Wow, is there a hotter topic in society? I believe it would be easier to stand naked in the street than to discuss abortion in public. Nonetheless, it is once again in our political dialogue, and I think needs serious, polite discussion. This post is prompted by today's NYT editorial urging the so-called Stupak democrats to do their duty and vote for a bill whose abortion restrictions they do not favor.
The abortion debate is bounded by two extremes. ON the one hand, there are those who assert on a religious basis that life begins at conception. Since life is sacred, abortion for any purpose is a sin, and should be a crime. On the other are those who wish abortion to be legal at any gestational age and for any reason at all. There are two centers in Kansas which perform abortions up through 36 weeks, in the spirit of this assertion. One boundary argument relies on a religious belief, the other on asserting that women have an exclusive right to determine what happens to their bodies and everything within and dependent upon their bodies.
In considering this from an Ob/Gyn perspective, the single largest effect of legalized abortion has been a dramatic reduction in maternal death. Abortion rates were not significantly changed upon legalization at a national level in 1973. For many years, those who sought an abortion could get one- through a doctor's sympathy and manipulation if wealthy, or through an unlicensed practitioner if not.
Like some on the Supreme Court, it seems to me that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land, and I think it should be. No one should attempt to impose their religious beliefs on another.While we as a society outlaw acts widely accepted as crimes, including murder, there is no near-universal consensus that abortion is murder. Further, prohibition has never led to a reduction in demand, only an illegal route to obtain that which is wanted, and usually at a high cost to society and the individual. Alcohol prohibition is one example, as is our expensive and futile war on drugs.
It is within the purview of society to limit or regulate various behaviors for common good, and this certainly applies to abortion. It is specious to claim that a woman has total control over a pregnancy when society recognizes the obligations to that pregnancy. Abortion at any gestational age can not be condoned; there must be some limitation.
My personal feelings on this issue have evolved over the years, influenced mainly by thinking about fires, of all things. If we are uncertain about whether there is someone alive in a burning building, we do not simply destroy that building. We make every good faith effort to find out if someone is in it, and to save them if possible. I did not start my thinking at the beginning of pregnancy, but at the end. Is killing a newborn murder? Our society certainly thinks so. What about a 36 week pregnancy? I have seen these pregnancies, and they are much like a term pregnancy. Is it murder to kill such a fetus? I believe so. The question then is- at what gestational age does it cease to be murder to kill the fetus? Let us not use sanitized terms like 'abort' or 'remove'. The goal is to kill the fetus, and I believe our feelings can be best understood when the actions are stated plainly.
I can't say for anyone else, but I do not know when it ceases to be murder, when the fetus does not 'have life'. I don't assert anything from a religious point of view, but from a scientific one- I don't know. In such conditions, it seems to me we, meaning society, should tread very carefully and gently on presumptions of lifelessness, just as we do in burning buildings. Without question, the early pregnancy is totally dependent upon the woman's body, and so there is a balance of considerations- when/what is life, and when/what are the woman's rights of autonomy and responsibility? I don't have a problem with the law as construed- abortion is legal prior to viability outside the woman's body. Anyone who doesn't like abortion doesn't have to do one or have one. Those who feel differently have the right and opportunity to obtain one legally.
What about using federal money for abortion? Those who argue against feel their tax dollars are going to subsidize things they do not approve of. Those who argue for feel it is a legal procedure that anyone ought to be able to get under a federalized health care system. I am not eager for federally funded abortion services, but arguing about tax use is a dead end practically and morally. Taxes get used for lots of things that individuals don't like but are valuable to society. Tax payments are a societal act, not an individual account with which we buy our share of services. Under the individual argument, those who pay lots of taxes should be getting a lot more services. And so we all pay for F-22s, aircraft carriers, spy planes, medical care for the poor, etc. The whole point of taxes is to fund services collectively for the good of society, not necessarily the individual.
Any federal health care system will have to make hard choices about what procedures to cover, and when. Abortion is only the hottest of what will be many heated arguments. Most people don't think about it, but those arguments go on right now, for private insurers and medicare and medicaid. Many elective procedures are desirable to the individual but of no interest to society, or to a private collective like an insurance company. These procedures are not paid for. Many come to mind- elective plastic surgeries, labiaplasty in Gyn, coronary procedures in the absence of symptoms, among many others.
Abortion has profound implications for the individual, but only rarely does it have implications for society. If there is to be a federalized health care system, and I do believe there will be one eventually, there will be quite a range of people and procedures that will not be covered. People will have to buy riders from private companies to cover these procedures, just as is done now for expensive home items and home insurance, or for health care in functional state systems like Germany and Singapore. A rider for abortion services would cost perhaps 10-20.00 per year. Some are concerned few or no companies would offer such a rider, out of fear of protests. In actuality such protests have had little impact on abortion services despite virulence reaching as far as killing abortion providers. I doubt there would be a lack of coverage.
I favor exclusion of abortion from federal payment, as has been done for more than 30 years. I favor its legality. It will be very easy to buy riders for coverage in the event of federalized care.
Ted
The abortion debate is bounded by two extremes. ON the one hand, there are those who assert on a religious basis that life begins at conception. Since life is sacred, abortion for any purpose is a sin, and should be a crime. On the other are those who wish abortion to be legal at any gestational age and for any reason at all. There are two centers in Kansas which perform abortions up through 36 weeks, in the spirit of this assertion. One boundary argument relies on a religious belief, the other on asserting that women have an exclusive right to determine what happens to their bodies and everything within and dependent upon their bodies.
In considering this from an Ob/Gyn perspective, the single largest effect of legalized abortion has been a dramatic reduction in maternal death. Abortion rates were not significantly changed upon legalization at a national level in 1973. For many years, those who sought an abortion could get one- through a doctor's sympathy and manipulation if wealthy, or through an unlicensed practitioner if not.
Like some on the Supreme Court, it seems to me that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land, and I think it should be. No one should attempt to impose their religious beliefs on another.While we as a society outlaw acts widely accepted as crimes, including murder, there is no near-universal consensus that abortion is murder. Further, prohibition has never led to a reduction in demand, only an illegal route to obtain that which is wanted, and usually at a high cost to society and the individual. Alcohol prohibition is one example, as is our expensive and futile war on drugs.
It is within the purview of society to limit or regulate various behaviors for common good, and this certainly applies to abortion. It is specious to claim that a woman has total control over a pregnancy when society recognizes the obligations to that pregnancy. Abortion at any gestational age can not be condoned; there must be some limitation.
My personal feelings on this issue have evolved over the years, influenced mainly by thinking about fires, of all things. If we are uncertain about whether there is someone alive in a burning building, we do not simply destroy that building. We make every good faith effort to find out if someone is in it, and to save them if possible. I did not start my thinking at the beginning of pregnancy, but at the end. Is killing a newborn murder? Our society certainly thinks so. What about a 36 week pregnancy? I have seen these pregnancies, and they are much like a term pregnancy. Is it murder to kill such a fetus? I believe so. The question then is- at what gestational age does it cease to be murder to kill the fetus? Let us not use sanitized terms like 'abort' or 'remove'. The goal is to kill the fetus, and I believe our feelings can be best understood when the actions are stated plainly.
I can't say for anyone else, but I do not know when it ceases to be murder, when the fetus does not 'have life'. I don't assert anything from a religious point of view, but from a scientific one- I don't know. In such conditions, it seems to me we, meaning society, should tread very carefully and gently on presumptions of lifelessness, just as we do in burning buildings. Without question, the early pregnancy is totally dependent upon the woman's body, and so there is a balance of considerations- when/what is life, and when/what are the woman's rights of autonomy and responsibility? I don't have a problem with the law as construed- abortion is legal prior to viability outside the woman's body. Anyone who doesn't like abortion doesn't have to do one or have one. Those who feel differently have the right and opportunity to obtain one legally.
What about using federal money for abortion? Those who argue against feel their tax dollars are going to subsidize things they do not approve of. Those who argue for feel it is a legal procedure that anyone ought to be able to get under a federalized health care system. I am not eager for federally funded abortion services, but arguing about tax use is a dead end practically and morally. Taxes get used for lots of things that individuals don't like but are valuable to society. Tax payments are a societal act, not an individual account with which we buy our share of services. Under the individual argument, those who pay lots of taxes should be getting a lot more services. And so we all pay for F-22s, aircraft carriers, spy planes, medical care for the poor, etc. The whole point of taxes is to fund services collectively for the good of society, not necessarily the individual.
Any federal health care system will have to make hard choices about what procedures to cover, and when. Abortion is only the hottest of what will be many heated arguments. Most people don't think about it, but those arguments go on right now, for private insurers and medicare and medicaid. Many elective procedures are desirable to the individual but of no interest to society, or to a private collective like an insurance company. These procedures are not paid for. Many come to mind- elective plastic surgeries, labiaplasty in Gyn, coronary procedures in the absence of symptoms, among many others.
Abortion has profound implications for the individual, but only rarely does it have implications for society. If there is to be a federalized health care system, and I do believe there will be one eventually, there will be quite a range of people and procedures that will not be covered. People will have to buy riders from private companies to cover these procedures, just as is done now for expensive home items and home insurance, or for health care in functional state systems like Germany and Singapore. A rider for abortion services would cost perhaps 10-20.00 per year. Some are concerned few or no companies would offer such a rider, out of fear of protests. In actuality such protests have had little impact on abortion services despite virulence reaching as far as killing abortion providers. I doubt there would be a lack of coverage.
I favor exclusion of abortion from federal payment, as has been done for more than 30 years. I favor its legality. It will be very easy to buy riders for coverage in the event of federalized care.
Ted
At the risk of sounding argumentative (not my intention at all) I disagree that abortion consequences are primarily limited to the individual who obtains one. The manner in which a culture deals with life (and its value) is profoundly important. We should find treating life carelessly to be abhorrent, including the discarding of fetuses as though they were trash. I understand and agree that it is a difficult topic. Some would argue that since none of us can say with certainty exactly when an embryo or fetus acquires the attributes that make him/her a "person," the choice should always be left to the woman, emphasizing her rights above those of the fetus, at (almost) any time, and for any reason. I would make the case that this approach affects a society in two ways: First, it coarsens us by diminishing our respect for life in all the ways it may be presented to us. Second, it diminishes our sense of responsibility and accountability. We take increasingly greater measures to avoid dealing with the consequences of our choices, to the detriment of all. As for those with objections based on religious grounds, the fact that their opposition is rooted in a faith tradition in no way undermines their argument. Anyone who belives that a developing fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life, has the right, and perhaps even a moral obligation, to try to use our system of government to advance their cause. Violence against providers and any who oppose their own point of view is as repugnant as any other lack of respect for life, possibly more so since it is done with an attitude of self-righteousness.
ReplyDelete