RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

McCain, Obama Worlds Apart on Safe Abortion Access

By Emily Douglas, RH Reality Check

October 14, 2008 - 7:00am

Published under: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Emily Douglas's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Emily Douglas's picture

The 2008 candidates for the presidency may agree that Guantanamo Bay should be closed, that their administrations would not condone torture and that our economy is in crisis, but on abortion, John McCain and Barack Obama could hardly be more different.   

Obama supports the right to legal abortion; McCain opposes legal abortion except in cases of rape and incest and threat to a mother's life.  McCain has called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, while Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe in legislative statute.  The Republican Party's platform, meanwhile, calls for a constitutional amendment banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest; McCain's running mate Sarah Palin shares that view, opposing legal abortion in all cases including rape and incest, except for when the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother's life. 

Obama supports the connection of rights to resources - access to abortion care for women regardless of economic status - while McCain opposes public financing of abortion.  Obama supports the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, an amendment passed three years after Roe to outlaw federal funding for abortion care.  Only 19 states provide state funding for abortion; in the other states, low-income women patch together payment for abortion from non-profit abortion funds and their own savings.  Guttmacher Institute studies suggest that the net impact of the denial of public funding for abortion is often a later abortion, rather than an abortion foregone altogether.  Guttmacher researcher Heather Boonstra found that,

Researchers have studied the impact of funding restrictions on women's reproductive decisions and have found that despite the relatively high cost of the procedure, most poor women in need of an abortion manage to obtain one -- a testament to women's determination not to bear a child they feel unprepared to care for. But their doing so often comes at a cost, as many poor women have to postpone their abortion. For those who are affected, the delay is substantial: Poor women take up to three weeks longer than other women to obtain an abortion.

The Republican Party platform supports continued funding for "crisis pregnancy centers," while Obama opposes funding.  So-called "crisis pregnancy centers" offer non-medical biased counseling for women who counseling and/or abortion services - often deceptively, posing as reproductive health care clinics that provide medical care and often, specifically abortion care.  Under the Bush administration, crisis pregnancy centers have received $30 million in federal funding.  As Vicki Saporta wrote on an article for RH Reality Check on CPCs,

In 2006, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a study, which found that 87% of the federally funded CPCs provided inaccurate and misleading information including the false link between abortion and breast cancer, the effects of abortion on future fertility, and the mental health effects of abortion. It is reprehensible that federal taxpayer dollars are being used to support fake clinics that deliberately deceive women with false medical information.

Obama also opposes parental consent laws that can jeopardize teens' health and safety, while McCain has spoken of his support for these "important" laws. 

But Obama also supports a host of pro-prevention measures, including comprehensive sexuality education and contraception access, that decrease rates of unwanted pregnancy, that McCain opposes.


Emily Douglas's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
29 comments
Do YOU oppose parental
Do YOU oppose parental notification and consent? 14-year-old girls can't get advil without parental consent, but in some states, they can get an abortion. Abortion is a procedure that has killed hundreds of young girls through the years, increases your chance of breast cancer six-fold, and (oh yeah) your daughter just got pregnant! I don't care where you stand on abortion, but if you oppose parental notification laws, you are defying common sense in the name of your clearly biased views.
Submitted by Alex R on October 14, 2008 - 9:37am.
You are completely right,
You are completely right, Alex R!
Submitted by Ellen M on October 14, 2008 - 1:15pm.
no, alex is NOT right at all...
must be wonderful to have been raised by parents you could tell anything to, including that you're pregnant. it is very telling of a person's level of privilege when they fail to miss the point of allowing teen females to get abortions without notifying the parents. some of us just maybe grew up in home where a beating was the punishment for not doing the dishes by 6 p.m....can you imagine telling a parent like that you're pregnant? don't bother to answer that, it was rhetorical, your comment said volumes about your luck in having a good home life as a minor.
Submitted by vivienne on October 17, 2008 - 3:48am.
Parental Notification is Punitive at Best
I think most of us hope that our daughters will talk to us when they are in a difficult situation. We like to think that we have created a safe and supportive environment that promotes conversation and informed decision making, as well as the resources that we as parents can offer. And, clinics appreciate the value of young women involving parents in their decision to have an abortion -- they encourage it, in fact. However, let's be real: we cannot legislate whether or not our kids will come to us to talk about their pregnancy. No law will make a scared teen approach her parents -- even a teen who has a fantastic relationship with her folks. Parental notification and consent laws cannot and will not regulate our family relationships and dynamics.
Submitted by Anonymous 581 on October 14, 2008 - 1:53pm.
abortion for teens
Having a baby at 14 is 10 times more likely to kill you than having an abortion. Abortions do not cause breast cancer. (Since when does any simple surgery cause cancer? - it's a stretch of the imagination to think such a thing would ever occur) Most 14-year-olds do tell their parents, the vast majority, but not all are in a position to do so without harming themselves.
Submitted by Christine on October 14, 2008 - 2:41pm.
Alex and Ellen,
Alex and Ellen, let me be clear you say that abortion causes breast cancer well in fact it does not and that has been disproven let's move on. You say that abortion has killed many young girls only under prolife policies has it let's move on. You say or at least attempt to say that parental notification laws are going against logic when in fact they go toward logic. We would all love to think that family life in America is so great that all girls tell their parents everything, WRONG. I grew up in a household where things like that were off the table. I got pregnant as a teen and I didn't have a choice being that my fam was strict catholic. I didn't have a CHOICE. It wasn't a very peachy time in my household either if I had been able to have an abortion my whole life would be different now from everything to my education level to my health. So the next time you think these laws aren't so great or they aren't logical how about you use a little empathy and try to understand what situations may occur in families that show these laws need to be in place. It's one thing to be personally prolife but it is a whole another bag to be trying to control and that's what it is CONTROL over another woman's body. If you would look in research and polls that have been done the majority of the country is opposed to outlawing abortion. Oh and another thing back to how the whole prolife policies kill women well they do cause let's face it abortion isn't going to go away all you people are going to do is push to where women DIE. How prolife is that really? Senator Obama is getting my vote because he accepts that the only true prolife thing to do is prevention, education and having safe legal access to abortion rather than just taking all women's options away like McCain and Palin ticket wish to do. I'm out and sick of this defending to people. The fact is the only rational thing is to be prochoice. Peace, Liz.
Submitted by Liz Barnes on October 14, 2008 - 2:45pm.
Abortion
I think ANY woman is entitled to have an abortion no matter the circumstances, whatever those stupid catholics say that is evil or how it is cruel and injust. We have to think that America is a FREE country, we have the right what we want to do. Besides, for all of you who think its wrong look at it this way. If a woman gets an abortion at2 months pregnant, the fetus will have no fucking clue what's going on.
Submitted by Ariana MIranda on October 14, 2008 - 7:16pm.
We ALL have rights, not just pregnant women
Nice language. Yes, we are a free country, but we don't have the freedom to do whatever we want. As the saying goes, the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. We are not free to do things that infringe on others' rights. Those who are pro life are not trying to deny a woman's rights, they are simply trying to defend the rights of the defenseless baby in her womb. How many of those babies have been given the CHOICE of living or being killed? And what does it matter if the baby in her womb knows what's going on? If you get into a car accident and end up in a coma, can we just kill you since you won't know what's happening to you?
Submitted by Erinl on October 15, 2008 - 6:56pm.
pregnant woman are people too.

As the saying goes, the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins

*or where the other woman's nose begins... or where the other pregnant woman's nose begins, eh? It kind of sounds like you wish for pregnant woman to have less rights than any other person.

We are not free to do things that infringe on others' rights

I agree... infringing upon another persons rights (even a pregnant woman) would be wrong.

PS. comparing a person who was injured in an accident to such a point that they would be in a coma to an embryo/zygote and fetus is insulting, at best.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 15, 2008 - 7:06pm.
but that doesn't give them the right to kill.
No, I wish for pregnant women to have just as many rights as anyone else. But those rights don't include killing another human being. As for my comparison, I'm simply saying it's ridiculous to say it's ok to kill the baby just because the baby doesn't know what's happening to him or her. Someone in a coma wouldn't know what's happening to them. That doesn't make it ok to kill them. I honestly can't figure out what you find insulting about it. A zygote/embryo is a human being. You were once a zygote. Where is the insult?
Submitted by Erinl on October 15, 2008 - 8:26pm.
And the result of what
And the result of what you're proposing would be that pregnant women would have fewer rights than other people - you're talking about forcing people to be walking, talking incubators. And do you really, honestly believe that a zygote is comparable to a fully developed and born person? Seriously? Sorry, but...NO.
Submitted by E.S. on October 16, 2008 - 1:12am.
malarkey

No, I wish for pregnant women to have just as many rights as anyone else

Great, so you agree that women should have the right to make their own medical and reproductive decisions, like everyone else?  You agree that women have the right to privacy, to bodily autonomy, to due process and every other right that anyone born or naturalized in the US has?  If that is true, than we're on the same page.

But those rights don't include killing another human being.

Abortion is the termination of ones pregnancy... It is irrelevant what you think a pregnancy should mean.

As for my comparison, I'm simply saying it's ridiculous to say it's ok to kill the baby just because the baby doesn't know what's happening to him or her.

Nobody thinks it's okay to kill babies.  Terminating a pregnancy is okay and it's sometimes the best decision a woman can make.

 

You can't figure out why I would find it insulting to compare my life and the lives of my friends and family to a mindless cell formed by the union of two gametes... frankly, I can honestly say that this doesn't shock me in the least.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 16, 2008 - 1:12pm.
Abortion is the termination
Abortion is the termination of ones pregnancy... It is irrelevant what you think a pregnancy should mean. ***** How do you terminate a pregnancy? By the human being inside you that makes you pregnant. No matter how much better it sounds, 'terminating a pregnancy' is still terminating a life.
Submitted by Therese on October 16, 2008 - 1:59pm.
one thing, Therese

How do you terminate a pregnancy? By the human being inside you that makes you pregnant. No matter how much better it sounds, 'terminating a pregnancy' is still terminating a life.

Do me a small favor, please.  Define "life".
Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 16, 2008 - 2:18pm.
1 a: the quality that
1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction 2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b: one or more aspects of the process of living This is from an online dictionary.
Submitted by Therese on October 16, 2008 - 2:46pm.
why not speak for yourself?

 This is from an online dictionary.

And I think it's fabulous that you can use an on-line dictionary although you are missing several other significant definitions of life in your response (such as the period from birth to death, or a vital and/or living being - specifically a person, or a spiritual existence transcending physical death.)  I am curious as to why you couldn't answer for yourself what you meant by life but whatever.  Something else I found strange was how one could discount the life of the pregnant woman (using any definition of "life"?)  How does her life and her personal belief system become insignificant upon becoming pregnant?  Why are your thoughts and opinions regarding her pregnancy more relevant than her own?  What about what she believes "life" to mean?  What if she believes life to be the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual?  Or the period of time from birth to death? What if she believes that a person is not present until birth or viability or whatever point in gestation she regards the fetus capable of these physical and mental experiences? Why shouldn't her personal beliefs be significant?  We are talking about her pregnancy, right?  I've yet to hear a compelling answer to those questions.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 16, 2008 - 5:22pm.
And I think it's fabulous
And I think it's fabulous that you can use an on-line dictionary ***** It's rather easy. ***** although you are missing several other significant definitions of life in your response (such as the period from birth to , or a vital and/or living being - specifically a person, or a spiritual existence transcending physical .) ***** I wanted to shorten it, it was a bit long. ***** I am curious as to why you couldn't answer for yourself what you meant by life but whatever. ***** I find it hard to articulate my views very clearly... it's pretty frustrating to me. ***** Something else I found strange was how one could discount the life of the pregnant woman (using any definition of "life"?) How does her life and her personal belief system become insignificant upon becoming pregnant? ***** Maybe some people think a pregnant mother's life and personal beliefs are significant when she becomes pregnant... I would think it horrendous if anyone thought like that. Abortion is an act of against women, an awful act of . ***** Why are your thoughts and opinions regarding her pregnancy more relevant than her own? ***** My thoughts and opinions are not more relevant than her own when it comes to her pregnancy. However, that an unborn baby is a human being, isn't a subjective thing that people can just have an opinion on, it is a biological fact. It's human rights (that it should naturally have as it is a human being) must be protected, as should the mother's. ***** What about what she believes "life" to mean? What if she believes life to be the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual? Or the period of time from birth to ? What if she believes that a person is not present until birth or viability or whatever point in gestation she regards the fetus capable of these physical and mental experiences? ***** Life is what it is, and can't be changed depending on people's opinions of it. ***** I'm looking forward to your answers, and to a polite, civil discussion.
Submitted by Therese on October 16, 2008 - 7:35pm.
not so easy, it would seem.

I wanted to shorten it, it was a bit long.

Oh... I agree, the definition of life is rather lengthy.  I suppose that was kind of my point.  Now, regarding the definitions that you decided to leave out in order to shorten your post, it is peculiar that the definitions omitted (such as "the period from birth to death" and "a vital and/or living being - specifically: a person" and "a spiritual existence transcending physical death") would appear to support a point of view that many pro-choice people have regarding the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus.  I would absolutely agree with you that articulating what life or personhood means gets a bit tricky to say the least... and it can also become increasingly frustrating when speaking with someone who holds a different view.  Things are not always black or white... people are not always right or wrong.

Maybe some people think a pregnant mother's life and personal beliefs are significant when she becomes pregnant... I would think it horrendous if anyone thought like that

Oh.  I find it horrendous that anyone could believe that a mothers life and/or personal beliefs would be insignificant.  I think that one would be hard-pressed to find a pregnant woman who doesn't believe that she is relevant within the realm of her own life.

 My thoughts and opinions are not more relevant than her own when it comes to her pregnancy

My thoughts exactly.

Life is what it is, and can't be changed depending on people's opinions of it

Clearly that isn't true or you wouldn't have had such a difficult and frustrating (your word) time defining and/or articulating it.  You made the statement that the definition was so lengthy that you felt the need to shorten it in your retort.
Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 17, 2008 - 1:35pm.
Oh... I agree, the
Oh... I agree, the definition of life is rather lengthy. I suppose that was kind of my point. Now, regarding the definitions that you decided to leave out in order to shorten your post, it is peculiar that the definitions omitted (such as "the period from birth to " and "a vital and/or living being - specifically: a person" and "a spiritual existence transcending physical ") would appear to support a point of view that many pro-choice people have regarding the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus. I would absolutely agree with you that articulating what life or personhood means gets a bit tricky to say the least... and it can also become increasingly frustrating when speaking with someone who holds a different view. Things are not always black or white... people are not always right or wrong. ***** I'm glad you understand it can be frustrating when speaking with someone who holds a different view. At least for me, it is. "a spiritual existence transcending physical " isn't biological, it's philosophical. It can't be proved with biology. It's been proved by Biology that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a unique human being, different from the mother. Therefore, it should be given human rights, just like any other human should have. "the period from birth to ' is usually how people define life, in looser terms. Whenever I say, 'my life' I always mean the period from when I was born to the present moment. But I'm still the same person who was a zygote/embryo/fetus. All that has changed is that I have grown and developed. ***** Oh. I find it horrendous that anyone could believe that a mothers life and/or personal beliefs would be insignificant. I think that one would be hard-pressed to find a pregnant woman who doesn't believe that she is relevant within the realm of her own life. ***** I do, too. ***** Clearly that isn't true or you wouldn't have had such a difficult and frustrating (your word) time defining and/or articulating it. You made the statement that the definition was so lengthy that you felt the need to shorten it in your retort. ***** No, I said that I have a frustrating time trying to articulate what I'm thinking, in general. Not just when defining life. Since at the moment of conception, a unique life comes into being that possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents,has 23 chromosomes and approximately 50,000 genes from each parent, which will combine to determine all of one's physical characteristics, biologically speaking, this must be a human life.
Submitted by Therese on October 17, 2008 - 2:32pm.
more than biology

a spiritual existence transcending physical ; isn't biological, it's philosophical. It can't be proved with biology.

You're absolutely correct... that doesn't make it any less of a definition of life though, does it?

It's been proved by Biology that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a unique human being, different from the mother. Therefore, it should be given human rights, just like any other human should have. 

First I would like to say that simply because something can be considered uniquely human certainly doesn't afford it the rights that you and I and every other person have.  Secondly, to claim that life is simply a matter of biology and to discount all of the things which define our lives would be reductionism.  I don't believe (and science would support me here) that one could define life as merely a biological matter.  

the period from birth to ' is usually how people define life, in looser terms. Whenever I say, 'my life' I always mean the period from when I was born to the present moment. But I'm still the same person who was a zygote/embryo/fetus. All that has changed is that I have grown and developed.

Now see, that's your interpretation of what people mean when they define life.  I know plenty of people who believe their lives began the day they were born in a much more literal sense than you do and others who believe their lives began long before they were birthed.  Simply because they disagree with you does not make them wrong.

Since at the moment of conception a unique life comes into being that possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents,has 23 chromosomes and approximately 50,000 genes from each parent, which will combine to determine all of one's physical characteristics, biologically speaking, this must be a human life.

That certainly is one definition of life.... but that is most definitely not the definition of life, eh?

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 17, 2008 - 4:42pm.
You're absolutely
You're absolutely correct... that doesn't make it any less of a definition of life though, does it? **** No, it doesn't. **** First I would like to say that simply because something can be considered uniquely human certainly doesn't afford it the rights that you and I and every other person have. Secondly, to claim that life is simply a matter of biology and to discount all of the things which define our lives would be reductionism. I don't believe (and science would support me here) that one could define life as merely a biological matter. **** when someone is a human being they should be given human rights... there should be no exceptions, as we're all human beings, just different. In your second point, are you referring to personhood? **** Now see, that's your interpretation of what people mean when they define life. I know plenty of people who believe their lives began the day they were born in a much more literal sense than you do and others who believe their lives began long before they were birthed. Simply because they disagree with you does not make them wrong. **** As I said before, human life can't be left up to interpretation. It isn't subjective. **** That certainly is one definition of life.... but that is most definitely not the definition of life, eh? **** I was saying that at the moment of conception there is obviously a unique human person there. I wasn't exactly trying to define life when I wrote that...
Submitted by Therese on October 17, 2008 - 9:39pm.
we'll have to agree to disagree, eh?

when someone is a human being they should be given human rights... there should be no exceptions, as we're all human beings, just different.
In your second point, are you referring to personhood?

That isn't true.  A fertilized egg being human in no way suddenly bestows the rights that you and I have.  Logistically speaking, that would be a nightmare - citizenship rights and all that.  A fertilized egg is not the same thing as a man, woman or child who have rights.  A pregnant woman has rights - affording rights to fertilized eggs would result in a diminution of the rights of pregnant women and is unconstitutional (not to mention, as I've said... a logistical nightmare.) 

My second point being "Secondly, to claim that life is simply a matter of biology and to discount all of the things which define our lives would be reductionism. I don't believe (and science would support me here) that one could define life as merely a biological matter." I was not speaking of personhood, I was speaking of "life" by it's very definition.

As I said before, human life can't be left up to interpretation. It isn't subjective

It most certainly is... you didn't list just one definition of "life" in your response, you listed several (and also omitted several other definitions of life).  It most certainly can and IS open to interpretation, otherwise this debate would be moot.  I happen to disagree with human life being merely a biological matter - that doesn't make my definition of life any less relevant (or correct) than your definition of life.

I was saying that at the moment of conception there is obviously a unique human person there. I wasn't exactly trying to define life when I wrote that...

And I was saying that I disagree... particularly when you throw in the word "person".  That's another word which is subject to interpretation. I do not believe that a person is present upon conception (and there is no consensus among scientists, theologians, scholars and philosophers what "personhood" is exactly.)
Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 22, 2008 - 12:07pm.
I think that requirements
I think that requirements for paretnal notification impede on a womans reproductive rights. CArrying,or not carrying, a baby is something personal. Just because a girl is young dos not make pregnancy any less hard to deal with then it would for a 20 year old. A 14 year old is less likely to have emotional support and she should be able to make decisions privately. Theres a preganancy crisis center I went to when I got pregnant, because they had free pregnancy tests and I wanted confirmation and a referral to an OBGYN(no insurance at teh time). Carenet, theyre nationwide. They tried converting us to their religion, lied about affects of eating 'wrong' foods during pregnancy, and at 8 MONTHS PREGNANT tried to convince me to give my son up for adoption to a 'Good Christian family' because my partner and I are not legally married wasnt good enough, even if we have lived together for a long time. They acted like they were a medical facility at first. They are also the teachers for the 'sex ed' program at teh high school i went to, and they uses the tape example, where they basically say if u have sex you are as useless as used tape. Its ridiculous.
Submitted by kasey on October 15, 2008 - 10:47am.
Sen. Obama on Abortion
Here is what Sen. Obama told an audience at a Planned Parenthood event during the Q&A session - The FIRST thing I will do if I become President is pass the Freedom of Choice Act (forget about the economy, unless he is just speaking for the moment, which he often does, but I am not willing to bet on this one) - For those of you who have not read the Freedom of Choice Act ("Act"), it defines viability as "that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman." So broad and vague that this statement can surely be left to interpretation which can basically allow abortions at any time (and, please note, not necessarily a decision by an ob/gyn, just "attending physician"). Now, the medical dictionary definition - "able to maintain an independent existence; able to live after birth". For the most part, 24 weeks gestation. So why would this definition not be used for this Act? And further, this broad and vague definition will ensure the continuation of the dehumanization of these infants, despite the advances of medicine and science. The following section of this Act is more specific as it relates to Sen. Obama's statement at another time regarding states being able to deal effectively on the abortion issue - "Sec. 6. Retroactive Effect. This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented BEFORE, ON or AFTER the DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT." [Emphasis added.] So Sen. Obama will force his belief on abortion on every one of us. As for parental notification ... Well, let's see, in addition to not allowing my daughter to bring even an aspirin to school without it being short of a federal crime (yes, maybe a bit of an exaggeration), if my daughter finds a gun in my house and shoots someone, I can be charged with murder. But my daughter can go ahead and have an abortion WITHOUT me being notified (which could result in complications which ultimately may result in even death - but, then again, health clinics are not under the same reporting requirements as hospitals (at least in Florida) so I would question what kind of tracking is available on such cases). How do you think I would be able to handle such a thing when I didn't even know she was pregnant or going for an abortion? What gives government the right to take away my parental rights, duty and obligations (and only in matters of their choosing)?!? For those of you who are 14 and dealing with this matter, learn to trust your parents --- that's why God gave you them. And if you really believe they or one of them will not be very sympathetic or understanding (or worse, they would harm you), there are people out there you can go to. Don't make a rash decision, especially one which you may regret for the rest of your life.
Submitted by Life is Precious on October 15, 2008 - 10:54pm.
"Trust Your Parents"?
So how is a young woman carrying a pregnancy engendered by her own father supposed to "trust [her] parents"? What about when she knows her parents will beat her to within an inch of her life, lock her in a closet, or starve her if they know she has become pregnant? Kids that CAN tell their parents, DO tell their parents. Notification laws only endanger at-risk girls.
Submitted by Catseye on October 16, 2008 - 5:38pm.
Definition of Life
Therese, I appreciate that you added a few definitions of what life is, but I find them a bit problematic. 1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a body - I don't know that fetuses would have this - it is a bit too theoretical to define what a "life" with a "soul" approach, which could get people into a lot of trouble. Depending on when the "life" inhabits a body, it may be unethical not to impregnate someone (legitimizing rape) or unethical not to become pregnant (requiring girls to have sex prior to their first period), if "life" could be defined as beginning in an egg or sperm cell. This could also legitimize killing people who are in comas, which is probably not your intent in using this definition. b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings - I don't really see how this would distinguish humans from animals - which is important in an abortion debate for everyone who is not a vegetarian. And this doesn't seem to be something that could be killed - it seems abstract enough to live on without a body or to move onto another body to inhabit. c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction - This could argue that impotent men could be killed off, and that prepubescent children are not living either (and thus, okay to kill?). I don't think this is a definition you want to utilize, as most people would agree that killing anything that has passed through the vaginal canal is unethical. 2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual - what mental and physical experiences are are incredibly vague. If they need to be conscious, infants may not be included. If they need to be remembered, people with Alzheimer's may not be included. Physical experiences aren't limited to humans, nor are mental experiences. What this definition actually means needs to be more further explored to apply it to real-life issues. b: one or more aspects of the process of living - This could be applied to animals. It could also be applied to plants. This is probably not a definition pro-life people want to use as a definition for life, as being able to only eat rocks is not compatible with life. I have tried to define life myself before, so while I don't think any of these are the right answer, I appreciate that you took a stab at it, as it seems that that is a lot of what these arguments boil down to. I challenge you to keep trying.
Submitted by Jessica on October 16, 2008 - 4:38pm.
Freedom of Choice Act, Parental Notification
Keeping the end date for the Freedom of Choice Act ensures that if technology changes that would enable fetuses to live outside of the womb after 24 weeks, that the end date could be shortened, which could be good for the pro-life movement. It also doesn't put an end date on abortions that are done for non-viable fetuses or to save the mother's life. Obama also doesn't seem to use a much different concept than the medical definition, except that he seems to recognize the variability in fetus viability at the same week in a pregnancy. I would also rather have the medical field, rather than politicians, helping me make decisions regarding my reproductive health, which he seems to respect by not picking a specific end date for choosing abortion. I think that Section 6 seems to say that if you had previously had an abortion before 24 weeks gestation but after previous standards, you wouldn't be found criminally guilty of anything. I think what other people have said before respond well to your concerns about parental notification not being mandated. While you may be a parent that your children are comfortable talking to about these issues, or you may have had parents that you could have talked to about a pregnancy, in this world, it is unrealistic to assume that everyone has such great families. Some girls may be endangered if they tell their parents they are pregnant, and for girls that can't drive having their parents take them to court for a judicial bypass isn't really an option either. Getting rid of parental notification laws shows that a girl's body is her own - that it does not belong to her parents or anyone besides herself. Additionally, regarding your comment that abortion can result in the girl's death - this is a possibility, but it is much more likely for the girl to die during childbirth. Giving other people the option to control her decision (which would be consent, rather than notification laws) could mean that parents force their pregnant daughters to have abortions for fear of their death. This wouldn't be fair to girls that wanted to continue their pregnancies. As far as your comment "what gives government the right to take away my... rights...?" I would agree. Neither the rights the right to privacy or to control your own body nor the right to parent (as you claimed) are explicitly laid out in the constitution, but that doesn't make them something the government should be able to control. Luckily, by allowing daughters to choose to talk to their parents about pregnancy, your "right to parent" is not completely voided. I like what you said at the end about learning to trust your parents. I would agree that we need stronger families and less taboo around the topics of sex and pregnancy so girls and boys are able to talk to their parents when these issues arise. You also brought up that there can be helpful adults besides parents, which is great for teens to keep in mind. And I like that you encourage teens to think through the decision - whether and when to carry out a pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly - it can change your life.
Submitted by Jessica on October 16, 2008 - 5:03pm.
I would suppose that if you
I would suppose that if you were beat so harshly for something, that must have been a while back. My dad was beat by his father quite a bit and was shown no mercy.. But if our parents did something like that us now, they could be thrown in jail because there are laws that protect children from abusive parents. If a parent even dared to hurt their daughter for being pregnant in this day, all they'd have to do is call the authorities. I also believe that the concept of adoption has been forgotten here. Just because you're pregnant doesn't mean you have to keep the baby. I know for a fact that there are MANY willing people out there who would be more than glad to adopt a new born baby. I understand that the birth could have an extreme effect on the emotional life if the girl, but would she not one day have a husband to care for her and hopefully help her put the feeling farther away from her? I know it wouldn't leave permanently, but it could still be overcome. I'm sorry if what I've said has been useless, null and void, or problematique. I'm simply stating my thoughts and beliefs.
Submitted by Anonymous2 on November 4, 2008 - 9:08am.
Ayyy, A2...
...who knows "for a fact that there are MANY willing people out there" available to adopt a newborn baby. Just how many people would you like to insult? Starting with our intelligence? You know one million people "willing" to take on responsibility like that? And if you did, what about next year? And the one after that? Suppose you found there are not so many "willing" Americans? Do we say each year, No abortions until we've reached a cut-off point for the "willing?" You have not even gotten me started!
Submitted by Christopher F. Vota on November 13, 2008 - 8:36am.