Overturn Roe v. Wade?

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm sorry that you're not willing to even consider a compromise. Your absurd assertion that the exct procedure used to terminate a pregnancy is somehow equivalent to forced organ donation is illustrative of your refusal or inability to actually consider my plan.

For one last time, I'll pretend you're seriously trying to understand:

Under my plan, if a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, she has one legal means to do so -- ONE legally permitted "procedure." The only difference between an abortion and a transfer is the destination of the unborn child and who gets the doctor's bill.

The woman is required to relinquish all rights to the unborn child when she agrees to the termination, However, IF someone adopts the unborn child She does not pay the costs; the "rescuer" does.

I chose to exit this thread, rather than allow someone to manipulate me into adopting a hard line stance through personal attacks. Since the individual has personally attacked me in other threads I did not leave very gracefully, but I did want to return Harold to respond to your proposal.

It is well reasoned, well thought out and entirely fair. By adding provisions for emergencies, to protect the mother's life and by adding safeguards to assure the identities of the mothers and babies are safeguarded as well as provisions for a back ground check to assure recipients are not criminally or mentally deranged it's pretty close to the perfect solution.

It suffers however from one fatal flaw. The pro life movement will never allow it to become law. In essnse you empower the pregnant woman and that is entierly contrary to the pro life agenda. By your plan, if she approched a clinic and a protestor screamed impercations on her morals or her person she has the power to tell them to put up or shut up. If you are so concerned for this "child" come right on in and you or your wife can make sure it isn't harmed. If not, you are an incredible hypocrit, get out of my face.

The pro life agenda, when carried to it's logical conclusion is little more than an attempt to reduce women in our society to the status of brood mares on a stud farm.When not pregnant she is more or less free, but inconsequential. Once pregnant, she is important, but important only as the incubator. Her life is not worth more than a few thousend dollars at most, but the foal inside, it could be the next Kentucky Derby winner, at the very least if the blood lines are pure it's worth millions in stud fees. If an issue arises that threatens the mare's life and the solution threatens the foal's life guess what? The mare is in the hands of God.

Your plan would put the power back inthe hands of the mother, to decide what is right for her. It would put pro lifer's in a serious bind. If they really believe it's murder, then aren't they morally bound to intercede? If they don't really believe that, and it's just a dodge then their hypocracy will be evidnt to all as they sit at home and protest or stand outside the clinic and protest as that five days window to "save" the "child" ticks down.

Some pro choice people may have reservations about your plan, but I can practically guarentee no pro lifer will even consider it, much less back it.

I do wish to thank you for putting it forward. It is refreshing to see someone propose a solution, however flawed it might be, that is a compromise rather than propose solutions where all they are doing is demanding that others compromise.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Hi Weird H,

WH: Under my plan, if a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, she has one legal means to do so -- ONE legally permitted "procedure." The only difference between an abortion and a transfer is the destination of the unborn child and who gets the doctor's bill.

The woman is required to relinquish all rights to the unborn child when she agrees to the termination, However, IF someone adopts the unborn child She does not pay the costs; the "rescuer" does.
-------

If you recall, your plan is partially the same as mine (and they are both hypothetical scenarios, partly dependent on technologies that don't yet exist, to tease apart the issue of pregnancy, 'enforced', carrying, and feticide).

But first let it be said, that the key issue is the amelioration of the position of woman, as Sylvia Pankhurst, noted British feminist said (1930),

It is grievous indeed that the social collectivity should feel itself obliged to assist in so ugly an expedient as abortion in order to mitigate its crudest evils. The true mission of society is to provide the conditions, legal, moral, economic and obstetric, which will assure happy and successful motherhood.

And I will add, what I'm sure she meant, "where motherhood is freely chosen."

My 'plan', refined a bit, below, addresses the obvious problem yours has: of suitability, and quality of life. It also adresses the main fault of your system, pointed out by Sweet some time ago. By design it's set up to fine or deter 'pro life' persons, assuming them to be meddlers with fake concerns for life and nasty motives. It introduces a means test for engaging in moral discourse. It's not based in social policy, or concern for the public good.

For the record, the 'pure' plan goes like this. Any woman can decide in the first 13 weeks to cease carrying an embryo/fetus, but this will not be by abortion, but rather by 'transfer', where there is the following set up, and conditions below are met. {Her options after that are dependent on her life or health being at risk.} [[WH: Both of these are less strict conditions that you propose.]]

The government has a registry of pre screened familites, even some 'singles' where the woman is willing--I will coin a term--to uterinely adopt, and (with partner) take permanent, full responsibility from there.

Conditions:
The bio mother chooses not to continue the pregnancy.
The fetus is healthy.
There is no defect physiologically in the adopting mother; a condition preventing or making dangerous, a pregnancy.
There is a uterine adopter available immediately.

Depending on the population situation (and legislation), the government will subsidize the transfer or have the uterine adoptor pay the charge for the operations (removal from bio mother and implantation into the adoptive mother.) Where the adoptor is well off, it's expected that they bear all costs.

As backup, the state assumes responsibility for the fetus once it leaves the bio mother; usually this would be a brief time of a few hours, but screwups do happen--adoptor gets hurt, changes mind, dies, gets sick. If there's an interim till a new family is found, the state has responsibility. {E.g, they might find a surrogate.}

Depending on the population situation, the state will assist the adopting family that lacks means--e.g., with prenatal and postnatal care, with medical, daycare, and educational subsidy.
====

This plan, I submit, not only empowers the woman as much as yours, and gives her more choice, but helps address the issues of welfare of the fetus and the (future) child, the society's interest in healthy babies (but not too many); and the childless woman or couple's hardship in the present adoption 'market'.

Best,
J.

 

[shereads]

But first let it be said, that the key issue is the amelioration of the position of woman, as Sylvia Pankhurst, noted British feminist said (1930),

It is grievous indeed that the social collectivity should feel itself obliged to assist in so ugly an expedient as abortion in order to mitigate its crudest evils. The true mission of society is to provide the conditions, legal, moral, economic and obstetric, which will assure happy and successful motherhood.

And I will add, what I'm sure she meant, "where motherhood is freely chosen."

She may not have meant that, Pure. I haven't read her, and you have; but it hasn't been that long ago that women who professed not to want to be mothers were considered unnatural, deranged even. For a feminist of the 1930's to have voiced the idea that motherhood is not the best choice for some women would have made her a genuine radical.

My 'plan', refined a bit, below, addresses the obvious problem yours has: of suitability, and quality of life.

Sorry if I can't help thinking that you and Wierd Harold are reminding me of Al Gore: "Under mah plan, social security will go into a lockbox..."

Heehee. Maybe the embryo can be put into a lockbox until a suitable parent comes along.

At any rate, the future child had better not be counting on social security. Or any social services, for that matter. I imagine when the inescapable fact that the social security system in the U.S. is bankrupt begins to sink in, and a generation of us who have paid into that system for decades are faced with the idea of either not getting our benefits at all, or having the retirement age raised by 20 years, a lot of people who are currently against cutting funds for social services will get very selfish, very fast.

 

[Pure]

Yes, a lockbox for the crittur. But I think there's a helluva demand, given the present 'shortage' of adoptable infants. Bro had to go to China and spend 25K.

Pure: But first let it be said, that the key issue is the amelioration of the position of woman, as Sylvia Pankhurst, noted British feminist said (1930),

SP: "It is grievous indeed that the social collectivity should feel itself obliged to assist in so ugly an expedient as abortion in order to mitigate its crudest evils. The true mission of society is to provide the conditions, legal, moral, economic and obstetric, which will assure happy and successful motherhood. "

Pure: And I will add, what I'm sure she meant, "where motherhood is freely chosen."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sher: She may not have meant that, Pure. I haven't read her, and you have; but it hasn't been that long ago that women who professed not to want to be mothers were considered unnatural, deranged even. For a feminist of the 1930's to have voiced the idea that motherhood is not the best choice for some women would have made her a genuine radical.

---
I think you're partly right (and I've only read a little of and about her). As a socialist, I'm sure she was familiar with and in favor of birth control. This position is in Besant, Emma Goldman, etc. I.e., a woman has choice regarding becoming pregnant.

However, she, like Cady Stanton and others may well have thought that 'motherhood' was part of all or most all women's natural destiny and 'assignment' to undertake while on this planet. In that sense it might have been seen (by her) as 'unnatural' NEVER to want any children. How many did Cady Stanton have?

It would almost certainly be true that she favored birth control or abstinence to limit family size, too.

J.

 

[Weird Harold]

My 'plan', refined a bit, below, addresses the obvious problem yours has: of suitability, and quality of life. It also adresses the main fault of your system, pointed out by Sweet some time ago. By design it's set up to fine or deter 'pro life' persons, assuming them to be meddlers with fake concerns for life and nasty motives. It introduces a means test for engaging in moral discourse. It's not based in social policy, or concern for the public good.

Well, I obviously don't feel that there are any "flaws" in my proposal. It's directed at the STATED reasons for opposing abortion -- the life of the unborn child -- and yes, deliberately structured to weed out the hypocrits (on both sides). It also deliberately addresses only two main points: the woman's right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term and the "right of the child to live.

For the record, the 'pure' plan goes like this. Any woman can decide in the first 13 weeks ...
... will not be by abortion, but rather by 'transfer', where there is the following set up, and conditions below are met. {Her options after that are dependent on her life or health being at risk.} [[WH: Both of these are less strict conditions that you propose.]]

How do you figure two additonal restrictions and the direct involvement of government in "rescue" of unwanted unborn children is "less strict?"

The government has a registry of pre screened familites, even some 'singles' ...

Why should an unwanted unborn child have more guarantees and quality control over it's parents than a naturally born child? (FWIW, I have a similar problem with the restrictions placed on potential adoptive parents of orpans and abandoned children, but I don't think the restrictions and background checks on foster parents are strict enough.)

I intentionally and willfully did not include any provision for screeningbeyond posting a bond for the cost of ex-utero gestation or transfer to a host mother because doctors won't work for free and I didn't need to bring in a third party -- the AMA -- with a concrete and logical reason to oppose it.

Conditions:
The bio mother chooses not to continue the pregnancy.
The fetus is healthy.
There is no defect physiologically in the adopting mother; a condition preventing or making dangerous, a pregnancy.
There is a uterine adopter available immediately.

I count five conditions -- plus the 13 week limit stated above; That look like more restrictions and conditions rather than "less restrictive" to me.

Depending on ... the government will subsidize the transfer or have the uterine adoptor pay the charge for the operations ...

As backup, the state assumes responsibility ...

Depending on the population situation, the state will assist the adopting family that lacks means...

I specifically excluded governments, corporations and organizations from directly participating to prevent fraud, corruption, and abuse from invading the program. Government, corporate, and organizational custody is tatamount to sentencing a child to a life of institutional brainwashing in a creche.

Can you imagine a world with thousands or millions of "Rescued Fetuses" raised and indoctrinated by a radical religious sect? I had no intention of setting up an "ex-utero" recruiting program for lunatics or "ex-utero" source of cheap labor for corporations.

Government is a special case -- everything government touches it wraps in paperwork, delays, and bureaucratic obstacles. Government custody of children also doesn't have a particularly record at actually insuring the health and welfare of children. Florida is NOT the only State with severe problems in it's Chold Protective Services branch.

The idea is to "rescue" and unborn child from abortion, NOT sentnece it to and endless stream of inept or abusive foster homes. By requiring a "person" to apply for custody, at least I require that the unborn child go to someone who is more likely to care about it as an individual instead of statistic.

This plan, I submit, not only empowers the woman as much as yours, and gives her more choice, but helps address the issues of welfare of the fetus and the (future) child, the society's interest in healthy babies (but not too many); and the childless woman or couple's hardship in the present adoption 'market'.

I will concede that your plan is at least addresses a solution instead of being more retoric. It's also more palatable to politicians because it involves government and more palatable to people who consider "quality of life" a reason to support abortion choice.

However, I fail to see how it offers more choice or how the future welfare of the child, beyond the simple chance at life on the same footing as any naturally born child, has any relevance to who can choose to "rescue" an unborn child.

Government screening requirements as simple as "people of good quality" cause most of the "hardship" in the current "adoption market." Adding requirements as to the unborn child's health just gives more scope for limiting the child's already slim chances for survival.

Should a gay anti-abortion activist be barred from rescuing a child if he has the means to do so? Under your plan, he most certainly would be barred; how does that improve the unborn child's chances in any way?

Naturally born children are born to gays, lesbian, cruel, perverted, alcoholic, drug addicted, religious fanatics, racists, or just plain incompetent parents every day. Why should a "rescued fetus" be any different?

We do have laws in place to protect children from bad parents already; let those laws protect the rescued as well as the naturally born. It's not necessary to place additional restrictions and conditions on who can rescue an unwanted child -- whether it's already born or not.

I can see a logical argument for barring proven abusers of the law from further participation -- but that could easily be taken care of under current laws. Let them put up the money and insure the child's survival and then child protection services can step in and remove the child as they do for some parents with a proven record of abuse already.

I proposed a very minimilist solution with as few loopholes and exceptions as I could. IMHO, any "refinement" simply adds loopholes and exceptions which would eventually defeat the purpose of a minimilist solution in the first place.

It's NOT perfect, and doesn't contain enough words and conditions for a lawyer or politician to be comfortable with, but that's really part of my point.

As for the technology required, Put the law into place and force the technology in practicality. If the law waits on the technology, neither the law nor the technology will ever happen.

 

[Weird Harold]

Sorry if I can't help thinking that you and Wierd Harold are reminding me of Al Gore: "Under mah plan, social security will go into a lockbox..."

There's no need to get so insulting.

 

[Pure]

Weird Harold said,

//Why should an unwanted unborn child have more guarantees and quality control over it's parents than a naturally born child? //

Let me get this straight. Under your plan, with the possible exception of known abusers of children, anyone can put up the bond who has the cash and the womb, artificial or natural? They get the embryo, eventually to be a kid. So if Jerry Falwell has some devotees with available wombs, who'll raise up Christian sex slaves, that's all fine with you, if they've got the bread.

//(FWIW, I have a similar problem with the restrictions placed on potential adoptive parents of orpans and abandoned children, //

So there should be a special class of adoptees--e.g., orphans--that get handed to whomever has the bread?

Hey why have any restrictions/screening on any adoptions of any infants? I find this very puzzling WH. Very Social Darwinian. Kinda Dickensian.

I guess it's to insure than an adoptee embryo or kid gets an equal chance at an alcoholic (but well to do) mom as does a natural kid. Well, it does have a peculiar 'fairness' to it!!!

 

[Weird Harold]

Let me get this straight. Under your plan, with the possible exception of known abusers of children, anyone can put up the bond who has the cash and the womb, artificial or natural? They get the embryo, eventually to be a kid.

Pretty close. With the possible exception of someone who has abused THIS SPECIFIC PROCESS, you're exactly correct: Anyone who will finance the transfer by posting a bond in in advance can do so.

From that point on, the welfare of the rescued child is covered by exactly the same protections, or lack thereof, that every naturally born child is entitled to. We have more than sufficient child protection laws on the books without adding conflicting provisions to a new law.

So if Jerry Falwell has some devotees with available wombs, who'll raise up Christian sex slaves, that's all fine with you, if they've got the bread.

He does have available wombs and they do have "the bread" so there's nothing stopping his followers from raising all of the Christian Sex Slaves" they want. I can't really see Jerry Falwell's followers doing that, but David Koresh's followers, or Jim Jones' followers are an entirely different story.

With the current state of Cloning and In Vitro fertization technologies, anyone who wants to can raise any number of custom tailored followers if they want -- they don't need to rescue unborn children to raise whatever kind of followers they want.

[/B]

Hey why have any restrictions/screening on any adoptions of any infants? I find this very puzzling WH. Very Social Darwinian. Kinda Dickensian.[/B]

I happen to think that a true desire to raise a child doesn't depend on finances, sexual orientation, marital status, or gender -- so no, I don't think there should be any restrictions placed on who can adopt a child expet for a proven present danger to the life of the child.

Other laws, already in place, restrict what people can do to, and/or must do for, children in their custody; let those laws deal with what an adoptive parent actually DOES, and quit trying to predict what people might do. Especially making moralistic decisions that Gays, Lesbians, and Single Men are automatically unfit parents; If that is probven fact, then let's take all of the naturally born children of Gays, Lesbians, and Single Men and put them is the tender caring Child Protective Services.

It' isn't Social Darwinism, or Dickensian, it closer to Libertarian than anything I can think of off hand -- Let prospective adoptors be "innocent until proven guilty" as the basic premise of our legal system claims is the case for everyone.

 

[Pure]

WH: Besides minimal screening for prospective parents of the hypothetical embryos, and for those who would adopt 'orphans' both of whom you believe should take their chances, would it be too much to say you believe the government is far too involved in child welfare, e.g., investigating abuse allegations, removing children thought to be in danger, etc.

i know you said *more investigation of prospective foster home, but your thrust seems to be in the other direction. Incidentally why DON'T you say, "Let foster kids take their chances with anyone who wants them, can feed them, and won't kill them."?

 

[Weird Harold]

would it be too much to say you believe the government is far too involved in child welfare, e.g., investigating abuse allegations, removing children thought to be in danger, etc.

Tough question, because the answer is both yes and no. With the specific examples you cite, I don't think the government is doing enough and what they are doing is generally ineffective.

Just in my small corner of the world, which has one of the least inept child protection services I know of, I know of several children who were in no real danger removed from their parents because of mere allegations of abuse, and at least two cases where a child should have been removed and wasn't "for lack of physical evidence. Luckily, the two cases where children should have been taken weren't tragic results but they easily could have been.

However, Child Protective Services and "Government" are generally involved in more than the simple protection of children from physical danger -- battery, molestation, and starvation -- they're trying to legislate "protection" for children from necessary information and legislate exposure to propaganda. e.g. Internet blocking and making programs like D.A.R.E (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and "Absinence Only" Sex education curriculims mandatory.

I don't like the idea that I could be charged with "Child Endangerment" or "Corrupting a child" for answering an awkward question abut sex from my granddaughters honestly or I could be charged with "Child Abuse" for making them behave in public.

The current state of "Government Protection Of Children" is not far from being that intrusive already; I've been threatened with CPS involvement for single swat on the butt by busybodys and from my experience, CPS would "investigate" such a complaint without even questioning the "witness'" idea of what constitutes "abuse."

Incidentally why DON'T you say, "Let foster kids take their chances with anyone who wants them, can feed them, and won't kill them."?

Because, DUH! A Foster Parent is a direct representative of the governments interest in Child Protection. They are employees of government agencies tasked with protecting children and, like any other government employee, should be subject to extensive background checks for a criminal history and to verify qualifications. Further, Foster Parents should be monitored closely to insure that they're actually doing their jobs.

Adoptive parents and natural parents, on the other hand, are NOT employees of the Government or an "Aid Organization" and should not be treated as if they were.

As I said earlier, even a simple "persons of good character" seems to much of a criterion to limit adoptions by, because it's too vague and open to moralistic interpretations -- Why is a rich single man not a "person of good character?" Is only because he's not a plural "persons" or is it because a single man can't provide a ""normal family environment?"

There are thousands of children who lack a loving home simply because some bureaucrat interprets the "persons of good character" or similar limitation to fit his own moral standards and writes it into the adoption regulations.

The only logical restriction on adoption I consider "fair" is "a prior conviction of a crime against a child" -- and even that is a bit vague; it would have to include a list of specific criminal convictions that bar adoption.

In the specific case of my proposed Abortion Law, even a background check for previous convictions should NOT bar someone from rescuing an unborn child -- although it might be a reason to block custody after the completion of gestation in the same way some jurisdiction are allowed to remove any new children at birth from a natural mother who has been judged unfit.

A ban on people who abuse the system by repeatedly "rescuing" children in the full knowledge that the State will take them away at the end of gestation would be simple logic to protect the State from someone with more money than morals. I can see a "conflict of interest clause" to block Doctors from Rescuing children of their patients as a possible necessity as well to prevent Doctors from encouraging women to terminate their pregancies for personal gain.

Primarily, I object to restrictions on abortions -- and specifically restrictions on the hypothetical Recue of unborn children -- because the idea is to get as many children adopted as possible and under the protection of the laws that already protect naturally born children.

The fact that Child Protection Laws and the bureaucracies they spawn need some revision and are often ineffective is another debate -- as poor as they usually are, there are protections in place for children and they should apply to ALL children. If adopted children need more protection than those laws allow, then extend the SAME protection to naturally born children by changing the child protection laws instead of wrapping adoptions in so many clauses and restrictions that that adoption is effectively barred to the majority.

 

[Pure]

Hi WH, (note to Sher)

you said in part, on whether the gov is or isn't doing enough in child protection:

However, Child Protective Services and "Government" are generally involved in more than the simple protection of children from physical danger -- battery, molestation, and starvation -- they're trying to legislate "protection" for children from necessary information and legislate exposure to propaganda. e.g. Internet blocking and making programs like D.A.R.E (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and "Absinence Only" Sex education curriculims mandatory.

I don't like the idea that I could be charged with "Child Endangerment" or "Corrupting a child" for answering an awkward question abut sex from my granddaughters honestly or I could be charged with "Child Abuse" for making them behave in public.

The current state of "Government Protection Of Children" is not far from being that intrusive already; I've been threatened with CPS involvement for single swat on the butt by busybodys and from my experience, CPS would "investigate" such a complaint without even questioning the "witness'" idea of what constitutes "abuse."

I share several of the concerns you mention, esp re 'protection of children from sexual stuff' when the agenda is control of what adults can say and view (and do).

Also, since you keep raising it, I want to make sure we're on the same page. I don't see 'deviance' per se, or gayness per se as a problem. I'm quite aware of the down side of having social workers decide if a possible adoptive home is suitable. In our city, however, the 'gay' lobby is strong enough--and in the social services-- to prevent that abuse, by and large.

In your last para., I'm aware of the problem. A close friend was descended upon by three social workers within a couple hours of her foster kid saying he'd been hit (afaik, he wasn't).
Again, the pendulum has swung towards more (and often correct) skepticism of kid's stories, where there is no obvious injury. I favor that, having seen first hand the stories kids can make up--I've believed a few real doozies myself.

Of course there's a good percentage of true stories of abuse, but it's a real 'art' or 'magical' talent to be able to tell.
For instance, a few years back, presence of detail was thought to be key; if detail was there it was true. Yet there was detail in my friends case; it's an entirely bogus criterion of truth.

Believe it or not WH and Shereads too, I'm actually aware of intrusive plans of our government, including accessing medical records. Again 'protection' is the rationale. Please understand WH Shereads Minsue etc, that there is high consonance of views around here and that the focus on minor or philosophic difference is for fun and education only.

Best,
J.

 

[Weird Harold]

Also, since you keep raising it, I want to make sure we're on the same page. I don't see 'deviance' per se, or gayness per se as a problem. I'm quite aware of the down side of having social workers decide if a possible adoptive home is suitable. In our city, however, the 'gay' lobby is strong enough--and in the social services-- to prevent that abuse, by and large.

If the gay lobby is strong enough to prevent that particular abuse, then you're na very enllightened area. In many juridsdictions, the anti-gay bias is written into the law -- "adoptions are limited to married couples of good character with adequate means to support and educate the child." or similar wording that effectively limits who can adopt to "rich white couples."

Again, the pendulum has swung towards more (and often correct) skepticism of kid's stories, where there is no obvious injury. I favor that, having seen first hand the stories kids can make up--I've believed a few real doozies myself.

I think the problem is that CPS employees aren't trained as investigators and the police departments are usually too overloaded to conduct proper investigations unless there is obvious physical injuries.

Believe it or not WH and Shereads too, I'm actually aware of intrusive plans of our government, including accessing medical records. Again 'protection' is the rationale.

While I'm definitely against the "intrusive plans of our government" and object to them, they aren't at the heart of my objections to adding limits tests and conditions to who can rescue an unborn child by adopting it.

Those objections are based primarily in a distate for complicated laws that only a lawyer can understand -- especially complications that duplicate or conflict existing laws and/or provide loopholes for lawyers to exploit.

At one time in this country, a seventh grade education was sufficient to read and understand every law on the books and pass the bar exam inmost juridsdictions. Today, it requires a college education AND specialization in a limited area of the law to be "admitted to the bar."

Shakespeare had the right idea: "First we kill all of the lawyers." (Yes I know that quote is taken out of context, but it's still a good idea and should include professional politicians as well.)

 

[Pure]

WH said,

//While I'm definitely against the "intrusive plans of our government" and object to them, they aren't at the heart of my objections to adding limits tests and conditions to who can rescue an unborn child by adopting it.

Those objections are based primarily in a distate for complicated laws that only a lawyer can understand -- especially complications that duplicate or conflict existing laws and/or provide loopholes for lawyers to exploit.//

My view is that abortion is just a nasty little no-longer secret of a society that denigrates moms and kids. It tells the former not be be welfare queens and work, but doesn't facilitate daycare etc.
The kids of the poor are now a write off, given the planned decay of public schools.

Abortion is, in principle, pretty easy to cut by 90% if our society were serious about the basic issues of how people live and support themselves AND were serious about sexual education and provision of BC and obstetric info and services. In this latter area of sex ed, my impression is that countries like Holland are miles ahead. Afaik, their teen just don't get knocked up like those in the US: the poor; the ones of broken homes; the dropouts. And the respectable evangelicals. The majority, it's known, use no birth control till *after the first pregnancy!

So it's really, one level down, about 'morals' (US white Christian style) and below that, about who doesn't matter, and who controls the wealth and has the power in the country. (And whose kids will always get abortion on demand.) There's one area of insight of the pro life persons: life has gotten pretty cheap; the abortion rate is just a symptom. It's too bad most of their organizations refuse to allow the most obvious steps--even by others-- to advance human well being (e.g., the Catholic church in Africa opposing condom use in areas of AIDS epidemics.)

Any thoughts on these matters?

J.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Here's food for thought, snp: What if all women don't think alike?

My point to weird harold was just that- all women don't think alike. they have different reasons for choosing to have an abortion, and it's not always just because they don't want to deal with being pregnant. It seemed to me, that WH was saying "I really don't think that a woman willing to do A would be unwilling to do B" an awful lot. My point was, you don't know there motivations (not always the same) and you can't predict B from A and what 'type of person' you think that person is or what they may be willing to do.

So on this point, we certainly agree.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Here's another irony. Colly supports and respects Bush. I do not. You can't put all the pro-lifers in bed with the Prez. I didn't vote for him, don't like him and can't wait till he's gone.

I'm reminded of another irony: two pro-life people here have advocated "educating women" as a way to improve the odds against abortion. Yet the Bush administration's first action on this topic upon taking office was to eliminate U.S. financial support of birth control clinics in the third world, if they made information about abortion available.

 

[Weird Harold]

My point to weird harold was just that- all women don't think alike. they have different reasons for choosing to have an abortion, and it's not always just because they don't want to deal with being pregnant.

I think the point you're missing, is that I don't care WHY a woman wants to end her pregnancy.

I set up a situation to deal with the consequences of the decision that doesn't deal with reasons for the decision.

The proposition is very simple IF you want an abortion THEN this is how you do it legally.

It works just like:

IF you want to drive, THEN here is the procedure for getting your license to drive legally.

IF you want a job in Food service, THEN here are the procedures for getting a health card.

IF you want to be president THEN you must be at least 35 years old and born a citizen of the USA.

If a woman feels strongly enough that the requirements for a legal abortion are something she can't deal with, she is forced to make a second choice -- swallow her objections and get a legal termination, or find some other option.

I don't feel that every woman will make both choices, but I don't CARE if they do or not.

The law forces each of us to choose whether to obey the law if we wish to do something all the time.

In various jurisdictions around the USA, women seeking abortions are require by law to do various things to obtain a legal abortion -- Wait seven days before the final decision, notify their parents or the natural father, attend mandatory counseling, Etc, ad nauseum. Many women find those restrictions intolerable and either obtain an illegal abortion, try a self-abortion, or travel to another jurisdiction where the rules better suit her.

How is my single requirement more onerous than the multitude of requirements and restrictions already in place and why can't women make the same choices if they find it intolerable?

No, not all women think alike, and no two women decide on an abortion for exactly the same reasons. Those who do decide on an abortion face up to the requirements for a legal abortion now or seek other options.

The whole point here is that it doesn't matter how the woman feels about someone adopting her unborn child -- IF she wants a Legal termination, she has to allow it or make a different choice.

Just as you have to buy comprhensive insurance for your new car or the law allows the lender to repossess it; you have a choice of buying insurance or risk losing your car; a woman would have the choice of obtaining a legal termination or risking the penalty for breaking the law.

Some people will always choose to break the law rather than obey provisions they don't like -- theymake choices like drinking alcohol when it's constituionally banned, smoke dope and crack cocaine or shoot up heroin or other drugs when they're tightly controlled substances under the law, or they get a backalley abortion because they can't face meeting the requirement to notify their parents or wait seven days.

I'm simply proposing a different law that, IMHO, fewer women will choose to break AND offers a chance to save the unborn child in the bargain. There will always be contrarians who choose not to follow a law for whatever reasons they can dream up; there is no law that can be written that everyone will follow.

 

[Weird Harold]

My view is that abortion is just a nasty little no-longer secret of a society that denigrates moms and kids. It tells the former not be be welfare queens and work, but doesn't facilitate daycare etc.
The kids of the poor are now a write off, given the planned decay of public schools.

I said earlier in this thread that abortion has been around at least as long as Homo Sapiens. I don't think it's something that is unique to, or results from, our Society.

Abortion is, in principle, pretty easy to cut by 90% if our society were serious about the basic issues of how people live and support themselves AND were serious about sexual education and provision of BC and obstetric info and services.

If our society wasn't so fixated on controlling sex and information about sex, abortion would be basically a non-issue.

I agree that education and the availability of Birth Control would just about eliminate abortions. Availability of affordable child care and removing the other osbtacles to raising a child alone that "ruin a woman's life" and most of the remaining abortions would go away as well.

I think that it's possible to do a lot better than a mere 90% at reducing the number of abortions and leave the remaining 1% to doctors and their patients.

Unfortunately, I can't forsee any breakthrough in the attitudes and hypocrisy that permeates the debates over abortion and sex education in the near future. Since I can't see any realistic way to reduce the number of abortion requests, the only option left is a compromise on the requirements for getting a legal abortion -- at least as a first step.

 

[shereads]

The whole point here is that it doesn't matter how the woman feels about someone adopting her unborn child -- IF she wants a Legal termination, she has to allow it or make a different choice.

So we are back to where we began: restrictions on abortion as with any medical procedure will only apply to those who lack the financial means to leave the country. The rest of us will cross state lines or fly to Bora-Bora if that's what we have to do to retain our privacy.

Note that by "privacy," I don't just mean guarding our identity. I'm referring to our desire to avoid having an offspring of ours surrendered to a sort of embryo lottery to which we can never know the outcome.

Your idea isn't without merit for women who don't mind the idea of giving a child to adoptive parents - until you remove the screening processes that, while they are certainly not fool-proof, are likely a comfort to a woman choosing to provide someone else with a baby.

Not everyone, but certainly some women, would find it disturbing that the future parents of their offspring could just as easily be the world's Michael Jacksons as its Mother Theresas.

Granted, biological parents aren't screened for their fitness to raise children.

Moreover, men sell semen to sperm banks, knowing that the future parents of their unknown sons and daughters won't need any other qualifcation than the financial means to pay for artificial insemination. Maybe sperm donation seems less personal to a man because he's got millions of 'em; he's genetically programmed to share his supply unselfishly; and removing semen from the body is neither invasive, nor particularly unpleasant. Or so I've been told.



Maybe if your program is put on hold pending research into a way to make donating an embryo possible by means of having an orgasm, anonymous motherhood will become as easy a moral choice as anonymous fatherhood.

As for me, I'd find a way to avoid this, even if I had to sell my home to afford the travel.

 

[shereads]

Wierd Harold, what about the risk that these adoptive parents will be taking? Will anyone be willing to risk that the next embryo or fetus that becomes available will be HIV-positive or heroine addicted or suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome? If the woman has to take her chances with the future parents, are they going to take an equal chance and know nothing about the state of her health?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My grandfather told me when I was young that a good compromise left everyone mad. I think you have struck Gold Harold.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

So we are back to where we began: restrictions on abortion as with any medical procedure will only apply to those who lack the financial means to leave the country. The rest of us will cross state lines or fly to Bora-Bora if that's what we have to do to retain our privacy.
...
Not everyone, but certainly some women, would find it disturbing that the future parents of their offspring could just as easily be the world's Michael Jacksons as its Mother Theresas.
...
As for me, I'd find a way to avoid this, even if I had to sell my home to afford the travel.

Life is full of legal restrictions and doctors don't work for free. Unless you're proposing that my tax dollars should pay for all abortions to level the economic playing field there are always going to be restrictions that drive women to "sell their home to travel someplace where there are no restrictions" -- except doctors there don't work for free either.

I'm seriously suprised that nobody has raised the one objection I most expected -- My proposal requires those most opposed to terminating a pregnancy to pay for the termination if they want to save the child!

While you are willing to sell your home to go where there are no restrictions, the one restriction I propose also offers you the chance of getting your pregnancy terminated at no cost to you! But it is certainly your option to beggar yourself -- that's just another "choice" that is an inherent part of becoming pregnant.

With the exception of a rape victim intent on erasing all traces of the rape, I have trouble understanding the position of "I'm willing to kill my unborn child, but I'm not willing to give it up for adoption." But then I've never really understood a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude about anything else, either.

I tried to come up with the least restrictive requirement I could think of for terminating a pregnancy that also addressed the stated concerns of the anti-abortionists for the life of the unborn child. I added a provision that partially removed the economic bar to many terminations -- The rescuer bears the costs of transfer, not the mother.

Still, I never expected that a compromise would satisfy everyone -- compromises aren't supposed to satisfy everyone or cover every possible eventuality. If a woman wants her unborn child dead and gone instead of just her pregnancy terminated, there is really no compromise that can be made and those women will probably always be outside of the law. I'm not sure I want to live in a society that would not make an attempt to provide an option to save every life possible.

Wierd Harold, what about the risk that these adoptive parents will be taking? Will anyone be willing to risk that the next embryo or fetus that becomes available will be HIV-positive or heroine addicted or suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome? If the woman has to take her chances with the future parents, are they going to take an equal chance and know nothing about the state of her health?

I don't know, nor do I care, about the decision making process on either side of a rescue.

The mechanism doesn't consider motives, just results -- Both sides are buying a "pig-in-a poke" as far as the future is concerned, just as natural parents are risking birth defects and other future problems.

The woman doesn't have to give any reasons for wanting her pregnancy terminated, and a rescuer doesn't get to screen the particulars of a case before deciding whether or not to rescue a child. The pro-choice side says, "a woman has the right to choose not to remain pregnant," and the pro-life side says, "Every child is worth saving," and my proposal makes it possible for positions to coexist.

If you decide to throw your computer in the dumpster, do you have any right to say who can take it out of the dumpster? (If you're concerned about who might take it, make other provisions for disposing of it.)

If you decide to rescue a computer from a dumpster, do you have a right to complain about the amount of memory or the size of the hard-drive or even that it doesn't work at all?

It may seem callous to equate an unborn child with an old computer ina dumpster, but the principle is the same -- why should it matter if the unborn child goes into the garbage disposal or into an artificial womb -- or even into a vat for stem cell production? Should a woman even have any choice in where it goes when it's no longer inside of her -- she's made her choice and gotten her pregnancy terminated? Any objection to the fate of the child after termination is purely a "dog-in-the-manger," "I don't want it but you can't have it" situation that, to my mind, is mostly irrational and selfish.

Anti-abortionists accuse women who want abortions of being "selfish" -- I think concern over the fate of an unwanted child after it's removed tends to prove that assertion, except for the specific case of a rape victim's desire to make all traces of the rape go away.

(Note: since this is the Author's Hangout, anyone interested in writing a story about the possibility of a rape victim's child being rescued and growing up to become a rapist? Or maybe some other happier inadvertant incest scenario where a rescued child falls in love with it's biological parent?

There should be a wealth of ideas here for stories detailing the emotional repercussions and potential abuses of such a "child rescue" law.)

 

[Weird Harold]

My grandfather told me when I was young that a good compromise left everyone mad. I think you have struck Gold Harold.

-Colly

It was my father who passed on that bit of wisdom, but I think you're right -- since I've finally drawn some opposition from the pro-choice side.

I'm not surprised it has taken so long, because I allowed a great deal of choice for terminating a pregnancy -- probably more choice than the pro-choice side is even campaigning for because theoretically there is nothing to prevent a woman from deciding to terminate her pregnancy at 8 months and 24 days in the law I proposed. (not that I can imagine a woman deciding that late to outright kill her child, but I can see her suddenly deciding to give it up for adoption at that late stage.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It was my father who passed on that bit of wisdom, but I think you're right -- since I've finally drawn some opposition from the pro-choice side.

I'm not surprised it has taken so long, because I allowed a great deal of choice for terminating a pregnancy -- probably more choice than the pro-choice side is even campaigning for because theoretically there is nothing to prevent a woman from deciding to terminate her pregnancy at 8 months and 24 days in the law I proposed. (not that I can imagine a woman deciding that late to outright kill her child, but I can see her suddenly deciding to give it up for adoption at that late stage.)

It's a compromise in every sense of the word.

The pro life side must give up the accusatroy and punitive nature of their agenda, but if the core value is truly that abortion is murder, then they are given a vehicle through which they can achieve the end of "deaths" by abortion.

The pro choice side must give up control of the destiny of the embryo/fetus, but if the core value is truly choice then they win that, with a safe, leagal, private and viable way to terminate a pregnancy.

Neither side gets exactly what they want, but both sides do get thier stated core concern. For pro choice proponents, a leagal choice. For pro life proponenets a guarentee that no abortion has to be preformed.

And since everyone is mad it meets the litmus test of a good compromise

-Colly

 

[Pure]

I don't think 'abortion' has a true (deep) technological solution, though I do see how you've addressed the 'killing' and the 'control of body' issue.

It's simply not all that good for a person. Girls who are ignorant and without life prospects are getting pregant, far more in the states than other advance countries. Unless their lives are improved materially and through education, the core issue still exists.

I think too, though sher mentioned it, you underestimate the 'choice' folks demands. It (embryo) is part of her body (at least for one trimester) and she can do what the fuck she wants with it. She can have it 'extracted', put it in a bottle, feed it to the cat. She's not under any obligation to solve a childless couple's problem.

As a libertarian leaning person, surely you'd agree that rather than your coerced solution (which mine is too), the 'buyers' should just put up some dough. Enough that pregant moms will either carry and a put up for adoption, or transfer the embryo. Free market. Free choice by the buyer AND the seller.

Any pregnant woman (at least the first trimester) is entirely free to take or leave the deal and flush the POC down the toilet. 'Nature' in the first trimester does a lot of this, anyway.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't think 'abortion' has a true (deep) technological solution, though I do see how you've addressed the 'killing' and the 'control of body' issue.

It's simply not all that good for a person. Girls who are ignorant and without life prospects are getting pregant, far more in the states than other advance countries. Unless their lives are improved materially and through education, the core issue still exists.

I think too, though sher mentioned it, you underestimate the 'choice' folks demands. It (embryo) is part of her body (at least for one trimester) and she can do what the fuck she wants with it. She can have it 'extracted', put it in a bottle, feed it to the cat. She's not under any obligation to solve a childless couple's problem.

As a libertarian leaning person, surely you'd agree that rather than your coerced solution (which mine is too), the 'buyers' should just put up some dough. Enough that pregant moms will either carry and a put up for adoption, or transfer the embryo. Free market. Free choice by the buyer AND the seller.

Any pregnant woman (at least the first trimester) is entirely free to take or leave the deal and flush the POC down the toilet. 'Nature' in the first trimester does a lot of this, anyway.