Our Dear Leader former President George W.
Bush had a fetish, as is common among Republicans, for "looking tough" and sending the Right Message. When American interests are attacked we must respond with force; to fail to do so will invite further aggression against us. We can never negotiate with aggressors, lest the message be sent that a little pressure will cause Uncle Sam to cave to one's demands.
To a certain extent, Bush and his Republican ilk have a point. When terrorists attacked targets in New York and Washington, D.
C. a forceful response was necessary and justified. If the response had been to accede to the demands of the aggressors – the withdrawl of the American presence in the Middle East and Israel – it's not hard to see how that would set a dangerous precedent. Even if one considers such a withdrawl to be appropriate, to do it in response to the demands of a terrorist would send an unequivocal message: blow up a plane or two and America will grab its ankles for you. A response was certainly called for, although I would have preferred a useful one rather than a tangential misadventure in Iraq. But I agree with the former President that one cannot bend to the demands of a violent loner or group of extremists.
It is in this spirit that I am deeply disturbed by the news that Women's Health Care Services of Wichita, KS, the clinic of recently-murdered Dr.
buy amoxil online buy amoxil no prescription
George Tiller, is being closed. Like many Americans, I have a real hard time condoning the practice of third-trimester abortion. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, however, the bigger problem here is the message being sent here: murder the right person and your demands will be met. If President Bush was ideologically consistent (*guffaw*) he'd emerge to remind us all that if we bend to terrorists' demands, they've already won. In this case I can't see the decision doing anything but convincing the fringes of the pro-life movement that they've found an effective way to achieve their ends: lone wolf-style terrorism.
buy dapoxetine online buy dapoxetine no prescription
These people have already convinced themselves that murder is morally justified regarding this issue. If we follow that with positive reinforcement, then from a rational choice perspective there's very little reason for pro-life zealots not to kill a doctor who performs abortions. They see it as trading one life to "save" thousands more. Closing clinics provides a symbolic victory if not a practical one, a victory which lets them know that if they are willing to go to prison (a small price to pay, certainly, for saving the lives of thousands!) they can get what they want.
Now, if we really wanted to go President Bush on this problem we'd pre-emptively arrest every pro-lifer and apply some "enhanced" interrogation techniques. I'd settle for a simpler and more rational response, a response that doesn't tell an unhinged group of fanatics with the voices of God and the Virgin Mary rattling around in their heads that if one kills enough of these people, access to abortion will disappear.
SarahMC says:
"I have a real hard time condoning the practice of third-trimester abortion."
Why? And why do even the most liberal people make sure to include this disclaimer whenever they're writing or speaking about the importance of legal, easily accessible abortion?
John says:
Because people who support accessible abortion aren't waking up in the morning shouting "Oh boy, today is a fine day for an abortion!" This is part of the problem with the debate; pro-life people seem to believe that pro-choice people somehow enjoy the act of aborting pregnancies. They don't understand — either out of ignorance or willful disregard — that pro-choice people support the option because they recognize that it is sometimes necessary. That sometimes condoms break, pills fail, and rape happens.
But these can all be dealt with quite quickly in the scheme of things. Third trimester means that she's been carrying the baby for at least six months already. That's half a year to have made up your mind. If everyone can agree that once the baby comes out it's no longer legal to terminate it, they can agree that there is some limit, somewhere — and it's generally agreed upon wtihin the medical community that third trimester is really the point of no return. Now there can and should be rare exceptions for the health of the mother — if the birth would pose a serious threat to her health or even her very life, then it is justifiable. But at some point, and many people agree that point is after six months, one has to take responsibility.
Aslan Maskhadov says:
The irony is that because of various state laws and hoops that women need to go through to get abortions, third-trimester is sometimes necessary. Still, 80% of abortions now are in the first trimester, and if they didn't create such obstacles, it is reasonable to believe that the percentage would increase.
Ed says:
The reason I don't discuss my position on the issue is the regrettable tendency of the pro-choice movement to unsheath the knives and attack anyone who isn't pro-choice enough or expresses anything less than complete enthusiasm for full-term abortion on demand.
I find abortion beyond the point of fetal viability morally repugnant while recognizing the reality that it should be legally available for a limited set of circumstances. I realize that this position isn't good enough for pro-choice purists, and I've long since stopped caring.
dbsmall says:
Well-said. And I agree—one must not give in to terrorist demands…that doesn't mean that one can NEVER comply. One must just have a pattern of behavior that demonstrates that the terrorist acts are not affective, except by coincidence.
————–
I would like to see fewer abortions.
I would like all parents to do a good job raising their offspring.
Sadly, these two desires are often at odds with one another.
I believe 3rd trimester abortions are only legal in those rare exceptions John alludes to.
—————
http://www.metafilter.com/82070/Pro-Life-does-not-mean-what-you-think-it-does#2585686
—————
God, I hate the terms "Pro-Life", and "Pro-Choice". The framing is such crap. It's really "Pro-Birth" (we don't give a shit about life) and "Pro-Fucking" (we want people to be able to fuck without regard for whether or not an egg is fertilized). Don't get me wrong, there are folks on the "birth" side who do care about life. And there are those on the "fucking" side who care precisely because they're pro-life.
But the level of debate on both sides of the issue is usually reprehensible.
FWIW, I have to side with the "fucking" folks. Even though 80% of them irritate me.
——————–
With terorrism, I thought the argument was that we needed to cut off the *funding* of terrorism. Roeder had $10 and an old Ford Taurus as his only assets. Yet he's been protesting for months, and "cased" the clinic several times. And he fervently pleaded to have bail set. Clearly, someone funded his terrorist activity. Why are we not going after *them* (legally, of course.)
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/email-about-george-tillers-killer-non.html
Andrew says:
That’s half a year to have made up your mind. If everyone can agree that once the baby comes out it’s no longer legal to terminate it, they can agree that there is some limit, somewhere — and it’s generally agreed upon wtihin the medical community that third trimester is really the point of no return.
Why is the sixth month the month when a one-size-fits-all abortion policy suddenly become reasonable?
Yes, it's the "point of no return" in that the mother's body won't spontaneously abort the fetus, but the fetus itself could still expire of natural causes.
And really, the question is not "Is there a bright line at which the fetus becomes a person while in the womb?" when there's a discussion of abortion. It's a question of not infringing on the woman's rights at any point before the fetus gains personhood (at birth).
Additionally, I can think of a series of very reasonable scenario that make a third-trimester ban unreasonable:
1) Conceptions of an unknown date.
2) Conception during foreign travel with an ambiguous return date.
3) Conception unknown to the woman (no morning sickness), showing doesn't occur until the third month. At which point her six-month "grace period" becomes three and you admit that women sometimes need four.
4) Desire to keep the pregnancy secret from parents or friends, "showing" causes reconsideration of the decision from some quarter.
You might be able to come up with a legislative answer to 4) under "mental duress", and perhaps an exception for 3) if the woman had a sworn statement or something (God help her if it's challenged in court… the baby would be born by the time her court date comes up), but definitely not 1) or 2).
A "Sixth-month" ban simply doesn't work. And you certainly can't have a "If the doctor says the fetus is viable, the woman must finish the pregnancy" law, for obvious reasons.
There are some reasonable limits on abortion, but a month-X ban isn't one of them.
Ed says:
Since I can see what this commentary thread is turning into, let me make an exception to my generally hands-off commenting policy: Please keep this free of personal accusations and the poor, emotion-based non-logic that characterizes most pro-life absolutists' arguments.
John says:
The unfortunate fact is that laws have to have a metric. We all know nothing is black-and-white, but grey areas vary their shades from person-to-person, and laws cannot be enforced based on fuzzy grey areas where sometimes something is illegal, and sometimes it is not, all other things being equal.
Given that reality, there has to be a solid point where it can be definitively stated that it is no longer acceptable, barring special circumstances (again, health risks and the like). The question is, what is that point?
The reason I stick with third trimester is, as you said, that's the point where the body no longer rejects the fetus seemingly at random. Yes, the fetus can still die of natural causes, pre-natal disease and the like. But at that point, it is a viable life that is not prone to random termination.
I find a problem with defining personhood as "after it leaves the womb". At that point, does it count if the mother is in labor? Does it count hours before she is in labor? In this case, I defer to the consensus of medical professionals — obviously one doctor refusing to do a first-trimester abortion with claims of it being viable is not part of that general consensus.
Andrew says:
The reason I stick with third trimester is, as you said, that’s the point where the body no longer rejects the fetus seemingly at random. Yes, the fetus can still die of natural causes, pre-natal disease and the like. But at that point, it is a viable life that is not prone to random termination.
My point is there's no way of really telling for sure if it's the third trimester unless the government has had a camera in the woman's uterus ever since her first period.
A woman comes in with a fairly big belly but insists she's only "five and a half months along". What does the doctor do? Perhaps it's obvious to him that it's a seven-month fetus, but perhaps it might be a bit shy of six. Maybe the woman isn't lying, because she didn't even know she was pregnant until a month and a half in (women can have light periods while pregnant) and she's sexually active so she honestly believes it was the sex from the week before, or two weeks ago.
And that's just the honest-mistake sort of determination problem.
That said, I'd consider strangulation on the umblical cord a "random termination", and that happens during eight months and X weeks, if you're not careful.
I find a problem with defining personhood as “after it leaves the womb”. At that point, does it count if the mother is in labor? Does it count hours before she is in labor? In this case, I defer to the consensus of medical professionals — obviously one doctor refusing to do a first-trimester abortion with claims of it being viable is not part of that general consensus.
The problem you have is with the law then, which I'm pretty sure draws the bright line of personhood being granted at the moment the birth ends. Not because it's an obvious dividing line, but because a lone needs to be drawn somewhere and that's where it's drawn. If you'd rather it be drawn, say, at the beginning of the contractions, then that's a law reform you'll have to undertake, not a definitional argument you can have with me right now.
It's not a medical consensus here, it's a legal framework
Matthew says:
Fellow blog commentors! Can't we approach this issue with understanding and compassion, and respect the views of all, even those with whom we disagree?
What's that? We can't? Oh, I see.
Well then, proceed.
Ed says:
One of two imperfect things must happen:
1. The law must mandate some date, a date which admittedly will not (and cannot) be a perfect solution because, as stated, pregnancy is not one-size-fits-all
2. The matter can be treated subjectively and on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of physicians – which is equivalent to having no regulations at all given how simple it would be to doctor-shop a physician to confirm one's predisposed and preferrerd viewpoint.
Billygoat says:
While recognizing that this thread has deviated considerably from the topic of the original post (sorry Ed), I just want to highlight what some of the other commenters have noted; line-drawing is almost always arbitrary. Whether or not abortion should be legal depends on one's answer to three or four questions, none of which can be decided conclusively through an objective analysis of evidence. The two main questions are 1. What is a person? and 2. If a fetus is a person (and thus posseses the rights of a person), how can the state arbitrate the conflict between the fetus's right to protection under the law and a woman's right to control her body? Of course, there's a constitutional question of whether that right even exists, but assuming it does, does that mean that the right to privacy automatically trumps the right to life? These questions cannot be conclusively answered by empirical evidence. They are subjective and philosophical. Hence, arbitrary line drawing and compromising. Hence, the third tri-mester line.
I'm a democrat, but I would prefer it if the law drew the line at conception. I don't think some magical thing happens when a baby emerges from the womb to infuse it with a soul or something. But, i recognize that any approach the State takes to this issue is basically a democratic compromise between conflicting subjective opinions, and I can accept that.
Matthew says:
Abortions for all!
[boos]
Okay… No abortions for anyone!
[boos]
Very well… abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
[cheers]
Break the Terror says:
My thing about this is that, as Andrew Sullivan recently realized, much of the work Tiller did was among the MOST defensible in the realm of abortion. He handled situations which were diametrically opposed to the caricature painted by the American Right, of girls just flippantly and casually having abortions for breakfast, situations which were and are painful for all involved. For a variety of reasons, a late-term abortion was judged the best option for many of the women who came to Tiller.
So, yes, it makes me sad that his clinic would be closing.
If Bush were really in charge, though, he would respond by bombing a cancer research institute, or something else entirely unrelated.
Mike says:
Break/Terror:
I found the Sullivan links really interesting in a troubling way. I've been on the fence on third-term, but hearing stories about a women realizing at month 6 that her baby will have no face puts me makes me realize the mental landscape I was on was completely wrong.
Anyway, I just wanted to note a Holocaust Denier just shot up the Holocaust Museum. Welcome to 8 years of domestic right-wing terrorism.
Andrew says:
I suppose, ultimately, the reason I can't support third-trimester bans is because the vast majority of third-trimester abortions were of wanted children, for medical reasons, or because delays built into acquiring abortions have a way of turning second-trimester abortions into third-trimester ones, or because it's simply not possible to honestly say you can tell when the third trimester has begun. (It would be different if babies kept word-a-day calendars in the womb, or something).
I'm completely aware that line-drawing is arbitrary, but I don't see all possible lines as equal because of it. I really do think that the moment of physical separation from the woman is the best line to grant legal personhood to a baby, because of all the possible lines that could be drawn, this one is the most transparent and clear-cut for all involved, particularly the lawmakers who will never even see any of the participants at any point.
Amelia says:
I find it incredibly saddening that the clinic will close, but seriously… what other option was there? Who was going to take over running it? Even separate from the issue of finding someone brave enough to be willing, I wonder if there is there exists a qualified physician out there to take it over and provide the services Tiller was providing. Many medical schools have dropped abortion training from their curricula entirely, and I can't imagine how few of them actually have faculty qualified to teach these late-term procedures. There remain two physicians who perform third trimester abortions in the United States. I honestly don't know if they're training people to take over.
jazzbumpa says:
Here is a fact, for what it's worth. Since there are all sorts of legal and medical hurdles involved in getting a late-term abortion (or for whatever reasons come into play) the number of abortions past week 24 is about 100 per year. That is less than 0.01% of the total.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html
Late abortions don't happen for frivolous reasons. The whole right-wing late term abortion brouhaha is a canard.
OliverWendelHolmslice says:
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos…
Overlady says:
Ed, you are such a well-educated and INTELLIGENT, just whip-smart VOICE in the wilderness….I am having a hard time even BELIEVING that you would pontificate on this topic with such a lack of research!
Third-trimester abortions are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL in the United States EXCEPT in cases where the life or health of the mother is at serious, serious risk. Virtually ALL third-trimester abortions are cases where the mother WILL DIE, or suffer complete kidney failure, or experience a ruptured womb, and most are cases where there is NO SCENARIO where the fetus will live (such as fetii lacking brains, or spinal columns, or kidneys, or co-joined twins who share a face, etc)
Like many guys, you seem to have just BOUGHT the right-wing framing of this debate, without looking into it al all. I am disappointed.
Before you opine about abortion or childbirth, you really ought to find out more about the female POV. For instance, if you were pregnant, and your fetus died inside you, and if you didn't abort it surgically, you would die of blood-poisoning, and the only clinic in America that would help you was Dr Tillers, How would you feel about third-trimester abortions? (That is a typical, not an outlying, scenario.)
j says:
Is there anything more fucking boring than listening to an abortion debate?
But everyone loves it because you need no learning to engage in the debate–thus morons vs. morons FTW!
Aslan Maskhadov says:
Here's a radical new idea- if you don't like abortion, don't get one.
SarahMC says:
"Full term abortion on demand" does not exist. It's not legal. You are buying into right-wing framing that has no basis in reality.
Any abortions being performed in the third trimester are done to save the mother's life or because the fetus has abnormalities that are incompatible with life. I imagine it might get tiring, if I were a woman who aborted a fetus with it's internal organs growing outside its body, to constantly read about how immoral and horrible it was of me to abort. Or if I aborted a fetus to save my own goddamn life.
SarahMC says:
If, by "pro-choice purist," you mean someone who has actually read Roe v. Wade and is therefore familiar with the abortion restrictions in place, then yeah, I'm a pro-choice purist.
PilgrimSoul says:
The other day someone recounted to me that Dan Savage once described the abortion debate as "two gay guys in a room arguing with all the women backing away."
There are approximately three women posting in this thread. The rest are men, men who are engaging in wild speculation and imaginary boogeywomanism about women who are seven months pregnant lying to doctors so they can get abortions. I know that men take great offense when women suggest that they may not be great experts on everything, but in this particular context, it is amazing to me how much the "male gaze," or whatever you want to call it, distorts this issue. Do you guys know how silly and speculative your arguments are? Does it matter to you that you have not bothered to check your views against the opinions of people (unfortunately all women) for whom this question is not an abstract one?
Parrotlover77 says:
Overlady – THANK YOU!!! Many people are not clear on those facts, which sadly shows how much the Anti-choice movement has skewed the argument away from facts. Dr. Tiller never performed an abortion of a healthy viable fetus that wasn't in danger of killing (or seriously harming) itself or its mother.
rob says:
Regardless of whether or not you 'agree' with abortion, it is incredibly naive (to the point of willful blindness) to pretend that abortions won't happen if these doctors are killed or cowed into hiding. It is likewise ludicrous to pretend that the moral high ground lies in carrying an anencephalic baby to term. There need to be doctors who will provide these services, however repugnant you may find them. The alternatives will only mean more suffering, for mothers and fetuses alike.
if you see the closing of the clinic as a capitulation to these terrorists, as I certainly do, why not give to an organization like Medical Students for Choice– http://www.ms4c.org/ — to ensure that these *necessary* services continue to be provided in a safe, clean and healthy environment.
Ed says:
Pilgrim, I can't control the male-female balance of my readership, nor the male tendency to be more vocal in debates because we assume that what we have to say is really important.
This thread, and the ensuing comments, have reinforced why I don't talk about abortion. The subtlety gets lost pretty quickly (something on the order of *immediately*).
Let me be more emphatic that I fully support legal access to abortion throughout pregnancy. That I have personal moral questions about certain abortion procedures isn't relevant, as I am not a pro-lifer and thus don't feel that the purpose of government is to legislate my moral beliefs onto others.
I've generally found that extensive litmus testing (Are you pro-choice enough? You're not allowed to have any reservations about abortion. You're MALE, and thus your opinion is inherently less valid.) is an ineffective way to rally support in a nation in which 80% of the public is staunchly wishy-washy. Men have the luxury of discussing this issue as a hypothetical, and I accept your criticism on that account. Overall, however, the "fuck you how dare you" tone of the criticism in these comments goes a long way toward explaining why people who would otherwise be actively involved in the pro-choice movement walk away. If your goal was to enforce silence, you've succeeded, because I can guarantee I'll not be discussing this issue again.
Ed says:
And to answer Amelia, I think a good option would have been to keep the clinic open to provide medical services to women since, like the average Planned Parenthood, I'm going to assume that performing abortions constituted about 1% of what the clinic in question did for its patients.
Also, j's comment wins.
dbsmall says:
It's too bad this commentstream is now about abortion. The original article was about classification of terrorist acts, and about policy/response to them.
For my own deviation from that topic, Ed, I apologize. If I could edit that out of my first comment, I would.
And I stand by my contention that—if the right Right response to terrorism is to respond strongly, and to cut off the funding, then they should be actively ferreting out the folks behind Roeder.
SarahMC says:
You have not addressed the criticism, Ed. I, for one, am not applying a litmus test to anyone. I am calling you on your apparent ignorance regarding third term abortion. When you say you have a moral problem with it you are saying you have a moral problem with abortions that are performed to preserve the mother's health/life and abortions that are performed on fetuses whose deformities are incompatible with life. Full stop. IF you do have a problem with abortions performed in either of those cases, fine, but it didn't seem like you – or a couple other commenters – realized that those are the only cases in which abortion is permitted in the third trimester.
Christina says:
It's a shame that you won't discuss it, anymore, Ed. Really. I mean it. I know things got heated in here for a bit and I think that has a lot to do with the perception that the correction on facts was being ignored so that folks could continue pearl-clutching about situations that just aren't based in any reality. It could have all been avoided with a simple, "huh. I did not know that. I sit corrected" by some. Your blog, your house, your decision. Of course, as it should be.
I just wonder…what would you say if I pointed out that the conversations you most often call a halt to, say you just won't talk about 'it' anymore, the ones you and your commentors most frequently call "illogical" and "boring" and immediately mock are those that involve women, women's issues and checking y'all's male privilege in some way? I find it interesting, myself.
And I'm glad that I wasn't here for this one and that my comment is coming so late. That way, I know you'll be the only one who sees it, most likely. I hope that means that you'll be more likely to really think about my point. (If you don't believe me, try it. Post on some issue that's seen as a contentious 'women's issue' and watch what happens in comments. Pick one. Pay gap. Household labor division issues. Oo, that last one will get it, no problem. Rape. Child support issues. Any of 'em really. )
I did think about yours and I think you're dead right. I'm glad his partner is taking over and opening his own clinic in KS. However, that means there is precisely one doctor who does this procedure and only one. He might as well get used to the Kevlar medical scrubs. I'm afraid he'll need them.
Hah-Man says:
I love pro-lifers. Highly entertaining.
Sophie Wilson says:
there are lots of women issues that are mostly related to relationships and family~.:
Polypropylene : says:
well, womens issues are centered on things which involves a woman's feelings.`~*
getting back ex boyfriend says:
I have been browsing on-line more than 3 hours lately, but I by no means discovered any interesting article like yours. It's beautiful price enough for me. Personally, if all web owners and bloggers made good content material as you did, the net will be much more useful than ever before.