My Revolt with the Left and the Right on Abortion

[usregimechange]

I believe that conservatives have a legitimate gripe on the issue of abortion and I am glad that they speak out about it. I reject the idea that human life never deserves protection until it reaches viability (the ability to survive on its own). There are other factors to consider such as the level of development of critical organs that make us who we are.

I think saying that a fertilized egg inside a mother requires state protection is as extreme as saying a fetus isn't alive until after it is born. Both attribute rather haphazard significance in an attempt to answer the wrong question: when life becomes life. In sexual reproduction life comes from life (i.e. the egg and sperm cell), it never makes a transition from lifelessness to being alive. Biology class is less evil than the effect of ignorance on policy. The real question is at what point in the development of human life does the mother's self-determination and safety become less important than the developing human life in the womb.

When we pose the question in this realistic way the tough part becomes when to draw the line. We draw subjective lines on many issues but almost everyone agrees they need to be drawn. For example, when an adolescent becomes developed and mature enough to obtain a driver's license or how much regulation is needed to protect our water supply. In all ethical dilemmas we balance one principle with another, we don't simply choose one like an unfrozen impulsive caveman.

It is time we had a real debate on this issue instead of thumping each other on the head with abortion slogans. Lets put our egos and agendas down and get this one right.

[Walt Starr]

1. If Roe was applied as written, you would have no problems

Read it, you'll be enlightened:

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

[MissB]

4. Exactly.

[Kenroy]

2. The "when life begins" argument

is a dead end, and is a distraction. There is no single point - that's the way continuums (continua?) work.

The REAL issue is whether or not the government can force a woman to give birth against her will. While I appreciate the argument about life deserving protection, the right ignores the fact entirely that the embryo RELIES on a living woman to grow. That woman, and that woman alone, gets to decide whether she wants to carry it, despite the depth of feeling others might have on the issue.

[phylny]

3. I believe this is impossible.

To someone who believes life begins at the moment of conception, there is no compromise that will make it all "okay" because the fetus' rights supercede those of the mother. To others who believe that it's the woman's right to choose with no interference from government, any move to limit that right will be seen as the first step in criminalizing abortion, since they believe it's a private issue between a woman and her health care professonal.

Personally, I would never have had an abortion unless my life was in danger, but I would also never want to force MY beliefs on this issue on any other woman.

That is what pro-choice means.

[moobu2]

5. IMO

It isn’t fair to demand a woman carry a fetus in her body if she doesn’t want to. Everything else (when does life begin?, what reason the woman doesn’t want to carry the fetus etc..)is irrelevant.

[Lexingtonian]

6. So...

By this logic, why is it OK to cut out a cancer tumor? It's certainly 'alive' as you try to define it, isn't it?

Would or wouldn't you allow a woman to abort a pregnancy with a fetus that has no head?

[usregimechange]

7. cancer tumors have no vital organs.

[Lexingtonian]

9. but you're killing the tumor- it's living tissue

And you're not answering my more important question.

Anencephaly-
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2245

[gumby]

8. Women are either property of the state or they're not.

Roe already drew the line.

Geeze.

[calmblueocean]

10. Making pro-choice more than a euphemism for abortion.

I'd like to see us broaden the idea of what pro-choice means by offering more reproductive choices.

For instance, we ought to support medical research into safe extraction, storage, and reimplantation of embryos. A girl who gets pregnant in high school and finds abortion unacceptable ought to be able to have her embryo extracted and medically stored. Then she would have a whole host of options open to her, such as:

1) reimplanting her embryo later in life when she has the economic means to support a child

2) letting a surrogate bring her embryo to term while she stays in school

3) donating her embryo to a childless couple or gay couple to bring to term

4) donating her embryo for research into lifesaving medical treatments

5) offering the father the opportunity to find a surrogate and bring the embryo to term, if he wishes

While the window of embryo extraction would likely be short, over 80% of all abortions are performed within the first trimester, and women who wait are often simply hoping for (or actively trying to induce) a miscarriage. They may be struggling with determining their own moral feelings on abortion, and they may not even have the resources to access an abortion when they first find out they are pregnant. But if women knew they had the option to extract and store their embryo, with all the attendant possibilities, many would choose to do so. Abortions might be reduced more by offering embryo storage, donation, and reimplantation as options than by criminalizing abortion itself, which is the only "choice" conservatives have to offer. Describing a vision of this future would bring many pro-life and on-the-fence voters back into the Democratic camp.

A commitment to furthering reproductive technology would change the whole dynamics of the abortion debate. Protesting outside a reproductive health clinic would be pointless, since many women would be going there to save their embryos. Abortion would become just one facet of women's reproductive rights, which would also be folded into the greater framework of the right to basic healthcare in this country. A woman's right to decide how to proceed if she gets pregnant should not be determined by whether or not she can afford what she thinks is the right and moral choice.

New choices bring new challenges, but they also bring new happiness and new hope. The Democratic party should proceed towards a future with new choices, but always maintain it's commitment to women's rights. Just because these new choices would exist wouldn't give anyone else the right to demand, influence or discover what the woman's choice was. It's still her body. She would just be able to do more with it. The possibility exists for a future in which abortion nearly evaporates as a hot button issue, where the conservative stance on reproductive rights is laughed out of the debate. But we have to choose to make that future a reality.