Abortion

[_Icarus]

I'm sharing this post from a friend:

I want to talk about the issue of abortion. And this is going to take a little time.

I’m not entertaining confrontation or inflammatory argument here, and — fair warning — l will delete any comments that are not respectful of differing beliefs. I’m trying to work through the current political landscape, and I’m asking for constructive input from all sides.

Let me preface my very long post with this: There are a lot of claims going around that various candidates support abortion as late as nearly full-term birth. The idea is horrifying to me. I’m grateful to say I’ve learned that essentially this does not happen in real practice, except when a mother’s life or health are in grave danger. Even so, I’m especially sensitive to the dialogue around it, being part of a couple with infertility problems and as a dad who has lost desperately-wanted children during pregnancy.

I don’t wish to debate legal or ethical justification for or against abortion here. I’m just stating my feelings, and I want to know how others have come to their own decisions.

The phrase “late-term abortion” in professional use means within the second trimester, not third. So when people claim that a given candidate supports abortion up to live birth, referring to the fact that the official platform includes support for late-term abortions, that is a deliberate, incendiary deception.

I am against most abortion in general, for many reasons, and the closer the child is to full term or viability, the more appalling to me is the thought of its intentional death. However, I don’t think the issue is as simple or as obvious as many profess.

Contrary to many assumptions, looking at real data for US abortions does not seem to help much at all in selecting presidential candidates or political parties.

According to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC.org), the oldest and largest national anti-abortion organization in the US, abortion rates have experienced significant drops and sustained declines over the past 30 years. Total annual abortions fell a staggering 46.4% from 1990 to 2017. For more than half of that time, a Democrat occupied the White House.

The numbers show little meaningful correlation between the political party in power and the rate of decline. In 2016, at the end of Obama’s tenure, there were 18.3 abortions for every 100 pregnancies ending in live birth or abortion. This was the lowest abortion ratio since abortion was legalized in 1973.

Between 2011 and 2017, 32 states enacted 394 abortion restrictions, most of which actually took effect because courts did not strike them down, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the organization both pro-life and pro-choice researchers rely on for the most accurate statistics (http://www.guttmacher.org). Yet "nearly every state had a lower abortion rate in 2017 than in 2011, regardless of whether it had restricted abortion access," Guttmacher said. "Several states with new restrictions actually had abortion rate increases."

"One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use," Guttmacher said. “Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs.”

There is much discussion about whether insurance providers should be required to fund contraception. Is the prevention of a pregnancy as objectionable as the termination of one? If not, then why is this a debate? What about the support of organizations that provide low- or no-cost contraception and pregnancy-prevention education? Is this objectionable in light of the potential alternatives?

What about the so-called morning-after pill and other pharmaceutical options? The percentage of abortions performed with chemical abortifacients like mifepristone increased from 16.4% in 2008 to 39.4% in 2017. These are generally the preferred approach up to about week 10, and they prevent cell division, stopping further growth. So that raises the question: Is this abortion? Is it any less objectionable than other options?

How far back should we go in considering a potential human-to-be a living soul? If a blob of cells is a human (and I’m not arguing it’s not) then there are many other practices that we must abandon or seriously alter, including in-vitro fertilization and other fertility-related procedures. Hundreds of thousands (potentially more) of viable embryos, the result of external fertilization, never get implanted into a womb. Is this murder? Homicide, perhaps?

Modern fertility treatment couldn’t be nearly as successful as it is (i.e., it couldn’t lead to nearly as many live births) if limited to only producing exactly as many embryos as we can ensure will be implanted for pregnancy. Some of the un-implanted embryos end up being used in stem-cell research and other fields of science that are right now — today — saving and enhancing untold numbers of lives. These fields promise even greater good, far more lives saved, as research continues. So is this pro-life? Even though it destroys embryos?

I’m LDS, and here are some thoughts regarding religious considerations:

Within the LDS Church, I have not found any clear, official, modern doctrine on when a spirit enters the body. Let’s say, theologically, if we were to know the exact moment that a body receives a spirit and becomes a complete soul, and if that moment were precisely the same for every unborn child, would this alter our position on abortion? Is timing a critical factor? If we could know that there had been no union between spirit and body, would elective abortion then be acceptable? Would it be different at that point than contraception? Would that be different than pregnancy-avoiding abstinence? It is my understanding that the LDS Church officially does not currently object to contraception and most certainly not to abstinence.

Current, official LDS policy, as far as I have ever been able to tell, is that stem-cell research is not a violation of what it would call the sanctity of life. When stem-cell science first gained prominence, and the ethical debates began heating, then-President Gordon Hinckley expressly said that we should trust the scientists and not reject the technology outright on a religious basis, though he surely knew that it commonly destroys embryos.

It does no one good, even religious believers, to reflexively take an instant, immovable, absolute stand and completely close the dialogue around abortion, as if we could somehow know God’s judgment so thoroughly that it requires zero careful thought on our end. None of us can claim such knowledge, so I think it’s worth exploring a few considerations that are unique to late-term abortion. Kim recently shared some remarkable insight with me that changed my perspective, as follows:

When the only legal option for abortion is during the very earliest stages of pregnancy, I imagine that many women find themselves having to make a choice based too much on a swiftly closing window of time. There may be a certain level of panic or haste behind many abortion decisions when the comfort of a longer deliberation period is not available.

I have very little experience observing pregnancy, but from the bits I’ve seen, it seems that the beginning can be among the roughest periods for a mother, particularly in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. The social and family changes, by themselves, might feel catastrophic, let alone the physiological and emotional upheavals. I’m sure it takes time to work through all of this. Is it reasonable to hold all women, regardless of circumstances, equally accountable for making life-altering, enormously complex decisions within this short, potentially overwhelming timeframe?

I think for some women, there may be an important psychological element associated with the specific option of late-term abortion. If a woman knew she had a longer period in which to gather her thoughts together, to order her affairs, and to thoroughly consider the decision, I suspect we would see FEWER abortions overall. Surely, not all women would end up at the same point, but I bet a substantial number may choose differently with more time.

Consider the investment of carrying a child past the point where it can no longer be ignored. The bigger and more intrusive it gets, it seems the more likely most women would develop an appreciation for the life within them. How many women do we really expect would allow a pregnancy to progress for many months and THEN reverse course and decide to terminate it? For those women who would do so, I imagine the circumstances would often be quite dire, and the abortion decision extremely seriously considered. Would we really be sacrificing more lives by allowing late-term abortion? I think the opposite is more likely to be true.

Some surveys indicate that the most common reason for delayed abortion is a lack of access to the procedure earlier on. Even if this is the case most of the time, I have heard accounts where the pressure to make a hasty decision has been the source of significant trauma for a woman and has negatively affected the ultimate decision.

So let’s examine the extreme alternative course. If we wish to prohibit all elective abortions, we MUST come up with more varied, more well-structured, better-funded options for moms and children. This probably means things like more extensive adoption support, offering low- or no-cost adoption processing for both moms and adoptive parents. Many potential adoptive homes are turned away by currently prohibitive costs that can easily exceed $50,000 per adoption. This may require that the state itself starts handling adoptions, outside what it already does for DCFS interventions.

This might also mean welfare for moms and kids that is more comprehensive and much more rigorously managed. If we are forcing some women to give live birth unwillingly, then there is zero excuse for not forcing men to step up in those same situations. We may need far stricter, more powerful laws holding biological fathers financially and socially responsible for their children, born and unborn, and we may need more intrusive legal authority to easily and quickly test possible fathers any time paternity is in question.

Which candidates and parties are openly promoting policies like these? The problem is that right now, many of the most adamant pro-life politicians seem to lose interest in children once they’re born. The label “pro-birth” may be more accurate, as the attached article suggests.

Please read that excellent, thoughtful essay by Carolyn Yoder, an unabashed Christian. Here are some of her main points:
1. The pro-life passion of some politicians seems to dissipate once a baby is born and disappears altogether at our borders. Aren’t the lives of growing children at least as important as those of the unborn?
2. The ways our elected officials vote on war, immigration, and foreign aid also have life-and-death consequences.
3. Data shows that pro-life legislators are more likely than their pro-choice counterparts to vote against the very programs that are proven to decrease abortion rates.
4. Pro-life politicians are more likely to support the death penalty and increased defense spending, which includes bombs and drones that kill other people’s babies and children.
5. We should value the lives and safety of women having abortions, just as we value the lives of our veterans who need care, even though we may disagree with war.
6. Being as pro-life as possible means we don’t kill by depriving children of healthcare or school lunches. We don’t kill by allowing assault weapons on our streets or supporting systems that pipeline young people to prison. We don’t kill this beautiful planet God has given us through policies that increase our carbon footprint.
7. If we’re one-issue pro-life voters, politicians will play us, putting us directly in their pockets, regardless of their character and regardless of policies that inadvertently increase abortion rates and kill in other ways.

I have not yet discovered a reliable, first-hand source proving that various Democratic candidates for President are actively promoting a platform of abortion up to live birth, as is claimed by many right-leaning outlets. What I have found is that many of the candidates favor no NEW restrictions, essentially maintaining the legal status quo. Most of the discussion seems to be about whether or not federal funding (e.g., Medicaid) should be allowed to cover the cost of certain procedures under certain circumstances. If the true platform is really abortion up to live birth (as unlikely as this seems) similar to what I explained earlier, I’m not convinced that even this would lead to an increase in abortion.

I’ve heard the claim, but I have not found a first-hand quote of Buttigieg or other Democratic candidates actually telling someone with pro-life views that they have no place in the Democratic party. Whether the words were actually said, I highly doubt that they were uttered in the context that’s implied by the outlets promoting this story. That would be a ridiculously stupid thing for a candidate to say — worse, to maintain as official position — particularly within the party whose big push right now is toward the inclusion of moderate voices. Video I have seen so far indicates that this is a false story.

Knowing that under the legal status quo abortion rates are consistently falling, and that they are likely to continue the current trajectory, independent of party or president, how fixated should we really be on the one platform plank of abortion? There are many, many other issues that should matter to us — I believe — issues that in my mind bear similarly significant spiritual consequence.

Blood on Our Hands: 7 Reasons Why I’m a Christian against Abortion Who Doesn’t Vote Pro-life

[_huckelberry]

Icarus, You have presented a thoughtful statement which I largely agree with. I am Christian who is prochoice and wish to encourage people to choose not to have abortions. I am inclined to think a ban on abortion last trimester could make sense. It could influence people to give more respect to the developing child.

I think your best idea is more support for adoption. I do not understand the details of expenses but you point to numbers which would be prohibitive for many people.

I think the child support question is fairly well covered legally at present. State child support agencies have extensive legal power. They can take money from the father, that does not guarantee the father has money to take. I think schools need to educate young men to financial burden they could face. (there are young men who discover it can be crippling or near so)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think abortion is definitely a tricky position theologically speaking. Pro-Life often just means pro-birth because quite often I see religious types only care about babies being brought to term, but gripe as soon as the collective wants to collect taxes and spend it on pre and post-natal care. Many times on this forum and others you start to get into murky theological waters once you start to think about the sanctity of life and God's role in everything. I also think about how human
population pressures also bring another interesting angle into the abortion discussion in that we're undeniably causing a holocene extinction event (and really multiple extinction events throughout earth's history) and we're witnessing species going extinct or their populations are crashing as a direct result of our habits.

Well. We should just let God sort it out right? Humans shouldn't abort their future-humans, no?

But at what point are we responsible for anything we do? Why don't we just stop controlling our own destinies and let God sort everything out? Why is killing future-humans any more reprehensible than war, or massive habitat destruction so we can build boxes? Why is limiting our population so we can limit the impact we have on the world more onerous than letting the population reach 20 billion and suffer the consequences of that inevitable disaster? Why isn't contraception considered genocidal since you're literally stopping the creation process, usurping God's prerogative?

So many wonky questions that I don't believe simple answers suffice. Imho, it's better to err on the side of thoughtful procreation and population management, otherwise nature and human history has shown us that disaster looms.

- Doc

[_SuperDell]

Catholics do not believe in Abortion.

Mormons do.

Just that simple.

[_Meadowchik]

About 13 years ago I was very pro-life and actively promoted my position online. Through that, I started having conversations with women who disagreed and I started hearing women's stories. I continued researching while holding onto my position. Finally, it really started to impress me that abortions tend to go down when there is less control and policing of it, and when birth control and sex education (beyond abstinence education) are implemented. So eventually I decided that pro-choice was the better path for reducing abortion.

Later, I had an unplanned pregnancy, and it was twins. We already had five children at this point, and this pregnancy terrified us. It really changed the course of our lives and profoundly impacted our family and our ability to care for our other children. The experience increased my empathy for other women and families and forced me to understand more deeply how pregnancy can impact a woman and her other children.

In total, I think its obvious that the abortion debate is more like a political footbal for the right than it is about protecting babies, and it seems antagonistic of women and their safety. It is sad how many hours and years, and how much money and energy has been spent on trying to legislate against abortion when those resources could have helped women, babies, and prevent abortions more effectively.

[_Amore]

It’s amazing what mental gymnastics some will go through to justify ripping a child (developing human) apart, limb by limb and killing him or her. If you had to do it yourself, would you? Would you then be so supportive of KILLING CHILDREN?



Women’s risks with abortion:
“During, and immediately after an abortion, the greatest risk is bleeding, or even hemorrhage. Bleeding may result from:

cervical laceration
uterine perforation
Rare, but serious complications include:

blood clots
embolism
negative anesthesia reactions
The most common complication is infection. Infection may be caused by:

lacerations
perforations
retained tissue
unsterile conditions
an existing infection, such as a venereal disease, that is spread or made worse.
Any of these abortion related infections may contribute to infertility, scarring of the uterus, blockage of the fallopian tubes, or other negative effects on future reproductive health.

Another immediate complication is called an “incomplete abortion.” This means some tissue may be left behind. If it is not removed, it can begin to rot and cause an infection, even a life threatening infection. An incomplete abortion requires a second treatment to remove the dying tissue.

Longer term complications of abortion include elevated risk of:

premature death
cervical incompetence
premature or low birth weight deliveries
infertility or difficulty becoming pregnant
lower general health; greater need for medical services
endometritis
ectopic pregnancy
salpingitis or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)
placenta previa
death from cardiovascular diseases
sleep disorders
substance abuse
suicide and other mental health problems

The risk of death increases with each abortion, 45% after one abortion, 114% after two abortions, and 192 percent after three or more abortions”
https://afterabortion.org/abortion-risk ... -abortion/

[Guest]

Amore, both of your points are very misleading. That first number follows absolute number of abortions in an increasing population. The reality is that the abortion rate has decreased.

"The number of abortions fell by 196,000—a 19% decline from 1,058,000 abortions in 2011 to 862,000 abortions in 2017.1,2
The abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44) fell by 20%, from 16.9 in 2011 to 13.5 in 2017.
The abortion ratio (the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies ending in either abortion or live birth) fell 13%, from 21.2 in 2011 to 18.4 in 2017."https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2019/09/us-abortion-rate-continues-drop-once-again-state-abortion-restrictions-are-not-main

Secondly abortions are less dangerous than childbirth:

"The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.
Raymond EG, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2012.
Show full citation
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.

METHODS: We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.

RESULTS: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

CONCLUSION: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

PMID 22270271 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
Full text
Full text at journal site
Comment in
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Feb;119(2 Pt 1):212-4.
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119(6):1271; author reply 1271-2.
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119(6):1271; author reply 1271-2."

[_Jersey Girl]

Amore look over your list of risks again. Think about what you are seeing. Almost every complication or risk on that list can also be the result of childbirth.

So your point is what?

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm on a device that makes it difficult to c/p so bear with me. In the OP something about being averse to intentionally aborting a late term pregnancy.

Riffing off something Mayor Pete recently said. If a woman is facing late term abortion it is on account of the fact that carrying the pregnancy to full term would pose critical risk to her.

The very fact that she's late term should signal that she intended to carry the pregnancy to term.

I'm pro choice. It's not my place to force my ideas about what constitutes the development of 'life' on the sister next to me whose views regarding 'life' I don't know and whose very life circumstances aren't my own.

Thus the choice. Those who are against terminating a pregnancy simply choose not to. Those who feel compelled to terminate, choose to do so.

This isn't hard to figure out.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's Mayor Pete. Start around 3:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkPUZexWhAk

I couldn't possibly agree with him more than I do.