Transferring 9 cell embryos, or blastocystes ( a ball of cells) is very tricky. Most of the embryos resulting from IVF are defective in some way and stop growing.

Write a Reply