There's some buzz lately around Tony Kaye's 2006 documentary "Lake of Fire," which isn't necessarily about abortion but rather about the ongoing fight over abortion. Anyhow, Kaye apparently includes footage of an actual abortion procedure, start to finish, including the abortionist "reassembling" the "piece of cotton" (arms, legs, etc.) to make sure he got it all.

As far as I know it's been shown only at the Toronto Film Festival. Anyhoo, I think it ups the stakes for Dr. Evans' presentation. Something about claiming "here is what actually happens" while performing surgery on a papaya doesn't quite, erm, cut it.
saint kansas | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 6:34 am | #

A piece of cotton. Huh.

That's interesting, what they're teaching kids over there. I don't quite remember the feotus being quite so... nebulous. ;o)

Something about claiming "here is what actually happens" while performing surgery on a papaya doesn't quite, erm, cut it.

hahaha... ehrm, yea. dittos.
Jewels | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 8:10 am | #

Future Yale frat parties?

BYOCH (Bring Your Own Coat Hanger)

*and congrats on the Michelle Malkin link*
Mike | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 8:18 am | #

I dunno, Dawn. This song seems spot-on.

From The Whippenpoof Song:

We are poor little lambs
Who have lost our way.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
We are little black sheep
Who have gone astray.
Baa! Baa! Baa!

Gentlemen songsters off on a spree
Damned from here to eternity
God have mercy on such as we.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
Jon | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 8:46 am | #

A "piece of cotton"? I think not - here is what those "pieces of cotton" really look like:

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/

http://www.100abortionpictures.c...bortion_Photos/

http://www.prolifetraining.com/A...on- Pictures.htm

Congrats to Yale-your alums must be really proud.
Rich | 01.25.07 - 8:52 am | #

Midnight tonight, eh?

God, I love a challenge!
Robert N G | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 9:25 am | #

Jon,

Like the Kipling reference, but I have always thought there is a more appropriate lament from that poem for the hellstorm that the youth in our country must endure:

"We have done with Hope and Honour, we are lost to Love and Truth,
We are dropping down the ladder rung by rung,
And the measure of our torment is the measure of our youth.
God help us, for we knew the worst too young!"

The anthem of a new generation. Alas.
Dave G. | 01.25.07 - 9:52 am | #

I think Yale Daily News pulled the article. Matt Drudge linked to it and their webserver is on the brink.
Tony in Boulder | 01.25.07 - 9:57 am | #

came here from Michelle Malkins'. Good job, I will be back.
Lisa | 01.25.07 - 10:36 am | #

So you are saying universities shouldn't teach people useful information? Well that certainly says a lot about how trustworthy your book would be!
madmatt | 01.25.07 - 10:46 am | #

Madmatt,

The point is that the Yalies are censuring information. Why hide behind a papaya? If it's so "simple" and important for students to learn DIY abortions, then take 'em downtown and do real ones. Why are they so timid and hypocritical?
Jon | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 11:25 am | #

'It looks like a piece of cotton.'
So, if I think your head looks like a punching bag...
Jon | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 11:40 am | #

the procedure can be used for a variety of different purposes — including miscarriage management and the treatment of a failed medical abortion or ectopic pregnancy

I don't think a manual vacuum aspiration abortion would be much help for an ectopic pregnancy...
Margaret | 01.25.07 - 11:49 am | #

I don't think the papaya is going to cover ectopic pregnancy either. But these are Yale students, so you don't want to complicate the matter with too many vegetables.
saint kansas | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 11:55 am | #

My mother almost died because she had a miscarriage (the baby had already died) and was hemorrhaging, and they had to call a doctor in from 45 minutes away, because no one in the hospital knew how to do a D&C.

I myself hemorrhaged after a miscarriage. The baby had been declared dead by ultrasound a few weeks before. My experience is very common. In such a situation, the hemorrhaging woman can easily die without a D&C.

So I believe that Yale's claim that medical students should know the procedure in order to be able to manage hemorrhaging isn't just a smoke-screen. I'm also grateful that my own life-saving D&C wasn't botched because of some doctor's inexperience and lack of training. I've heard enough horror stories about _that_.
anonymous because of personal | 01.25.07 - 12:09 pm | #

Here's my take on "Bright College Years":

Bright college years with pleasure much,
Should not be marred by baby’s touch,
How slowly pass the pregnancy,
Abortions now will set you free.
The seasons come, the seasons go,
The blood is red upon the snow,
But time and change shall not avail
Abortion’s guilt will soon prevail.
Mark E Soper | 01.25.07 - 12:12 pm | #

anonymous because of personal,

I don't believe doctors have no concept how to do therapeutic D&C's. I have known many women who have needed D&C's do to miscarriage, myself included. I have yet to hear a story about not being able to find a doctor to care for them, or that question even coming up. I have known women offered D&C's, and have turned them down to see if they could let things run their course naturally at first. However, the services were there if need be.

Maybe I have been lucky not have had a doctor trained at Yale medical school until now...

BTW, I am not mocking you. I am sorry for your loss, and that your mother had to go through that. I am just saying that if you look at this simply on the perspective of anecdotal evidence and personal experience, you will get stories to the contrary.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 12:34 pm | #

I'd like to quietly state that this training model has been published in Family Medicine of Sept 2005, a very well-respected journal.

Also, having been a part of one of these training sessions offered to pre-clinical medical students, it was offered in combination with stations for basic GYN exam on plastic model, PAP smear basics, and several other standard reproductive health care skill stations. We got a chance to get a little feel for what it's like to be an Ob-Gyn, which sparked interest in many students. I feel this would be a very useful for pre-medical students as well.

It's a lot like rural medicine interest groups teaching iv placement - it doesn't lead to iv drug use, it encourages and inspires future physicians.
studentdoctor | 01.25.07 - 1:03 pm | #

Anonymous because of personal,

Your doctor made you wait 'a few weeks'? Why subject a woman with the trauma of having to wait only to go through the painful process of labor and possible and all too common complications?

I went through a similar situation. I had an ultrasound and we saw that the baby had died (11 weeks is a baby not a yolk sac). I went in the next day for a vacuum aspiration.

How to manage a miscarriage is something well covered in medical school. To give it as a workshop to undergraduates is mindboggling. Who would you rather have in a miscarriage situation...a certified doctor or a med or dental student trained on papayas?
anon | 01.25.07 - 1:08 pm | #

The point (and outrage) here is that the YMS for CHOICE is attempting to normailize the procedure and push their agenda by asserting the "uncomplicated" nature of D&C by using props and inviting non-med students. If they were attempting to educate the students in reality, they would observe the real thing (they don't use dummies for anatomy, they use cadavers). I don't buy that the procedure is taught inconsistently by the faculty-it's just an attempt by YMSC to dumb down and sterilyze a barbaric procedure in public. If the procedure is so uncomplicated, why not allow ultrasounds for D&C candidates or waiting periods. The answer is of course, that abortion on demand translates into a lot of power (and money) for a lot of people and is one or the last bastions of true leftist idealogy.

However, there are cracks in the dike and should concern hardcore abortion advocates. One of the biggest mistakes the libs made when they heralded Roe v. Wade was to put all their eggs (and hence justification/legalization) in one basket, specifically the courts. Courts shift over time and in the not too distant future they'll begin to recognize the due process rights of the unborn and abortion on demand will cease to exist.
Bill B. | 01.25.07 - 1:09 pm | #

The papaya model doesn't relate to D&C. It is a model for "manual vacuum aspiration" as explicitly described here at the WHO's website guiding midwives and doctors: http://www.who.int/reproductive- ...um_P65_P68.html

A D&C is more complicated, and is inticated for a later-term pregnancy or spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). A manual vacuum aspiration is appropriate up to about 9 weeks, and this may be why there seems to be confusion about reassembling the products of conception. They are likely to be quite different after an early aspiration than a slightly later D&C.

As published Family Medicine Septmber 2005, the papaya model is appropriate even to train medical residents, as the fruits are inexpensive and provide a more realistic feel than even the least expensive plastic models. It is quite common to use models for initial training on procedures of all kinds before progressing to cadaveric or live patients.

As regards to offering this to pre-medical students, this is quite normal. Rural health medicine interest groups teach i.v. placement, orthopedic surgery interest groups play with surgical models and pretent to learn to suture bits of rubber. Students considering Ob-Gyn practice pelvic exams on plastic models, and aspiration abortions on papayas. It's widely done. It's not weird or odd, it's a way to give a student a very rough feel for what the field and its procedures may be like.
studentdoctor | 01.25.07 - 1:50 pm | #

Bill B.'s comments are spot-on.

I'd be very curious to hear what the leading pro-abortion organizations -- Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, etc. -- have to say about the goings-on at Yale.

My guess is they wouldn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole.
John Jansen | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 2:12 pm | #

Based on "Down the Field"

Since one-nine-seven-three
Thousands each day die.
Never given a chance
It just makes me cry.
We’ll keep praying and praying until
Roe v. Wade’s overhauled.
How can our government not care?
God help us all!
Chris Chan | 01.25.07 - 2:39 pm | #

I have to agree with Jon, the Whiffenpoof Song seems to have the appropriate lyrics, showing it, I guess, to be timeless.
Yeoman | 01.25.07 - 3:11 pm | #

(To the tune of "Goodnight, Poor Hahvahd")

Goodnight, poor baby
Poor child, goodnight
Oh, there's no room for you
In a future so bright
No mommy or daddy
To tuck you in tight
When old Yale U
Med school gets after you
Baby, goodnight!
Gina Dalfonzo | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 3:14 pm | #

studentdoctor, it would be easier to abide your suggestion that this is an innocent and perfectly appropriate recruiting technique if it were not being held on the anniversary of Roe v Wade.

Can you at least admit the timing makes it more likely that this is a tasteless propaganda exercise?
Geoff | 01.25.07 - 3:21 pm | #

studentdoctor -

When Evans says she wants to "include other people [because] it is such a simple procedure, but the media attention around it … makes this an emotionally traumatic and a complicated thing” and that she wants the workshop to be "like, ‘Here is what actually happens, here is what the medical procedure is like, this is what an aborted yolk sac looks like.’ It looks like a piece of cotton,” she steps far outside giving "student[s] a very rough feel for what the field and its procedures may be like" and reduces abortion to the equivalent of any other simple procedure (say a chemical peel or wart removal).
Drusilla | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 3:21 pm | #

the products of conception

Studentdoctor -- please give your real name to the world so that we know to NEVER go to you for medical services.
Bender | 01.25.07 - 3:35 pm | #

Studentdoctor --- some of us believe the world needs doctors like you, as some of us shun pro-life doctors whenever possible. Good luck to you.
L. | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 3:58 pm | #

Dear Student Doctor:

I am a board certified family physician with special training in colposcopy. My initial training on the use of the colposcope was on a tomato. However, at no time did I ever think that my human patient would have the same level of dignity as a tomato. The purpose of this Yale exercise is clearly to dehumanize the fetus. It doesn't really matter what the aborted fetus looks like or how simple the procedure was to kill it. The human person begins at conception. The "simple procedure" of abortion ends the life a human being who possesses an immortal soul. May the Lord have mercy on the souls of those who do not understand this.
Catholic Mom | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 4:00 pm | #

In any field, textbooks and technical writing uses exremely specific language that sometimes the lay public don't understand. "Products of conception" is a very correct term, it includes a developing embryo, yolk sac, and what part of the placental lining is derived from its cells. It is a much more appropriate term to use in this circumstance simply because, in this procedure - whether it is offered after a spontaneous abortion or a planned one - it is crucial to remove all of the products of conception, not just the politically controversial ones. That is why we use that term.

Shortly before the papaya model was offered at my school, we heard from a panel of 6 women, 3 of whom who had made adoption plans during their unplanned pregnancies, 1 of whom had chosen to parent, and 2 of whom had chosen to abort. It was a sensitive and gently handled panel wherein we supported each woman's decision and felt honored that they shared their emotional process. The final question that we asked each woman was: "in what way could the medical people you interacted with around this decision have been more respectful of and responsive to your true wishes?"

I can't speak to the individual advertising choices of these individual students, but I assure you that this topic and this procedure are generally discussed among medical students in a very thoughtful and respectful way.

Bender, I apologise but until abortion providers are no longer shot at I owe it to my husband and my family to protect my privacy.
studentdoctor | 01.25.07 - 4:02 pm | #

OK OK!

I rushed and was able to get the post up on Dawn's visit!

I didn't know she'd be flooding me with traffic so soon! :-)

Enjoy:

http://ivycatholic.blogspot.com/...-new- haven.html
Stephen | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 5:02 pm | #

studentdoctor,

I can well believe that this topic is "generally discussed among medical students in a very thoughtful and respectful way." Ms. Evans in this particular article though, is neither thoughtful nor respectful and, on this site, the issue is not: '[I]n what way could the medical people you interacted with around this decision have been more respectful of and responsive to your true wishes?' rather, the issue is that a child is murdered each time a planned abortion is performed and murder, though in this case easy to accomplish, is never a "simple procedure."
Drusilla | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 5:46 pm | #

studentdoctor, you seem intent to teach us that activities like this are "common" and "useful."

But you see, many of us here are of a philosophical bent, and we take not of the fact that what's common or practical is not necessarily good.

Surely you aren't insinuating that this activity is good because it is "common" and "useful?"
Geoff | 01.25.07 - 6:17 pm | #

A planned abortion is not the same thing as murder - that you personally equate it is a personal spiritual choice and I respect that and do my very best to use careful language to respect any patient's personal beliefs, especially at a time when she may be feeling stressed as the result of an unplanned pregnany. However complicated the emotions are, the technical procedure is indeed quite simple, and at least the last two papaya model workshops I have attended let to very emotional and thoughtful discussion that was not explicitly advertised.
I have not been able to read Ms. Evans' original article as it's overloaded, but from the clips on this website I see no comment or encouragement that women who feel confused or conflicted about the moral question should be pressured into abortion as an option.

I wish it could be quite clear that many "pro-choice" people are jsut exactly that - in support of choice. The very last thing I want is a woman who is the least bit unsure to go through with anything she doesn't want, be that parenting or whatever. Well, okay, even less than that do I want women to feel like they cannot approach their healthcare providers and feel supported in their personal decision. I don't want women feeling that they must make their decisions at home, alone, because they will be forced into something or ostracized if they talk to anyone.
Does that make sense?
Anonymous | 01.25.07 - 6:22 pm | #

studentdoc -

Thank you for you logical and well-written explanations re: the need for pre-medical exposure to all medical procedures, including manual vacuum aspiration.

[Ad hominem deleted -- read comments rules - Ed.]

Catholic Mom -

While I respect YOUR individual decision not to provide abortions, it has little to do with the larger debate. Just b/c I dont like implants doesnt mean I get to trash MDs who do them for a living. I hope that you are at least honest enough in your practice to refer female pts to other physicians who offer the procedure if they come in requesting it. To do otherwise is a betrayal of medical ethics.

Edited By Siteowner
rationalmind | 01.25.07 - 6:25 pm | #

sorry you saw fit to delete my comments - but they are as true as ever.

as far as i can tell, only three posters here have any actual experience in the medical field.

however, EVERYONE has seen fit to comment on how this, that or the other thing is not appropriate for medical education, for medical students to learn, not a realistic model, etc.

so i stand by my original comment that nearly everyone here is NOT qualified to offer opinions on those subjects.

would like to hear why that is ad hominen (or maybe just correct?)

[Your language in previous post was rude. You're doing better now. - Ed.]
rationalmind | 01.25.07 - 6:32 pm | #

Incidentally, it's quite common in cases of embryonic/fetal death where nothing's been expelled yet to wait and see if it all comes out naturally, rather than do a D&C immediately. With an early pregnancy it's like a very heavy period, often with no recognizable bits at all, just blood clots.
Ledasmom | 01.25.07 - 6:37 pm | #

Rational mind: The comments are not generated because medical students are being taught procedures for abortions. The Yale pro-choice medical students invited the comments of the non-medical professionals when they opened their abortion procedure demonstrations to the general public. Had this truly been a medical school clinical lesson, it would have generated hardly a whisper. However, when it became a public spectacle to further a political agenda, all became qualified to comment.
Catholic Mom | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 7:14 pm | #

rationalmind, Sooo, you are saying that unless one is in the medical field, they are not entitled to their opinion on this topic? Are you Barbara Boxer by any chance?
Lisa | 01.25.07 - 7:23 pm | #

These kinds of extracurricular interest group opportunities occur year round at medical schools. It was not made into a circus by the people putting it on or those participating. It was not pushed on anyone who didn't want to participate, it was not made into a vehicle for a political agenda by the people who planned or advertised it.
Anonymous | 01.25.07 - 7:34 pm | #

"it was not made into a vehicle for a political agenda by the people who planned or advertised it."

The event was planned for the Roe v Wade anniversary.

It is patently political.
Geoff | 01.25.07 - 7:42 pm | #

An agenda implies that these people were trying to tell others what to do! These students were making an opportunity available only to those that wanted it. They were not going about preventing others or persuading others about what they wanted to do.
This little website seems in danger of crashing, too - it has taken several tries to not get a "colon missing error" from clicking the publish button! :P
Anonymous | 01.25.07 - 7:53 pm | #

"Bright Sharp-edged Curette"

Easy college credit; all I need's a knife.
That little papaya yoke sac will see no years of life.
How swiftly are ye kicking.
O why does my blade so quickly fly?
Thanks to Blackmun (see Wade v. Roe)
The baby's red and dead; let's go.
It's fitful strains did not avail
To keep its limbs from the trash pail.

In after years should trouble rise
I'll just blurt out that old reprise
A woman's got a right to choose
Papaya yolk sacs ain't much t'loose
O let us strive that ever we
May let these words our watch cry be
What e'er's left in that trash pail:
"For Choice, for country, and for Yale!"
Leif | 01.25.07 - 8:03 pm | #

Rationalmind:

Don't want to bash or be argumentative, but your logic in your argument escapes me. Are you really equating an abortion procedure to breast augmentation (the only similarility being that they are both elective)? Further, are you asserting the notion that unless one has rec'd medical training that one has no business forming or sharing an opinion re: a medical procedure? Under that logic how are citizens competent to serve on juries (no legal training) do our taxes (no accounting training) or even vote (no experience in the legislative, exectutive or judicial processes). If your assertion is that only those with superior intellect/training/experience should be allowed to form an opinion about a topic, then you must be in favor or the very thing that you condemn which is a nanny state that tells us all what to "think". I hope that I'm wrong about your logic but methinks that I'm not.
Bill B. | 01.25.07 - 8:15 pm | #

Lisa -

Please re-read the posts from the beginning.

Examples:

"...piece of cotton. Huh.

That's interesting, what they're teaching kids over there. I don't quite remember the feotus being quite so... nebulous. ;o)

Something about claiming "here is what actually happens" while performing surgery on a papaya doesn't quite, erm, cut it."

"...I don't believe doctors have no concept how to do therapeutic D&C's. I have known many women who have needed D&C's do to miscarriage, myself included. I have yet to hear a story about not being able to find a doctor to care for them, or that question even coming up. I have known women offered D&C's, and have turned them down to see if they could let things run their course naturally at first. However, the services were there if need be."

"...The point is that the Yalies are censuring information. Why hide behind a papaya? If it's so "simple" and important for students to learn DIY abortions, then take 'em downtown and do real ones. Why are they so timid and hypocritical?"

"...I don't think a manual vacuum aspiration abortion would be much help for an ectopic pregnancy..."

I must have missed where these and other posters gained their expertise in the medical field and what constitutes appropriate medical treatment and/or training.

Unlike life, science demands knowledge and training. You are free to voice your opinion re: medical matters w/o that training and knowledge, but to pretend that it somehow carries as equal a weight as that of an individual who has put forward the effort to gain those skills is silly.

I dont disagree with anyone's right to discuss the morals/ethics of abortions, but when the topic takes a medical detour, then those w/o the training need to take a back seat to those who have the information.
rationalmind | 01.25.07 - 8:20 pm | #

I have found some evidence that proves that a fetus is a living human being.......

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.

This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison for killing the unborn (and rightfully so) then the unborn should have equil consideration in relation to abortion..
ausblog | 01.25.07 - 8:29 pm | #

Bill B -

My argument all along has been that those not involved in the medical profession have little of value to say about what constitutes appropriate medical training techniques.

The larger discussion of how/when medical procedures fit into society at large is open to anyone with a brain.

If you want to use the US jury system, tax code, or voting public as evidence that the general public possesses an aptitude for intelligently engaging fields for which it has no special training, be my guest. Based on their respective histories, I would hesitate to hold them up as shining examples.

My comments to Catholic Mom were in response to her implicit attack on physicians who perform abortions:

...The "simple procedure" of abortion ends the life a human being who possesses an immortal soul. May the Lord have mercy on the souls of those who do not understand this.

At the end of day, abortion is a 'simple procedure.' It is one of hundreds of distasteful things that physicians do to patients every day that the public deep down really doesnt want to talk/know about.
rationalmind | 01.25.07 - 8:34 pm | #

Wow, this is a very heated topic I see. I also feel like either way one believes, they will be attacked for their opinions.

Please understand I am not trying to fuel the fire on either side, but as a mom I thought maybe I can add my two cents here.

I was a young mom, my mother wanted me to have an abortion, I absolutely refused! I gave birth to a healthy baby girl who I wanted very much. She lived to be 18 months old. Anyhow, I personally would never have an abortion, I don't support women using abortion as birth control, but I do understand that sometimes it is necessary for a woman to have one (ie: medical reason, etc).

And although I have my own beliefs about abortion, I think it is important that the proper medical field is being trained on how to perform an abortion. Not all abortions are for birth control reasons, my mother's close friend years ago was pregnant, at about 7 months of pregnancy, they found out the baby didn't have vital organs and it would have never survived. That is considered an abortion. I also have a close friend who was pregnant at a young age, her child had a life threatening disease and would have never survived, they gave her what they called "a partial birth abortion", however, it was not. They induced her delivery and she delivered a dead baby, they did nothing to kill her baby, but it was labeled an abortion because she wasn't far enough to deliver, and she was not in labor.

I understand cleary that there are lots of medical reasons why people have to have abortions (I do not support abortions as a form of birth control), and for those women (like the two I know), it is a good thing that they had people there who knew what they were doing.

I went to school with a lot of girls who use abortion as birth control, and never heard a good thing come from that. Many had the placentas removed and the baby's body left behind to cause infection, or numerous other complications. It is terribly sad that this happens, but it is important that the people who will perform these procedures knows how to correctly do it.

I know this is a hard subject for many people, but please don't throw rocks at these people until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

Best wishes to you all!
Michelle | 01.25.07 - 9:12 pm | #

thank you Michelle for your stories. I agree that abortion is a sad replacement for birth control, it is emotionally, physically, and financially draining. Let's all try to work for a place where people have access to information about what behaviors will lead to conception and how to best prevent it (abstinance works by far the best, but if they won't, whatever barrier or hormonal birth control they feel they can adhere to).
student | 01.25.07 - 9:19 pm | #

Leif's "Bright Sharp-edged Curette" is the best so far...Any links to the traditional tunes (i.e. soundfiles)?
JV | Homepage | 01.25.07 - 9:26 pm | #

I couldn't agree with you more "student", so many people are foolishly not preventing pregnancy, and I think a lot of times these women are the ones who have abortions with complications.

Not long ago, my much younger sister's close friend had an abortion, she knew right from day one she didn't want the baby, but she waited and waited. She went in at 6 months of pregnany to an abortion clinic. They gave her an ultrasound, told her she was 6 months along, and that she was having a boy. She went back two weeks later to have the abortion. The clinic gave her nothing for the pain, she felt everything! The girl is traumatized, to say the least. Had someone informed her about proper birth control, perhaps she would have used it. We need to teach children from a much younger age about preventative measures, because kids will keep having kids, or keep getting pregnant until they are better informed.

Best wishes!
Michelle | 01.25.07 - 9:27 pm | #

Pansy,

I wasn't clear. In my mother's case, there wasn't a big city nearby, and in the ER, there was no doctor who knew how to stop her hemorrhaging. It was an emergency. The Ob/Gyn on call was 45 minutes away--he almost didn't make it in time to save my mother's life. So, all I'm saying is that a GP in a rural setting might need to know how to do an emergency D&C--in a case where it's certain the baby has already died--in order to save someone's life. I'm certainly not defending abortionists, I assure you.

As for waiting until the miscarriage takes its natural course--that's what I was doing when I began hemorrhaging.

Anon: no one "made" me wait for the miscarriage after the baby's death. I was given the choice of having the D&C, or waiting for a natural miscarriage. I chose to wait. I didn't want to take the risks associated with a D&C if it wasn't necessary. It turned out badly--I needed a D&C in the end anyway to save my life--but I don't think my decision was unreasonable.
anonymous because of personal | 01.25.07 - 9:38 pm | #

"My argument all along has been that those not involved in the medical profession have little of value to say about what constitutes appropriate medical training techniques."

I'll agree with the notion that laypeople generally have no business dictating the training methods needed to maintain the academic rigor in a graduate context.

The issue here though isn't about laypeople trying to dictate to Yale Med how to train future physicians but rather what the real aim of this expo is all about. IOW's what is YMSC really trying to do - is it meant to educate or to sway opinion? The name of the organization seems to suggest their desire to perpetuate "choice" so my vote is on swaying opinion. I doubt that many would be against this procedure being taught by the Med school. It is legal after all. But to suggest that this expo is needed b/c it is taught inconsistently despite it's seeming lack of complexity smacks of a smokescreen. If this were truly meant (or needed) to educate the student body at Yale Med, it wouldn't be sponsored (and conducted) by a student organization but would be taught by faculty members.

No matter where you come down on abortion, all would agree that the end result of D&C is a mass of tissue. The definition of said tissue is where most differ drastically. Some feel that as excess tissue it should be treated as such and discareded. Others believe that it ends what would otherwise have been a living breathing human being. I would say that that few medical procedures, no matter how distasteful, result in such stark differences in perception of the end result. I have no problem with YMSC conducting whatever expo they want, they just need to be intellectually honest about their motives.
Bill B. | 01.25.07 - 9:39 pm | #

Scrape, scrape on down the wall
‘Borting for Eli
Break up that crimson child
Its life to deny
We’ll give a long cheer for Eli’s femmes
We’re here to kill again
Pro-Life’s team may fight to the end
But NOW! WILL! WIN!
Mark E Soper | 01.25.07 - 9:54 pm | #

My version of "Goodnight, poor hahvahd"
(my previous entry was my version of "Down the Field")

Goodnight, poor baby
Baby, goodnight
Oh, we’ve got your number
You won’t fly a kite
Oh, goodnight, poor baby
You’re doomed at first light
When the big vacuum
Gets after you
Baby, goodnight!
Mark E Soper | 01.25.07 - 10:00 pm | #

BillB -

Sorry for not being clearer earlier on. My comments had only been directed at training techniques.

W/ respect to the Yale group, they are obviously trying to change the public dialogue when it comes to abortion. It also serves to educate the public about what an abortion procedure consists of technically.

Unfortunately, there does exist a tremendous amount of political pressure to not teach this and other techniques related to women's health in US medical schools. In my own medical school's curriculum, impotence and impotence treatment received entire lectures while birth control received two slides in a larger lecture about endocrinology. The professor was incorrect about the mechanism of action of the 'morning after pill' and abortion was never mentioned in fours years of medical training. Student groups have been responsible for pushing for the addition of women's health curricula b/c medical schools have failed to do so on their own.

I agree completely with your final paragraph. I am of the bias that I think those decisions ought to be made by individuals in consultation with a medical professional who can give them up-to-date information on treatment options and risks/benefits. Any other parties ought to butt out.
Anonymous | 01.25.07 - 10:07 pm | #

Dawn, since you were kind enough to link those old articles of mine I'll throw my hat in the ring:

____

To the dwellers in New Haven

And to every Eli girl

Within earshot of the Harkness tower bells

Preach Yale's feminists assembled, aspirators raised on high

And our tragic sussurations cast their spell



Yes, our PC propaganda hits the notes you know so well

"Safe and legal", "blob of tissue", and the rest…

Now we'll cuisinart papayas, like some hellish Ronco ad

Just to prove abortion's no grounds for distress.



We're spreading the news so infants ne'er cry

"Ma, ma, ma!"

Lambs to the slaughter, but our eyes are dry

Baa, baa, baa.

No need to worry, girls, should you conceive

Don't heed your conscience and don't be naïve

Just making fruit salad won't leave you bereaved.

Nah, nah, nah…



Progressive politics worn on our sleeve,

"Help the downtrodden" is what we believe

But for the unborn, no, we'll never grieve

Nah, nah, nah…
Clint Taylor | 01.25.07 - 10:16 pm | #

Michelle said:

"Anyhow, I personally would never have an abortion, I don't support women using abortion as birth control, but I do understand that sometimes it is necessary for a woman to have one (ie: medical reason, etc)."

This is a common argument, and I have to ask: why? Abortion is either morally abhorrent, morally okay, or completely amoral. If abortion is morally okay or completely amoral, why should there be any restrictions on it? Why should you, or anyone, not support women using abortion as birth control or for any other reason? And if abortion is indeed morally abhorrent, why should there be any circumstance when it is allowed?
Andy | 01.25.07 - 10:38 pm | #

At my medical school, we heard nearly an hour's lecture on male impotence, and more than an hour on in vitro fertilization (with common destruction of 15+ embryos per live birth). We heard about 15 minutes on birth control and some of it was factually inaccurate (confusion between morning after pills and RU-486). This is distressing and wildly imbalanced in comparison to usage. At baseline, we want access to factual information about what patients want. Our favorite classes invite in patients who are ready to share their frustrations and successes with us, indelibly marking us with their perspective. None of the reproductive health classes included patient perspectives.
I feel that preparing myself to be technically competent and emotionally responsive is a good goal.
studentdoctor | 01.25.07 - 10:44 pm | #

Dear Andy,
There are many situations in which there are optimal, suboptimal, and unacceptable choices. I gravely doubt than any woman has ever elected to have an abortion merely to express her civil right to do so!
Women have abortions because they don't feel they are up to carrying and parenting - how sad (but mature) to recognize that! I am sad but sure in the knowledge that I cannot be a very good dog owner right now as my yard is insufficient. I am also practicing exceedingly careful birth control with my husband!!! However if despite my extremely careful plans enacted with the help of my husband we were to conceive, this would still be an inappropriate time for a child and so I would sadly, very sadly and with disappointment both in that I am not up to the task of parenting right now and that I was incapable of preventing conception, I would abort! It's not happy, it's not good, it's not completely okay - but neither should it be abhorrent. I don't want to feel shunned because my husband and I love each other! I want to feel consoled and supported, and I want access to better birth control information!
studentdoctor | 01.25.07 - 10:58 pm | #

rationalmind laments: "however, EVERYONE has seen fit to comment on how this, that or the other thing is not appropriate for medical education, for medical students to learn, not a realistic model, etc."

Then asserts: "so i stand by my original comment that nearly everyone here is NOT qualified to offer opinions on those subjects."

This makes several bad assumptions.
1) Only those in a particular field are capable of making moral judgments in that context.
2) All individuals in a field are smarter about making moral judgments than those outside their field.
3) One can never make a moral judgment about a particular thing without a comprehensive expertise.
4) There can never be oversight of an institution of a particular area done by one who is not trained in that field.
5) Being a professional of a field gives you godlike authority over everyone outside the field, so they should all just shut up and let you do whatever we want.

All of these are excessively poor assumptions. The "you aren't a professional of my field so you cannot produce rational or moral thoughts about my field" argument is empty rhetorical intimidation, and nothing more.

Here is a clue. If you are a professional in a field, use the insight and knowledge of that field to bring more substance and knowledge to the discussion. Then we might all learn from it, and still - as rational human beings - make judgments according to your assistance. But this intimidation tactic simply reveals to me that you are not confident enough to do so.
Silly Interloper | 01.26.07 - 12:10 am | #

So let me get this straight. All we hear from the baby murderers is that if abortion is made illegal, the number of "back alley" abortions will rise. So what are these idiots teaching young women to do? To perform "back alley" abortions! And these morons can't understand why we think they're hypocrites! Good, Lord!
John Holliday | 01.26.07 - 12:10 am | #

studentdoctor,

Why are some decisions to abort "unacceptable"? Can you please provide some examples and explain why they are unacceptable?
Jonathan | 01.26.07 - 12:19 am | #

Silly Interloper -

Please go back and read all the posts before writing.

None of my posts are related to the morals of abortion. Anyone with a brain (and ostensibly a means by which to communicate) is allowed into the discussion no matter how ill-informed I might think they are.

My posts have had to do w/ non-medical professionals trying to provide input re: how to go about providing training modules for pre-meds and/or medical students.

I dont try to tell civil engineers what exercises are/arent appropriate to train students to design buildings - dont tell me how to train health professionals if you arent in the field.

As to whether or not abortion is abhorrent, aways acceptable, sometimes acceptable, etc: I have my own opinions but they are no more valid than anyone else's except when it comes to debating actual medical fact. In those cases, my knowledge DOES trump yours if you are not scientifically/medically trained. That's the way facts work.
rationalmind | 01.26.07 - 12:49 am | #

"Pro-Choice", as a term, is nonsense. It's most certainly "pro-abortion", as the only choice up for debate is having an abortion. Actually having the child isn't an issue that's up for debate, nor is it controversial in the least. It's the normal manner of things.

Oddly- I never see "pro-choice" advocates giving speeches on how we can have fewer abortions. Funny, they're always talking about protecting a "woman's right to choose [an abortion]"
Ben Katz | 01.26.07 - 1:25 am | #

Ben Katz -

Hate to cloud your world with some logic but the point of 'pro-choice' is exactly that - choice. Dont really care much myself what women choose but I do think that the government that governs least governs best. Give people choice and allow them the responsibility for their actions, simple as that.

As to your second point, the 'pro-choice' side have consistently advocated for medically accurate information when it comes to sex ed and equal access to contraception (both of which are proven to be effective ways to reduce the overall number of abortions). Dont know how giving folks more education is an objectionable thing and polls of Americans have shown consistent support for birth control access so I am confused as to why there exists an objection to either of these but some 'pro-life' groups seem to have a bone to pick with both.

I would encourage you to read a little bit more about the issue.

[Rationalmind, please read comments rules. Thank you - Ed.]

Edited By Siteowner
rationalmind | 01.26.07 - 1:34 am | #

rationalmind: "Please go back and read all the posts before writing."

That's excellent advice - if I had missed your point. However, from your explanation, I really didn't. I spoke of a "context" in general terms because it applies in general, but I was aware of the fact that your specific context was medical training.

rationalmind: "My posts have had to do w/ non-medical professionals trying to provide input re: how to go about providing training modules for pre-meds and/or medical students."

Everything I said applies to providing training modules for pre-meds and/or medical students. Let me be clear that I am not saying that any untrained individual should be able to determine the comprehensive needs of training modules. For that, it would clearly take some higher qualifications, although I still might disagree that it did not warrant some multidisciplinary review. Multidisciplinary review (which seems to fall outside your idea of "qualified") can sometimes be invaluable.

What I am speaking to, however, is the ability of an untrained individual to examine a given element of a module and judge it according to its moral validity. There is no reason in the world why ethics and moral judgment about training methods should be exclusive to those trained in a given field. In fact, the insiders may have blinders about things that outsiders will notice.

I hate to bring this up, but it is what comes to my tired mind, and it is valid as a real-life example. If a medical "module" taught a method to break the bones of a healthy patient for the purpose of finding out how well they will heal, anyone outside of medicine could validly condemn it as immoral. The same can be said for any teaching of a procedure that needlessly damages a human being - including things involving the unborn human beings.

As a trained professional, doctors, nurses, and professors can bring facts and perspective to the discussion. If they could show that breaking a healthy bone actually saved the life of the patient, that could make the inclusion of it in training acceptable. However, bringing more knowledge to the discussion in no way disqualifies others from evaluating that knowledge for moral acceptability.

Anyone can add to the discussion. *Outsiders* can bring things to the discussion that the medical folk may not have thought of. The exclusion of outside evaluation is simply an ivory tower mentality that breeds arrogance.

rationalmind: "I dont try to tell civil engineers what exercises are/arent appropriate to train students to design buildings..."

According to your sobriquet, you must have a rational mind, so why would you not be able to evaluate a given element of their training? Grant it, a lot of it is going to be technical jargon that you don't understand. But if a practice improperly risks human lives with no redeeming benefits, there is no reason we shouldn't challenge them about it and make them prove it is necessary. (For example, teaching engineering students to calculate how to weigh the "cost" of human lives against the savings in materials they might use would be open to criticism. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to challenge such a practice.)

rationalmind: " - dont tell me how to train health professionals if you arent in the field."

Forgive me if I don't accept your intimidation tactics. I simply cannot accept the notion that the medical field should be immune to outside scrutiny. The notion is ridiculous to me.

If you are to be consistent, I suppose you should be verboten from criticizing any other field in existence other than what you are trained in? Are you consistent about this?

rationalmind: "In those cases, my knowledge DOES trump yours if you are not scientifically/medically trained. That's the way facts work."

That is a laughable statement. Your statement above implies that you are incapable of ever making an error or getting the facts wrong in your field. And it implies that everyone else is incapable of learning about things in your field. It also implies that you are ONLY working with facts in your field, and that in itself is a ridiculous notion. There is an abundance of material in any given training regimen that would not be categorized as "fact."

At bottom, this all comes down to the fact that you want to bully those who are not trained in your field from having any say whatsoever about what you want to do. Empty rhetorical intimidation.
Silly Interloper | 01.26.07 - 1:45 am | #

Silly Interloper

Thanks for the points. Some of them were valid.

At the end of your post you again miss the point: I have never asserted that non-medical personnel have no place in informing the practice of medicine. Medicine is a social issue and all aspects of society get to have their input about how it is practiced.

You dont get to tell me how to titrate meds. You dont get to tell me how to rod your femur. You dont get to tell me how to perform a C-section. Sorry. If you dont like that, apply to medical school, go through the training, and invent a better mouse-trap.

By contrast, my peers DO get to tell me how to do those things. That is peer-review. I have never claimed that medicine is immune from questions, but those questions come from those trained in the sciences when that is the subject matter at hand.

I dont change my practice b/c an adherent of crystalography tells me I am doing things incorrectly. It is your choice as a consumer to chose that method of txn if you feel it works, but it is apples and oranges when it comes to informing the practice of medicine - not all facts are created equal.

It is unfortunate you are missing the point and feel I am trying to intimidate you. Dont mean to. I just realize what is what and am blunt enough to tell the truth.

Would love to continue the discussion, but have to get some zzzzzzz's in order to wake up early and go back to bullying people into wellness.
rationalmind | 01.26.07 - 1:56 am | #

Oddly- I never see "pro-choice" advocates giving speeches on how we can have fewer abortions.

"We want to take up the call of the Department of Health and Human Services -- and echoed by the Institute of Medicine: to reduce unintended pregnancies by 30 per cent before the year 2000. Meeting this mark would result in 200,000 fewer unintended births each year -- and 800,000 fewer abortions."

http://gos.sbc.edu/m/michelman3.html
L. | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 1:59 am | #

rationalmind, your objections seem to state that you believe particularity gives you immunity from outside scrutiny. The *way* you do something can have moral implications. (Teaching methods of chemical or structural engineering that would cause an inordinate amount of damage to the environment could be criticized, for example.)

There is not a procedure in this world that should be above scrutiny from untrained outsiders. Grant it, the expertise of the "insiders" would give them a great advantage in the discussion - all the more reason they should not fear it. If the objections of the outsiders are not valid, they should be easily dispatched for the most part. (There is always prudence in the face of uncertainty, too - but that mostly means the experts don't have their act together enough to prove the merit of the method.)

Those who do not want to be put to the question, are probably aware of the fact that there are some moral issues they are flirting with. We should not allow them to assert a dictatorship over these issues.
Silly Interloper | 01.26.07 - 2:17 am | #

rationalmind: "You dont get to tell me how to titrate meds."

One last point. Things like titrating meds seem to be devoid of any moral issues. They are straight-forward and unthreatening as far as I can tell. However, that does not mean they are *immune* to moral scrutiny. Nothing is.
Silly Interloper | 01.26.07 - 2:24 am | #

You dont get to tell me how to titrate meds.

If a person decided they wanted to learn how to titrate meds, they would not have to go to medical school to do it. They could simply inform themselves of the facts. They might not legally be able to do it, but they could be cognizant of all it involved.

I have worked around doctors my entire adult life. They come in all flavors. As the old joke says, "what do you call the medical student who graduates last in his class? Doctor."

Don't take yourself so seriously. I'm not saying becoming a doctor doesn't take an enormous amount of work. And at the end, you have a lot of knowledge about a lot of stuff. But if a layperson decides they want to know about abortion and the techniques involved, they can know just as much as any doctor. Don't underestimate what non-MDs know.
Amy K. | 01.26.07 - 4:28 am | #

" [I] Dont really care much myself what women choose"

We know.
Andy | 01.26.07 - 8:27 am | #

"However if despite my extremely careful plans enacted with the help of my husband we were to conceive, this would still be an inappropriate time for a child and so I would sadly, very sadly and with disappointment both in that I am not up to the task of parenting right now and that I was incapable of preventing conception, I would abort! It's not happy, it's not good, it's not completely okay - but neither should it be abhorrent."

Why is it not completely okay? What gives it any degree of not-okay-ness?
Andy | 01.26.07 - 8:29 am | #

Being put in a situation where I or any other woman has to make a difficult choice about an unplanned pregnancy is less than completely okay. No matter what the decision, there will be sad feelings.

It's less than completely okay to suffer a flat tire on the way to a job interview - there are choices (get a cab and abandon the car, call AAA and get it fixed but be late, change it yourself, and be not quite as late but rumpled and dirty for the interview) and none of them are great.

In my place, where continuing a pregnancy would expensively derail my education and I would not be able to provide a safe, chemical free environment for the developing fetus (I'm around formaldehyde and anesthetic gases, etc.) making an adoption plan isn't a good choice and parenting is flat out.

So the best choice is to be as careful as I can with birth control, with the help of my husband.
If I were to have to make that difficult decision, I would make it with resignation and sadness. I would not feel all happy that day. I would nevertheless be completely secure that I was doing the right thing at this time in my life.

What would be *unacceptable* would be anyone else making that decision for me!
studentdoctor | 01.26.07 - 8:52 am | #

This should be sent to ProLife Blogs and Lifesite. Also to Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice, if you can figure out how to get in touch with him.
Jane Infidel | 01.26.07 - 9:09 am | #

Also want to comment that there are two groups of physicians that have come to speak to us that are the most emphatic and thorough about finding a working method of birth control for their patients. These physicians spend serious time going over the practicalities of how to use a method effectively, and discuss the barriers to proper use frankly, working with their patients to find something that is most likely to be used correctly and consistantly. And, yes, they all mention time and again that abstinance works best.

These are the abortion providers and the pediatricians working with teen moms. These are the two groups that are working in the trenches, dedicated to preventing future unwanted pregnancies.

The Choice group on our campus is the group promoting birth control, reducing the need for abortions is a huge part of their message. Even Hillary Clinton's statement is on that message, "keep abortion safe, legal, and extremely rare."
studentdoctor | 01.26.07 - 9:09 am | #

"Safe, legal and rare" is a feel-goody mis-direction slogan that no one who utters it means.

Why, I wonder, should they think it should be rare?

If abortion (oops, I said the A word) is such a wonderful thing and such a terrific right, why should we even be concerned with its numbers?

If it's just a parasitic tissue bundle, why should its destruction cause anyone the least concern?

Since we now know that a fully born child can still be called a fetus and killed by neglect or intent, obviously our only concern should be whether it is wanted, not whether its elimination should be a rare event.
Robert N G | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 9:43 am | #

This is a common argument, and I have to ask: why? Abortion is either morally abhorrent, morally okay, or completely amoral. If abortion is morally okay or completely amoral, why should there be any restrictions on it? >>

My whole problem with the abortion debate is that it's two teams playing completely different games. On one hand you have people saying abortion is "WRONG! ALWAYS WRONG! NO MATTER WHAT!" But most people who say abortion should stay legal are not going "ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!" They say it is a terrible thing which has consequences and must be thought about carefully, but there should be a legal right to it, because it's nobody else's *****ing business what someone else does if it doesn't affect them. I was not promiscuous and don't know anyone whoever had an abortion or was considering it. Doesn't mean I don't think others should have the right. My wife and I also use contraception (another sin here!), and if something happened, I would listen to what she wanted, whether to keep the child or not. I'm not carrying it for nine months, we both would know if we could handle it. My feelings on abortion and gay marriage are the same: if you don't want one, don't have one.
Neil C. | 01.26.07 - 10:04 am | #

"Safe, legal and rare" is a feel-goody mis-direction slogan that no one who utters it means.

Unless you can see into my mind and read my thoughts, Robert N G, you have no way of knowing that. I'm adamently pro-choice, and I'd love to see abortions being extremely rare. So, that refutes your statement right there.
Terezia | 01.26.07 - 10:04 am | #

Doesn't mean I don't think others should have the right>> Of course I meant, others shouldn't have the right.
Neil C. | 01.26.07 - 10:05 am | #

"Safe, legal and rare" is a feel-goody mis-direction slogan that no one who utters it means.

Whatever would lead you to think this?

How many pro-choicers do you actually know?
L. | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 10:28 am | #

L:
How many pro-life folks do you really know? I believe that life begins at conception. When that life begins it has non-negotiable human dignity. This dignity is not based on any utilitarian judgment by an external source. You do not hold to this premise. However, I am going to make an assumption. I am going to assume that you do grant a two-year-old this non-negotiable human dignity. No matter how inconvenient, or unplanned, or disruptive the presence of this two-year-old is, you will not advocate for a woman's right to end the two-year-old's life. So something changes for you between conception and the age of two. What changes? When does it change? Why does it change? Remember, we are talking about an intrinsic human dignity that is independent of someone else's life circumstances.Help me get to know you and explain when human life becomes sacred for you.
Catholic Mom | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 12:06 pm | #

Thank you Neil, and L., and Terezia, for speaking up about this difficult and complex and ultimately personal issue.

The abortion providers that I know see this as a highly personal decision for each patient. They put as much effort into supporting a woman's decision to continue a difficult pregnancy (including hookup to financial support and parenting classes, prenatal support groups with peers if possible) as to terminating it with dignity and as safely as possible. It's all about choice.

I don't really understand the mindset where Robert N G, Ben Katz, Andy et al, are coming from. As I tried to analogise (is that a real word?) with the flat tire scenario, many treatment options in many circumstances are less than ideal. Surgical removal of ectopic pregnancy is scary and has risks, but we would not often choose to not go forward with it. Who looks forward to having their wisdom teeth removed? Amputation of a foot in a diabetic is a miserable thing, yet sometimes it is in the patient's best interest.

The problem is the hysteria - Michelle's friend may well have delayed her abortion due to fear of being ridiculed or physically endangered by people judging her outside the clinic. Or she may have had to drive 400 miles to the nearest clinic. And there are clear emotional, physical, financial reasons why an earlier procedure would have been better for her (preventing the unwanted pregnancy best of all). If all women (and men) had accurate information about conception, contraception, and pregnancy options, this difficult situation would have to be faced less often. If there were less hysteria, perhaps this could become a less common procedure. One half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion, and about 1 in 3 American women have an abortion at some time in their life.
studentdoctor | 01.26.07 - 12:16 pm | #

CatholicMom - this is also something that all women should be encouraged to figure out for themselves, it is a useful and important discussion.
For me personally, the individuation of a new human not a discrete digital event. Let me start by offering a piece of information:
1)After delivery at 24 weeks' gestation, with the very best technology we have about a 1 in 4 chance to keep the neonate alive, and the majority of those that live will have overwhelming disability. This restriction is unlikely to budge as shorter gestations do not offer sufficient organ development.

Before this time, I personally see a fetus as a hope, a maybe, a dream. It's like locking eyes with a stranger across a room and hoping the initial chemistry is the same as a real, durable relationship. It may become one.

But your personal views on the matter derive from your religious background and I respect that. I do believe that Jews consider a neonate to receive a soul at the moment of delivery. There will be varied viewpoints.
Legally, each woman has her own right to her own beliefs. These discussions are useful and appropriate - best if all women start this consideration before risking pregnancy, and realize that her feelings may change with her life experiences.
studentdoctor | 01.26.07 - 12:31 pm | #

Catholic Mom, I know many pro-lifers, both in real life and blog life. I was raised in a pro-life family, and was pro-life myself until I was 15. What changed me? The realization that the embryo/fetus does not exist in a vacuum, but inside another person, and that person, based on her individual circumstances, should have the final say over whether she continues to gestate the new life -- even if removing it means that it will not develop and be born.
My family and pro-life friends all thought that my pro-choice view was "just a phase," and that I would come around once I was a mother myself. However, if anything, going through pregnancy and birth made me even more adamant that no woman should go through it unwilling, even though it means that some babies will not get their chances to be born.
I would love to see the abortion rate drop, because the best solution is preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, through abstinence for those who choose it and multiple forms of responsibly-used contraception for those who do not.
L. | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 12:42 pm | #

"It's less than completely okay to suffer a flat tire on the way to a job interview - there are choices (get a cab and abandon the car, call AAA and get it fixed but be late, change it yourself, and be not quite as late but rumpled and dirty for the interview) and none of them are great."

No, it's not less than completely okay to suffer a flat tire or be in those kind of circumstances. The example you give is unfortunate (because it is inconvenient), but is also amoral. Your corresponding choices are also amoral decisions, and have no relevance to the argument. If one of your options on the list was "murder-carjack the first driver that passes by so I can use his car," it would be more relevant.

Abortion supporters (and many pro-choicers who claim to be completely neutral as long as someone "has the choice") commit the error of assuming a conclusion. That conclusion is that abortion is simply par for the course among other viable options. It is typically assumed to have no moral value. Again, with no moral value, or even a moral good, why are politicians and others arguing for a reduction?
Andy | 01.26.07 - 4:20 pm | #

From L:
"the embryo/fetus does not exist in a vacuum"

L,
Is this some sort of sick play on the word vacuum?
Indeed, and quite tragically, the fetus corporeally ceases to exist once inside the "doctor's" vacuum.

Also, L, you claim your prolife days were through by age 15. I would offer that you are still prolife... for yourself, as you would want no-one to exercise their "right to choose" to terminate your beating heart.
Leif | 01.26.07 - 4:44 pm | #

Abortion on demand won’t be around for more than a generation or two more (maybe less). At least insofar as it is currently defined as a constitutional right. The entire abortion debate hinges on when along the gestation timeline that the fetus is considered a “person” and therefore under the constitution afforded due process. Roe v. Wade skirted this issue by holding that there are three stages of “viability” and that as the fetus becomes more viable (i.e. able to survive outside the mother’s womb) that states have a interest in regulating the procedure. Roe also created a constitutional right to “privacy” which is where the “fetus is part of the woman’s body comes” from. So long as the fetus is part the woman’s body (i.e. pre viable) then the states can’t regulate it because the baby has yet to reach “personhood”.

As soon as the courts universally recognize the unborn as “people” (and they are, in CA no less – see Scott Peterson) then the whole “abortion as a constitutional right” concept is kaput. That’s because “persons” are capable of being killed and as such can’t be legally killed without first being afforded due process. If the Supremes uphold the partial birth abortion ban, then NARAL, Planned Parenthood and NOW better prepare for the day when they send the abortion issue back to the states to be regulated at that level. I don’t think that abortion will ever be outlawed entirely because some states (see CA, NY,VT) will always allow it in some form. But allowing abortion on demand in its current state under the legal fiction of a constitutionally protected “right to privacy” was wrong in 1973 and an excellent example of the Court crafting constitutional principles to fit the political winds.
Bill B. | 01.26.07 - 4:50 pm | #

Andy, I understand that you have strongly held personal beliefs about when life begins. I hear that you feel profoundly concerned about developing embryos. I also get the sense that you want to find black and white lines where something is absolutely right or wrong.
I disagree with your statement (as I understand it) that, since I see situations in which abortion is the best possible response to a crappy situation, I therefore attach no moral weight to the decision. I feel it is morally responsible to commit to parenting at a time and in a way that reflects the best possible parent that woman can be.

Please allow me to pose some similar questions to you: when a Nicaraguan 9 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant, is abortion the least moral choice? When thousands of women in the 70's learned they had contracted rubella and their fetuses were going to be profoundly deformed as a result, was abortion the least moral choice? When a patient presents to a modern hospital with a malignant breast cancer and is found to be 5 weeks into a pregnancy, is is moral to let her die because the chemo of choice (methotrexate) is a known abortifacient? In that last case, the woman felt strongly that it was wrong for her to endanger the pregnancy, and she did indeed pass away, a baby was delivered prematurely and I do not know how well it did. It was difficult but appropriate for the woman's oncologist to respect her wish to refuse treatment.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not easy. I wish it was always easy and that the same right choice was right in all situations, but it's not.

Beyond the specifics of whether abortion can ever be a moral choice, for me there is a larger moral question: is it moral to control other women's reproduction? I feel it's wrong to sterilize women without consent, I feel it's wrong to marry women off at 14, I feel it's wrong to require a woman to bear children.
studentdo8 | 01.26.07 - 5:00 pm | #

I always have a problem not knowing where to begin on issues like this. The difficulty is that there are many, many underlying viewpoints and belief systems at play. A person who sees any unborn baby as a living human being with all the rights and privileges that come with being a living human being does so because of many opinions and beliefs scattered over a whole range of topics. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Likewise those who advocate, or at least approve, a woman’s personal and private right to abort said baby also do so because there are many underlying viewpoints and belief systems at play.

That’s the problem. It isn’t as if folks are 100% in agreement over everything else except whether a woman can choose abortion or not. It’s that they are in disagreement over a thousand different issues. To advocate abortion, or to oppose it, says volumes about one’s stance on a host of things such as authority, revelation, meaning of life, religious faith, limits of science, sources of knowledge, ethics, role of government, individualism, materialism, pizza toppings – you name it. It’s the same thing with other hot-button issues like cloning, stem cell research, and homosexuality.

As a result, this issue won’t go away anytime soon. But eventually, like most issues, it will either fizzle and become a “Why did anyone care?” topic, or will explode and become, “Can you believe those horrible and evil troglodytes dared think that way!” type issue. My guess is the later. And my guess is, when the answer is finally decided on by whatever majority can actually do so, those who have stood on what will be seen as the wrong side of the abortion debate will join the ranks of history’s slave owners, death camp guards, and totalitarian madmen. Because pro life or pro choice, all agree it is one of the most significant issues of the modern world, because ultimately two of the most important issues of all are in play: Human Life and Human Rights.
Dave G. | 01.26.07 - 5:10 pm | #

"Beyond the specifics of whether abortion can ever be a moral choice, for me there is a larger moral question: is it moral to control other women's reproduction? I feel it's wrong to sterilize women without consent, I feel it's wrong to marry women off at 14, I feel it's wrong to require a woman to bear children."

this is fundamentally a legal question and not a moral one. The gov't regulates our bodies (man and women) everyday. One can't sell their organs, one can't transact their bodies for sex, and when one is foun to be mentally incompetent the gov't regulates your whole body by commiting you to state institution. So the argument that it's immoral for the gov't regulate your body is wrong on its face b/c it happens everyday. It's just that in terms of abortion, the courts have held that it can only regulated under certain circumstances given its current Constitutional protection. Abortion proponents real argument is that the womens constitutional rights trump those of the unborn child.
Bill B. | 01.26.07 - 5:15 pm | #

Bill B., I don't predict the same legal future that you do - but I'm not tracking the precendents the way you are. I guess time will tell.

However, I wish to point out that worldwide, the actual rate of abortions does not correlate with their legal availability. I think this is sad, I certainly don't condone women engaging in any kind of illegal behavior, especially such a dangerous one. However, it behooves us all to take a practical stance and prepare to address what we will actually see. This is especially important when we get back to the start of all this - educating medical students (and med student wannabees). Recreational IV drug use is illegal, and yet we spend quite a lot of time learning about how to recognize it and what ramifications to expect. Regardless of Andy's personal feelings, as a responsible physician I need to understand what procedures women will be doing to themselves or having unqualified back-alley hacks do.
With the advent of the internet and many effective abortifacient drugs, already a greater proportion of DIY abortions are medication-induced. It's a changing world.

This comes back to contraception - can't we all spend 50% of this energy teaching people to not get pregnant?
Anonymous | 01.26.07 - 5:17 pm | #

Again, with no moral value, or even a moral good, why are politicians and others arguing for a reduction?

Because no one has minor surgery for fun -- it's invasive, expensive, and for some women, traumatic. Quite frankly, I would like to see ALL forms of surgery reduced, due to a reduction in the number of situations that lead to people having them.

No, Leif -- I'm not "pro-life" when it comes to myself. I have a living will with instructions that my family end my life someday, if I am unable to make the decision myself. I also would not hesitate to kill myself in certain circumstances that I believe would warrant it.
L. | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 5:23 pm | #

One can't sell their organs, one can't transact their bodies for sex, and when one is foun to be mentally incompetent the gov't regulates your whole body by commiting you to state institution.

Organs are indeed sold in some countries, and it is certainly legal here to give them away for free. Prostitution is legal in some countries and even some cities in Nevada. There are very different views on what should be legal and what should be criminalized, when it comes to using the human body.

In the case of involuntary commitment, the state determines that a person is incapable of making decisions for themselves, or is at risk of harming oneself or others. Perhaps, along these lines, women judged to be "at high risk" of aborting will be involuntarily confined for the durations of their pregnancies?
L. | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 5:54 pm | #

L. is smart and eloquent.
Anonymous | 01.26.07 - 6:27 pm | #

L said:

"Because no one has minor surgery for fun -- it's invasive, expensive, and for some women, traumatic. Quite frankly, I would like to see ALL forms of surgery reduced, due to a reduction in the number of situations that lead to people having them."

But by pro-choice reasoning, isn't it a womans CHOICE to have minor surgery, regardless of how invasive it is? Isn't your desire to reduce any procedure a violation of that choice?

Studentdo8 said:

"Andy, I understand that you have strongly held personal beliefs about when life begins. I hear that you feel profoundly concerned about developing embryos. I also get the sense that you want to find black and white lines where something is absolutely right or wrong."

No, I do not have strongly held personal beliefs about when life begins. I didn't develop my opinion on that based on Scripture, faith, or a wild guess. It would take a wild manipulation of science to prove that life does not begin at conception. Now, my opinion on how that human life should be safeguarded or not is a completely different issue, and a debate that our society should be having. Instead, this debate is being buried in a legalistic jungle that denies a self-evident truth. We should at least argue over the same thing.
Andy | 01.26.07 - 6:32 pm | #

L.,
Actually, Roe v. Wade decided that the states have a right to regulate abortion in the second trimester, and even ban it in the third trimester.

Anonymous,
What arrogance and elitism you display? "Can't we just teach people not to get pregnant"... so people who have abortions are too stupid to get good birth control? Well, as long as it is the children of fools being killed, we'll just have to train their parents better. And by people, you really mean "women", as it doesn't take much instruction to prevent a man from getting pregnant.
Margaret Sanger and her eugenicist friends would be proud to have you as an ally!
Milehimama | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 6:44 pm | #

Andy, I respectfully disagree with your statement that "life begins at conception". As some others had discussed above starting with CatholicMom, this is something that people have many different views about.

In response to your other comment, part of my own pro-choice leanings include considering that another woman may make a different decision than I would in the same place. For example, the patient with breast cancer that died, rather than choose a treatment that would have ended her pregnancy.

What I, and every other pro-choice person I've talked to about it, recognize is that no woman wants to be in that difficult situation of unintended pregnancy. That is the circumstance that we wish to reduce.
Your comment about reducing unintended pregnancies being a violation of choice is hollow (unless I misunderstand what you mean). To be pro-choice at it's very core idealizes a situation in which a woman only conceives when she chooses to. That's a lofty goal.
studentdo8 | 01.26.07 - 6:45 pm | #

Oh, Milehimama, I am sorry that I must have been so unclear! I was trying to speak to the underlying idea that women have abortions when they have unintended pregnancies - so if we could provide for them better tools to prevent those pregnancies, then we could quickly reduce the number of abortions! I always try to include men in conversations about birth control, as they are part of the equation of becoming pregnant, and most methods work better when the woman's partner helps to remind her and assists her in contraceptive use.

I admit I'm confused about your anger. My earnest desire for all women to become pregnant when they want to is not parceled out by race or class. Why would it be bad for all people to be given conception and contraception education equally? There are still so many myths floating around, and our energies could help people!
Anonymous | 01.26.07 - 6:57 pm | #

L, you say...
"I also would not hesitate to kill myself in certain circumstances that I believe would warrant it."

OK, but you, still, would never allow another person the "right to choose" to terminate your beating heart when THEY see fit.
You allow that at some point, possibly, you, by your preset terms in a will, under hypothetical circumstances you've discussed with your family, it would be your desire for them to end your life.

But, still, you would not allow another person the "right to choose" to terminate your life, destroy your beating heart, when they see fit and when they choose, and solely on their terms; you must have your say.

So, again, you are prolife and *anti-choice*, when it is your beating heart we are talking about.

When it is your beating heart that is at stake, you must first jot down some terms in a will, set conditions, etc., before anyone has a go at your heart. So, you're against the abortion philosophy when it comes to your own life.

Of course the fetus in the womb doesn't get to discuss the conditions under which it would permit its own abortion.

So, with your life, L, you are a proud, flamboyant, determined prolifer !!!
Leif | 01.26.07 - 7:35 pm | #

Leif (great name!), I am also "pro-life". I am against the death penalty. I am against extreme use of technology to prolong my life (or my grandad's) without good chance of weaning back off the machine. I am very, very committedly pro-letting-women-live-their-life, which means letting them decide what happens in their tummies. To me, that is pro-life.
Which goes to show that these labels can be arbitrary and don't always reflect the true complexity of each person's belief.
me | 01.26.07 - 8:03 pm | #

The only relevant issue here is whether a fetus constitutes a 'live baby'. As in, has it developed a brain, does it have consciousness, and does it have the capability of feeling pain? Most relevant scientific evidence shows that, at least before the third trimester, it does not. If you want to believe that life begins at conception (or, in the case of the anti-contraception bunch, that every single reproductive cell is somehow a sovereign life), you're perfectly free to do so, in the same way that you're free to believe that 2+2=5. But don't expect the country to make laws based on something that you can't prove.

P.S. Can anyone exactly show me where in the Bible it says that life begins at conception? All I've seen is one line about Jesus stirring in Mary's womb. Maybe Jesus did have a soul before being born - why does that apply to anyone else?
Alex | 01.26.07 - 8:28 pm | #

L. said:

"Organs are indeed sold in some countries, and it is certainly legal here to give them away for free. Prostitution is legal in some countries and even some cities in Nevada. There are very different views on what should be legal and what should be criminalized, when it comes to using the human body.

In the case of involuntary commitment, the state determines that a person is incapable of making decisions for themselves, or is at risk of harming oneself or others. Perhaps, along these lines, women judged to be "at high risk" of aborting will be involuntarily confined for the durations of their pregnancies?"

I never said that one can't gift their organs to another, only that you can't sell them. While I'll concede that prostitution exists legally in some areas, the fact that the Bunny Ranch operates legally in Nevada doesn't negate the fact that one still can't legally turn tricks in downtown LA. As for the commitment analogy, if the govt feels that you may be a harm to yourself then they take action, thus regulating your body.

My point was simply that the several states regulate what people do (or with) their bodies all the time, so it's a bit misleading to argue that the gov't has no business telling one what one can or cannot do with it.

As for international law and what others do in other countries, we are subject ot the laws of the U.S. plain and simple. The laws of another country or jurisdiction have little bearing on what we do here. Try arguing Chilean precendent in front of the judge and see how far you get.

Finally, I certainly don't advocate locking up expectant mothers until their babies reach full term and I suspect that no one else here would either. I do, however, advocate personal responsibility which, unregulated abortion has negated.
Bill B. | 01.26.07 - 8:28 pm | #

OK, but you, still, would never allow another person the "right to choose" to terminate your beating heart when THEY see fit.

Sure I would. Life is a gift, Leif, not a right. It can be taken at any moment, and is very much out of our hands. If my mother had aborted me, fine. If my husband decides to withhold food and water from my comatose body someday, fine. If my neighbor were to come over and shoot me tomorrow, then fine -- so be it, and there`s nothing I could do about it, and whether the state prosecuted him after I was dead would not matter to me personally.

Based on the point of view you describe, that I must be "pro-life" when it comes to myself, then the pregnant woman with breast cancer in one of the comments above who refused treatment and died, so that her baby could live was "pro-death," because she chose a course of action that she knew could (and in fact did) lead to her own death. Yet, somehow I can`t imagine you ever calling her "pro-death."

But by pro-choice reasoning, isn't it a womans CHOICE to have minor surgery, regardless of how invasive it is?

Sure -- anyone who enjoys having abortions can go for it! But somehow, I doubt there would be any takers on that..... There`s no law against poking needles in your eyes, either, and yet you don`t see people lining up to do that just for fun.

Bill B, all governments are in the business of telling people what they can or cannot do, and as both of us point out, there is no consistency across borders, or even within countries sometimes, on certain issues. Abortion is one -- you have your point of view, and hope the government adopts it, and I have mine. If you want more government control over my body, you are free to fight for such policies, but don`t expect me join you.
L. | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 9:21 pm | #

Alex,
Those of us who are anti-contraception do not believe "that every single reproductive cell is somehow a sovereign life"--that is only a Monty Python skit that got the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception amusingly but dead wrong. You probably still won't agree with the real reasons the Church is against contraception, but please don't bring in complete nonsense. Life begins at conception--or fertilization--because that is when a new being is formed, with all the genetic material it needs to grow up. Sperm and egg alone are just part of the person's body. Catholic men are not supposed to "spill seed", or masturbate/ejaculate outside the woman's body not because the sperm is sacred, but because sex is for the marriage act, which is a sacred covenant between the partners and is supposed to be "at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage vows". The quoted part at the end of the sentence is attributible to John Kippley, founder with his wife, Sheila, of the Couple to Couple League, a natural family planning organization. I don't know how to do links so if any one is still reading and wants to link anything relevant, please do.
ann | 01.26.07 - 9:30 pm | #

L Said:

"Life is a gift, Leif, not a right."

Don't mean to pick L. but are you suggesting that no one in the US has a right to live? Or that if the gov't deprived you of your life that it wouldn't impinge upon your constitutional rights in some way? I hope that you're kidding.
Bill B. | 01.26.07 - 9:58 pm | #

ann, the phrasing you attribute to John Kippley is quite nice. Some of the ornate ritualism of the catholics is pure poetry, it's so pretty!

In my non-catholic way I also enjoy reaffirming my bond with my husband sexually. I hope to do that during much more of my life than just when I'm pregnant by him. This will require me to use modern medicine to control my fertility, and perhaps resort to abortion should my first lines of defense fail.
We are both entirely comfortable with this, and it also falls entirely within the confines of the law, as America separates church and state quite appropriately.

Do I recall correctly that catholics reject in vitro fertilization as vehemently as they do abortion?
Anonymous | 01.26.07 - 10:21 pm | #

CatholicMom - this is also something that all women should be encouraged to figure out for themselves, it is a useful and important discussion.
For me personally, the individuation of a new human not a discrete digital event.

And if someone figured out for herself, and concluded that by her standards, you have not achieved the requisite traits to be a new human, you would agree that she had the right to kill you?
Mary | 01.26.07 - 10:28 pm | #

Beyond the specifics of whether abortion can ever be a moral choice, for me there is a larger moral question: is it moral to control other women's reproduction?

Women throughout history have tossed their newborns out on the street. Do you think laws against infanticide moral, because they control other women's reproduction?
Mary | 01.26.07 - 10:29 pm | #

As in, has it developed a brain, does it have consciousness, and does it have the capability of feeling pain? Most relevant scientific evidence shows that, at least before the third trimester, it does not.

You are knocked unconscious. You therefore lack consciousness, and the capability of feeling pain.

Can we kill you?
Mary | 01.26.07 - 10:32 pm | #

Bill, I don`t believe anyone, anywhere, has an absolute "right" to life, including myself. Rights vary according to place, time and circumstance. I might argue, in certain situations, in favor of protecting myself and preserving my life, just as I imagine I would try to talk pregnant women in certain situations out of having abortions. My point of view varies according to the circumstances, and I expect that many other people`s point of view toward me does, too.

You are knocked unconscious. You therefore lack consciousness, and the capability of feeling pain.

Can we kill you?

Of course you can. You might choose not to, for your own reasons -- and if you do kill me, you might face legal consequences afterward, depending on the circmstances, but I certainly have no "right" to stop you.
L. | Homepage | 01.26.07 - 11:25 pm | #

I certainly don't advocate locking up expectant mothers until their babies reach full term and I suspect that no one else here would either.

This is historically an issue on which many of the more ardent Dawn Patrol commenters remain coy.
Vidiot | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 12:44 am | #

This is historically an issue on which many of the more ardent Dawn Patrol commenters remain coy.

Evidence, please. The refusal to respond to people whose questions are dripping with condescension is not acceptable proof.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 1:07 am | #

Oh, please. I seem to recall several instances in which you've ignored my requests for evidence to support your claims. (I'm not gonna start digging through your archives for them now -- I have to be at the airport far too early in the AM for that.)

But I distinctly recall the issue of jailing expectant mothers in order to prevent them from having an abortion coming up here on multiple occasions, and that exact question being asked, and no straight answer ever received.
Vidiot | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 1:13 am | #

Oh, please. I seem to recall several instances in which you've ignored my requests for evidence to support your claims.

My point exactly, Vidiot. I perceive your tone as condescending.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 1:14 am | #

Always? I'm always condescending? I doubt that. (I do make an effort to be civil, even in the face of incivility from others. But sometimes I confess that it fails me.)

I also don't see how I could be condescending by pointing out that many commenters here have not provided their opinion of the issue in question.
Vidiot | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 1:17 am | #

No, Vidiot, you're not always condescending, and I apologize if my comment gave that impression. I do think that when you ask whether I or others favor locking women up and forcing them to give birth, you strongly imply that you assume the answer is yes -- which is condescending. Moreover, I believe that you comment often enough on this blog that you should know better than to make such an assumption of me.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 1:27 am | #

Well, I'm sorry that you assume an implication that isn't there. (Of course, I can't speak for the many other commenters who have asked the question.) I do happen to think it's a legitimate question to ask someone who advocates outlawing abortion; if someone proposes that certain behavior be criminalized, it's not out of line to ask them what sorts of penalties they advocate enacting.

Moreover, again if someone believes abortion should be outlawed, it's also a legitimate question to ask them to what lengths the state should go in order to prevent unlawful abortions. Jailing women and forcing them to give birth is admittedly the most extreme hypothetical answer to that question.

(I also -- honestly -- don't know your opinion on this question. If you've answered it, I haven't been around when you did.)
Vidiot | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 1:46 am | #

The only relevant issue here is whether a fetus constitutes a 'live baby'

Actually, I think the major issue here is whether or not all human beings automatically equal persons with inherent worth and dignity, or whether personhood is something that should be earned with the development of certain capacities. As someone pointed out before I think, that's definitely a debate worth having. (As a side note, while I reject personhood theory altogether, I find use of the initial development of the cns and the capacity to feel pain to be rather arbitrary starting points for personhood since the fetus would still be incapable of understanding his or her existence or having any concept of self-I don't think that comes until later in infancy or maybe later than that even).

P.S. Can anyone exactly show me where in the Bible it says that life begins at conception? All I've seen is one line about Jesus stirring in Mary's womb. Maybe Jesus did have a soul before being born - why does that apply to anyone else?
Feel free anyone to correct me if I'm wrong on this (I'm pretty new to this stuff ;-)), but I don't think that scripture is used so much to define when life begins as to justify the belief that all human life has inherent worth and dignity (I've seen some pretty good secular defenses of this too, by the way). The idea that human life begins at conception is grounded in science. Biologically speaking, at this point it is a genetically distinct organism with 46 chromosomes (that is, it belongs to our species), and-and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here-as far as I know it fits all seven characteristics of life (albeit on a basic cellular level until the organs start becoming fully functional).
J.B | 01.27.07 - 3:50 am | #

Vidiot,

Your question is absurd. If abortion became illegal, everyone in the country has potential to commit a crime, by your reasoning, everyone should be locked up. By that logic, everyone who commited a misdemeanor should be put away for life.

People are not taking your question seriously because it is a straw man. It is an argument against the misinformed belief that pro-lifers are misogynists. What we don't want is to be party to a culture that kills innocent people.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 3:56 am | #

Pansy Moss, I'm not making an argument -- really! -- with that question. Not every pro-lifer wants to see abortion outlawed, presumably...but for those that do, why is it a strawman to ask a.) what penalties would be part of this proposed law, and b.) what the state should do (if anything) to prevent unlawful abortions?

It's not just my question, either -- as I note, it's been asked several times, by several different commenters, on this blog.

And if we're getting into straw men here, I believe you're arguing against one yourself. I don't believe "everyone should be locked up", nor do I believe that misdemeanants should be "put away for life." I don't believe pro-lifers are misogynists, and I don't think you can point to where I've argued that.
Vidiot | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 6:40 am | #

Vidiot is correct that the rule of thumb here is to provide no answer - or a very dusty one - to the question of penalties should abortions become illegal.

I recall someone - possibly Pansy? - saying it wasn't as though women were routinely locked up when the law didn't allow abortions anyway.

No one can deny there were homes for reluctant unwed mothers. And that some of them were appalling.

The penalty for having babies the wrong side of the blanket was a lifetime prison of shame.

My late father was born in one - truly appalling - shamed women home. His mother, Eileen, never told anyone about the baby. Eileen eventually married and had four more children. Our family - doing some family tree sleuthing - found itself in the ghastly, accidental position of telling a 95-year-old stranger that his late wife - i.e. my father's mother, Eileen - had had a baby before they were married.

He was able - after a horrible time - to accept the truth. Though, obviously, it distressed him to his core that his recently deceased, beloved Eileen had carried the shame to her grave. They had been married for decades, of course. (And, the incredible 95-year-old apart - the wider family ructions have been awful.)

Of course I am grateful to ALL my direct ancestors!

But I've seen commenters here get a little misty-eyed at bygone morals, sometimes forgetting the downside. As it were.

Apologies for getting anecdotal. It's all relatively fresh for us.
jody tresidder | 01.27.07 - 10:04 am | #

In eras past, such as during the post-war 1800s when the New York Times made a successful public case to outlaw abortion in NYC (believe me, it's true), the woman was considered the sad victim by the legal system. The prepetrators were those who had taken advantage of her: the father and the abortionist.

So, even in these United States, we have an example from history of how the law would operate, if abortions were deemed illegal.