« The Gospel of Judas | Main | Youth for Tomorrow »

February 24, 2006

Comments

broken link!

1st story can be found here: http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=438412005

What is not suprising about the 1st story is that the mother can't dream of giving up her baby now.

However, Melinda, were you siting a different version of the story? Every blog I find quotes the Scotsman story, but no where in that story does the mother say that the child has ruined her life. She does say that the child has created a financial burden (why the mother is not getting even a part-time job is beyond me), but to use a statement like "She's suing because she claims her life is ruined by a live child" betrays STR's goal of having "an accurately informed mind". That means getting the facts straight and not embellishing them for our personal benefit.

Is there a source for the statement you made or are you judging someone's emotional state/ intent without any direct information?

This reminds me of the woman who proudly wrote in the New York Times about how she was pregnant with Triplets and had one aborted because she couldn't imagine life with three babies. She seems confused to this day that anyone might be horrified by this.

I wonder what it is like to grow up with a mom like that? What will baby Jayde be told about her life, that her mother was so upset she didn't manage to kill this baby that she went to court over it... what a horrible world.

Robert has a good point and Chris needs to read to the end of the story. "Miss Dow, who says she now wouldn’t dream of giving up her daughter, dreads the emotional anguish that lies ahead.

She said: "I still don’t know if, or what, I am going to tell Jayde when the time comes. Maybe when she is nine or ten, I will sit her down and explain it to her. I just hope that she understands what happened and why I did it.

"Of course, it will be much harder to explain to her that she had a twin."

As for the new Zealand study - what is the point? I don't believe that anybody holds that abortion is a good thing as opposed as the best of bad choices which is, of course, debatable.

If one reads the study one finds out that abortions were likely under reported at numbers that could effect the study.

If abortion was illegal would those who had abortions have less problems? Would jail time help their mental health?

I have yet to see any evidence that criminalizing abortion would, on sum, be worth the costs.

Her actions bely those words, and that's my point. She's suing for not being able to successfully murder her child, no matter what she says about the topic. Those actions will speak very clearly, no matter what she claims to her daughter.

And we don't criminalize things because they are easy to contain or will be stopped, we make them illegal because they are WRONG and damaging to society. Criminalizing murder is expensive and difficult to enforce, not to mention virtually worthless in stopping the crime. Does that translate into it not being worth doing somehow??

Nope, the story makes it clear that she is suing because she needs the money to raise the kid.

Look, we can seek social policies that make abortion safe, legal and rare or we can devise policies that make it dangerous, illegal, and inconvenient; what we cannot do is eliminate it.

If, by following the former formula instead of the latter, we reduced the number of abortions to below what they would be by merely criminalizing it, would that not be preferable?

Is is more important to you to strike an empty moral posture then actually do some good?

Alan, do you have any specific social policies in mind that would make abortion rare?

Not off hand I.D., but abortion rates fluctuate over time and things like education, economics, social attitudes and the like seem to have their effects.

Some of the things are probably indirect and non-intuitive so a broad knowledge and creative minds would be helpful. Some policies may well be obvious to those who know the data and are unconstrained by ideology.

I do know that it requires more background and mental horsepower than yours truly currently posseses. Googling the topic will get thousands of hits.

One other thing: There seems to be a debate on the apparent recent increase in abortions after the drop in the 1990s involving the economy, Clinton and Bush, and the availability of abortion due to funding, etc. Heritage has a contribution as does a chap from Fuller and a lot of other people.

The whole thing seems besides the point as all of the issues seem to involve social policies and not criminalization. As a lefty I have to wonder what happens to children (and the society as a whole) who are born instead of being aborted simply because abortions became harder to get. Wouldn't we be better off on the whole if we gave some thought (and resources) to that?

"As a lefty I have to wonder what happens to children (and the society as a whole) who are born instead of being aborted simply because abortions became harder to get. Wouldn't we be better off on the whole if we gave some thought (and resources) to that?"

Hey, you'll get no argument from me, or anyone else for that matter. I fully agree that we should put resources into helping these children. Crisis pregnancy centers are there to help the mothers prepare for motherhood, and adoption agencies and charities can help the children if the mother cannot. More needs to be done, of course, but there is support to be found.

Alan, it sounds to me like you're arguing that abortion should remain legal because criminalizing it will produce difficult social consequences. I agree that it will. But if the pro-life position on abortion is correct, then no social convenience justifies legal abortion.

I also agree with Robert that Melinda doesn't characterize the mother properly. It sounds like she isn't suing because her life is ruined; rather, she's suing because she wants money. (Not exactly a noble cause, either....)

Alan, I'm curious. You stated, as many people do, that we need to make abortion "safe, legal and rare", and you accuse those who oppose killing the unborn of merely "striking an empty moral posture". My question to you is, why should we make abortion rare? What reason would someone who supports the right to abortion have for making abortion "rare"? This seems to me to be an indefensible position. On the one hand it seems to infer that abortion is wrong at some level, but that it should be safe and legal. Doesn't that seem to be a contradiction. So answer me this: Why make abortion rare?

Exactly, she wants money and is suing. The stated and legal purpose of the lawsuit is because of a failed medical procedure, which was to kill a child. No matter what she says, that's the record and that's what her child is going to see: mom sued because she couldn't successfully have me killed. That's the bottom line.

"Look, we can seek social policies that make abortion safe, legal and rare or we can devise policies that make it dangerous, illegal, and inconvenient; what we cannot do is eliminate it."

So? Like I said earlier, we can't eliminate murder, should we thus not make it illegal? Why can't we both criminalize a ghastly and horrific destruction of helpless and innocent human life WHILE we work to make abortions more rare, why does it have to be one or the other to you?

If it's wrong - and there's no question that abortion is horrifically wrong - then it should be illegal because it is a kind of wrong that ends human life.

"On the one hand it seems to infer that abortion is wrong at some level, but that it should be safe and legal. Doesn't that seem to be a contradiction. So answer me this: Why make abortion rare?"

Let me answer that with an analogy:

Do you think adultery is wrong?
Do you think adultery should be illegal?

It is possible to think something is wrong yet still support its legality.

Alan says: "If one reads the study one finds out that abortions were likely under reported atnumbers that could [e]ffect the study."

Did you actually read the study, all of it or part or it, or someone's review of the study? You either did not read it carefully or were not careful in your post to not misrepresent what the study actually said.

The actual study cited, in a discussion of the research limitations, a previously done study on abortion that found some under-reporting of abortions. The current study's own assessment of its results suggested the possibility of such under-reporting as having a possible effect on the results, but does not in any way indicate an invalidaton of its results. On the contrary, the study stongly recommends that more and more careful research needs to be done.

I have limited experience with such research, but I have had Master's level research methodology courses in the past. Enough to know you have to be very careful about comments and conclusions.

OK Karen, I read what you wrote and what I wrote. I believe any reasonable (including Master's level) analysis will show them to say the same thing. What's the problem?

If you read further, my point in my first post "If abortion was illegal would those who had abortions have less problems? Would jail time help their mental health?", pretty strongly implies that I accept the results.

Also would I speak of abortion in terms of being rare if I considered it to be unproblematic to those who have them? In fact I believe the study, assuming it holds up, could be used in making a case for funding front and back loaded programs that would cut unintended pregnancies and deal with health and child care issues.

What isn't justified (in fact, is contraindicated) by the study is criminalizing abortion.
-----------------------------------------------
"Alan says: 'If one reads the study one finds out that abortions were likely under reported at numbers that could [e]ffect the study.'"

"The current study's own assessment of its results suggested the possibility of such under-reporting as having a possible effect on the results..."

Chris wrote:

"So? Like I said earlier, we can't eliminate murder, should we thus not make it illegal? Why can't we both criminalize a ghastly and horrific destruction of helpless and innocent human life WHILE we work to make abortions more rare, why does it have to be one or the other to you?"

Because when it becomes illegal, it goes underground (studies, like the one Melinda posted, become impossible) as it was a few decades ago - folks who conspire to commit a felony tend to conceal it.. Anyone who can get to California or New York or some other place will get an abortion and those who can't will go underground and be anonymous.

I

Why rare? The study gives some good reasons. I also know several women who have had abortions (half before Roe and half after) and I know they would have been happier had they not had to have them (taking their POV, then and now).

"It is possible to think something is wrong yet still support its legality." Of course it is, we don't have an automatic responsibility to save folks from themselves.
I am not sure if Red Loser would send folks to jail for adultery, I would hope not. Look, not every human problem is solved by passing a law. I would (and in fact have) counseled people not to step out on their partners and I (as a single person) won't get involved with a married (or partnered) person.

But I wouldn't make it illegal. BTW, if we are dealing with a child why make abortion illegal at all? Why not change the murder statutes? If you really believe we are dealing with taking a human life then, by current definition, abortion is a murder for hire and that is a capital crime (death in some states and life in others).

If you believe in capital punishment and won't call for the execution of the mother, doctor and nurses involved in an abortion, you have a far more serious contradiction to deal with then I do.

I still fail to see how you cannot work to make abortion more rare while making it illegal. Simply making something illegal tends to make it more rare, and whether it goes underground or not does not stop anyone from working to make it more rare.

Further, you're making a serious error in logic if you state that people who would not call for the doctor's death for giving an abortion are contradictory or hypocritical. You know as well as everyone else that not every act of taking a human life has the death penalty as an possible punishment, sir.

Your position simply makes no sense, you are arguing that we should leave the deliberate and systematic murder of helpless human beings legal! How on earth can any sane person hold that position?

"I am not sure if Red Loser would send folks to jail for adultery, I would hope not."

I think you missed my point.

Sir? Wow, anyway you are right that not all taking of human life gets one the death penality, however can you give me a definition of murder for hire that rationally excludes mothers who hire another to kill their child? If abortion is murder then it fits the definition for premeditated murder under special circumstances which is a capital crime,

We can go around forever but I happen to believe that the social costs of making abortion illegal outweigh any benefits.

Alan. Seriously, your arguments could be used for ANY major crime, you're not being intellectually honest. Every point you make is valid for murder of any human being, yet it is illegal. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'd assume you would consider it proper for murder to be illegal, correct?

Sorry Chris but you are wrong. In order to work laws must be supported by an overwhelming majority of the people. If there was a poll I feel safe in assuming that support for our various murder laws would be in the 99+% range. Our drug laws are a mess because they are too often honored in the breach. same for laws on prostitution and gambling. The problem for your side is that even among those who support some level of criminalization there are many who, should an inconvenient situation arise, would be on that plane to somewhere abortion was legal.

The comments to this entry are closed.