STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Kari · Dooney & Bourke

Abortion issue before the court...

blubirde · Chanel

Well, I'm pro-choice, so you all know where my opinion stands on this decision. I think it's very interesting they're choosing to take up this issue so soon into 2 of the justices (including the new "Chief") appointments. I don't know if that's good or bad. I'm sure some think both.

As far as I'm concerned, the ban on late-term abortion is unconstitutional. So far, the majority of the courts that have taken up the issue agree with me. Or I agree with them, whichever way you choose to look at it.

The one thing I take exception to is the term "partial birth abortion." It's propaganda. There's no such thing. It's a misnomer and one created to induce the idea that abortion equates murder.

The Assistant Director at my agency came in an office with me and another employee. She starts talking about abortion and how she's a Republican and her friend is a Democrat and how they agree on abortion (pro-choice). But then she starts in on "partial-birth abortion" and about how it's gruesome, murder, and starts describing the process (completely incorrectly and with no information backing her up at all) and I was stuck in there! Seriously girls, I almost panicked. I didn't know what to do. I wanted to run out of the room and leave the discussion behind me, so I wouldn't offend anyone, although she'd already offended me but I couldn't without being rude. I was soooo close to saying something I knew I'd regret. It was seriously frightening. I DID NOT know what to do. Luckily she wound down rather quickly and I made my escape. If she wouldn't have been my boss I would have said something but as she is, it seemed wrong, although it was very wrong of her to say what she did.

Okay, enough of that story.

I don't know if I'm curious or apprehensive to see what everyone else says!

blink · Coach

I hadn't paid that much attention to this news. I don't know the medical specifics of this case, but am uncomfortable with late term abortions. However, like those three states listed, I too take exception regarding protecting the health of the mother. I wonder if the two new justices feel the same, but since they are conservatives, I happen to think they will likely go for the full ban. I wonder exactly what the medical info is regarding in what cases an abortion would be neccessary in late term to protect the health of the mother, in other words, why wouldn't that be known earlier....besides that maybe a woman hadn't realized she was pregnant immediately.

laken1 · Hermes

blubirde, so do you disagree that the farther along a mother is the more developed the baby is & makes it a more questionable? I guess my issue is, if you get pregnant & don't want to have the baby, why do you wait 16 - 20 weeks to have an abortion?

Don't get me wrong, I am pro-choice but the late term abortion issue does tug at my heart strings/ Although I do believe in a woman's right to chose, I have to say chose already, don't drag it out. 4 months pregnant - that's far.

Sorry to direct this at you, but I wonder why you are so offended by the partial birth abortion term - is it ok if they say late term? I guess my point is - what is the difference? If you look in the pregnant book & see a fetus at that stage, you have to admit that it looks like the baby. And seriously, I'm just curious at this point, trust me, I'm the last person to speak on the pro-life side of this issue. And I want to hear your pov cause I'm always intrigued.....

ETA: oh yeah, the issue at hand...I also find it interesting that they bring it up this soon in their terms. Sounds like they have a plan. It makes me really afraid for our rights....

-- Edited by laken1 at 22:40, 2006-02-21

tri_sarah_tops · Marc Jacobs

laken1 wrote:

blubirde, so do you disagree that the farther along a mother is the more developed the baby is & makes it a more questionable? I guess my issue is, if you get pregnant & don't want to have the baby, why do you wait 16 - 20 weeks to have an abortion? Don't get me wrong, I am pro-choice but the late term abortion issue does tug at my heart strings/ Although I do believe in a woman's right to chose, I have to say chose already, don't drag it out. 4 months pregnant - that's far. Sorry to direct this at you, but I wonder why you are so offended by the partial birth abortion term - is it ok if they say late term? I guess my point is - what is the difference? If you look in the pregnant book & see a fetus at that stage, you have to admit that it looks like the baby. And seriously, I'm just curious at this point, trust me, I'm the last person to speak on the pro-life side of this issue. And I want to hear your pov cause I'm always intrigued..... ETA: oh yeah, the issue at hand...I also find it interesting that they bring it up this soon in their terms. Sounds like they have a plan. It makes me really afraid for our rights....-- Edited by laken1 at 22:40, 2006-02-21

I am also pro-choice but am bothered by late term abortion unless it is necessary for the health of the mother. I'm with laken1, I just don't see why someone would wait that long, unless they absolutely had no idea that they were pregnant. At a certain point, even though the fetus is still in the womb, it's a little person that would be capable of surviving if born preterm. I really don't understand how anyone could choose to have an abortion at this point unless it was absolutely medically necessary, I mean, that's pretty much a baby.

Anyway, about the decision, I think they might surprise us and allow for a provision that takes the mother's health into consideration. Alito really surprised me when he voted to stay that execution on the grounds that the guy felt it was cruel and unusual. I may be too hopeful and optimistic but I'm not so sure they'll rule for a 100% ban.

erin · Chanel

i don't think there should be a ban, but i wish there were a different procedure used rather than dilation and extraction.

i think it's a slippery slope downhill if they take the right to this type of abortion away. is late-term just last trimester, or is second trimester considered late term, as well? (just curious, it doesn't affect my opinion)

also, i want to add that while 16-20 wks seems far along, that's typically when diagnostic testing is done (amnio)...so i imagine a lot of abortions are done at that time because of such.

kinda fishy how this issue came up so shortly into their terms, though.

ILoveChoo · Hermes

I'm sorry- its early and my brain isn't working yet. Are they talking about considering a ban on partial birth or on all abortion? Don't they have to wait for a case to come up (I'm sure they could find one but still...). I'm also surprised that they'd take this up quite so soon... I figured it would come up eventually, but figured it'd be another year or two at least!

and for the record, I am pro-life. I don't really want to get into it. None of us are going to change anyone else's opinion, so its imo its a waste of energy. I just wanted to get it out there so that if anyone else felt the same they wouldn't have to be the first to say it. ETA AGAIN to add that this is excluding an issue with the health of the mother. If the monther is at hight risk, she needs to be saved. What good is bringing a kid into the world if the Mom dies in the process?

-- Edited by ILoveChoo at 09:10, 2006-02-22

-- Edited by ILoveChoo at 09:21, 2006-02-22

Bastet · Kate Spade

I'm pro-choise, but partial birth abortions are a tough issue for me. If the Court upholds a law banning partial birth abortion with no exception for the health of the mother, I will be disgusted. Personally, I don't think women should have partial birth abortions; she should make her decision far earlier than that. However, I think that any law restricting abortions for any reason whatsoever, must contain a clause allowing the procedure if the life or health of the mother is at stake.

Honestly, I'm really worried that a woman's right to choose will cease to exist or be so limited that it will be virtually impossible. I think women's rights are in danger with the current mix of justices on the Supreme Court. And if the current administration gets to nominate even one more justice, I think that women, minorities, and homosexuals will all be quite screwed.

-- Edited by Bastet at 09:10, 2006-02-22

Jahni · Dooney & Bourke

Ohhh Kari, look at you being all political and stuff...fashion icon and political observist...that may be reason #3!!!

Well, you know I'm going to weigh in, just a little bit...and you know I'm going to get blasted, but is it really any different than lunch with Cory?

I think late term abortions or partial birth abortions, should be compleltely banned, even without the health of the mother clause. I know that's extreme, but it's how I feel. I've even had this discussion with my ex-boyfriend when we were discussing marriage and family issues. If I were giving birth and (God forbid) something horrible happened and he needed to choose between me and the baby, I gave strict instructions to save the baby...I know, I know, easier said than done. He, by the way, did not agree, and told me that my wishes would not be granted, and I would just have to deal with it.

My view points are pinned directly to my faith. I believe it is 100% wrong, in any situation.

Please don't hate me.

As to the Supreme Court, I think it's going to be interesting, and I think a lot of conservatives are going to be surprised when the vote doesn't go our way (I guess I'm speaking for all conservatives now..., j/k, I know all conservatives don't agree with my slightly radical opinions). I know that the two new Justices are thought to be conservative, because W appointed, but Regan thought the same thing about O'Connor, who was basically the swing vote on all issues and leaned a little more to the left than Regan and most conservatives had hoped. I (unfortunately) don't think there's going to any major shifting in the law concerning abortion anytime soon, or ever.

Kari · Dooney & Bourke

Jahni, Jahni, Jahni...

You know I disagree with you wholeheartedly...but I have to say you expressed your point of view very well. I can respect any opinion that is well thought out and wellspoken!

My main issue with you is the fact that contrary to how you'd have things play out...not all mothers are married when pregnant. So, if a single mom's life is in danger...I think the mother's life must be saved first (especially since in many cases, the baby can't survive if the mother dies). What if there are other children in the picture? Do we just let mom die and risk the baby not surviving either, then you have motherless children with no home. (and i know you (taxpayer) don't want to foot the bill for them! love you jahni!)

I hope you are right in that W's pics will go the way many "conservative" pics have gone in the past. If history is any indicator...we'll swing those righties our way!!! J/K...kind of.

Hermione · Kate Spade

i haven't read everyone's opinions on here - some of you girls whose opinions i respect alot are pro-choice, and i am not - (disclaimer: i don't judge, fyi)

anyway, while i can understand (though not agree) with some pro-choice viewpoints, i cannot understand partial birth abortion. the baby(fetus, whatever) is literally partially born and then killed/ terminated by the doctor or whoever is performing the abortion. it really is a gruesome process and it seems to me that if someone is that far along already, why not have the baby and give it up for adoption? despite some people's worries about overpopulation, there will always be a market for newborn babies - that sounds bad, but they're in high demand in the adoption world, and probably always will be.

if anyone is wavering on the issue of abortion, they may want to see the movie "the silent scream." yes, i went to an overkill catholic school, and i do hate gross-out tactics- my dad used to have pamphlets that showed aborted baby body parts in piles in the dumpster, and i think that is disgusting and actually pretty offensive - i'm not extreme like that - but this video shows an ultrasound video of an abortion, and it shows you pretty much exactly what's going on - it's hard, after seeing that, to deny that there is indeed life inside of you.

blubirde · Chanel

laken1 wrote:

blubirde, so do you disagree that the farther along a mother is the more developed the baby is & makes it a more questionable? I guess my issue is, if you get pregnant & don't want to have the baby, why do you wait 16 - 20 weeks to have an abortion? Don't get me wrong, I am pro-choice but the late term abortion issue does tug at my heart strings/ Although I do believe in a woman's right to chose, I have to say chose already, don't drag it out. 4 months pregnant - that's far. Sorry to direct this at you, but I wonder why you are so offended by the partial birth abortion term - is it ok if they say late term? I guess my point is - what is the difference? If you look in the pregnant book & see a fetus at that stage, you have to admit that it looks like the baby. And seriously, I'm just curious at this point, trust me, I'm the last person to speak on the pro-life side of this issue. And I want to hear your pov cause I'm always intrigued..... ETA: oh yeah, the issue at hand...I also find it interesting that they bring it up this soon in their terms. Sounds like they have a plan. It makes me really afraid for our rights....-- Edited by laken1 at 22:40, 2006-02-21

Laken1 - I'm totally okay with the term "late term abortion." I just dislike the use of "partial birth abortion," as it was created as a manipulative tool.

As for my personal feelings about abortion, first and foremost I think to each her own. I'm in no position to judge someone else's actions. Walk a mile in my shoes and all that. Also my political opinions on the issue do not mirror my own personal feelings on the subject. An abortion is a very personal choice and I'm not sure what decision I would make if in that situation. Does the Intact D&X procedure (procedure used in 3rd trimester abortions and in miscarriages) gross me out? Yeah, definitely. Would I have one done myself? Most likely not.

But as far as abortion is concerned, I think the issue is that the government shouldn't have a say in what a woman does with her body and my personal opinions on those particular procedures need not come into play.

Does this answer your questions? If not, I can elaborate. Imagine!

Some facts (according to wikipedia):

Dilation and evacuation is the procedure used in 2nd trimester abortions. 11% of abortions are this type.

Intact dilation and extraction is the procedure used in 3rd trimester abortions. 0.2% of abortions are this type. This procedure is also used in miscarriages that occur later in the pregnancy. (This is the type of abortion that is referred to as "partial-birth abortion.")

wicked · Coach

I'm pro-life. I'm having a hard time visualizing the circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion would be necessary. I was hoping the article would give a specific case. Does anyone know of any real life examples?

As to whether or not a baby (sorry, fetus for anyone offended by the term baby) should be aborted if the mothers health is compromised; i'm not sure, but I don't think any human life is more valuable than another. I mean to me it's impossible to chose one life over another.

(And I know a lot of you probably believe "life" starts at birth and not at conception. Just wanted to acknowledge inevitable disagreement on the definition of life since I chose to use that word.)

ILoveChoo · Hermes

wicked wrote:

As to whether or not a baby (sorry, fetus for anyone offended by the term baby) should be aborted if the mothers health is compromised; i'm not sure, but I don't think any human life is more valuable than another. I mean to me it's impossible to chose one life over another.

I agree. The way that I've come to terms with this (the whole pro-life/pro-choice thing is something I've struggled with a LOT) is that I figure if the mother dies before birth there's a good chance the baby won't make it either. And if it's a question of her dying during the birth, you're pretty much forced to make a decision...so I can't see sacraficing the life that has no history to it in favor of the one who has walked the earth and made friends and has other family to deal with. Yeah, not an easy topic to think about either way though.... I also think that this is usually determined before the stage where a "partial bith"/"late term abortion would be necessary, so I'm not sure that I could ever see a justifyable reason for that. I'm sure cases do exist, but i don't think it's the norm...

laken1 · Hermes

wicked wrote:

I'm pro-life. I'm having a hard time visualizing the circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion would be necessary. I was hoping the article would give a specific case. Does anyone know of any real life examples?

I found this article last night after this discussion started & I thought it was a good one.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/

And yes, blubirde, that answered my question. I was just wondering. You make a good point that personal feelings & decisions don't necessarily mirror political views.

esquiress · Marc Jacobs

laken, thank you so much for posting that article, it had me in tears and really educated me. thanks again. here's an article i read back in college for a philosophy class i was taking, it really made an impact on me so i thought i'd share:

Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion," Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs,
1 (1971), p. 47.
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.
How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a
right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what
shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life
is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her
body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be
performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and
find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious
violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers
has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right
blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's
circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract
poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you,
"Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have
permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you.
To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he
will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice
of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine
months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough
luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the
rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are
persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's
right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot
ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,[2] which
suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned
a moment ago.

blubirde · Chanel

laken1 wrote:

wicked wrote: I'm pro-life. I'm having a hard time visualizing the circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion would be necessary. I was hoping the article would give a specific case. Does anyone know of any real life examples? I found this article last night after this discussion started & I thought it was a good one. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/ And yes, blubirde, that answered my question. I was just wondering. You make a good point that personal feelings & decisions don't necessarily mirror political views.

I just read this article. I couldn't stop crying. Thanks for posting it.

Renee · Kenneth Cole

laken1 wrote:

blubirde, so do you disagree that the farther along a mother is the more developed the baby is & makes it a more questionable? I guess my issue is, if you get pregnant & don't want to have the baby, why do you wait 16 - 20 weeks to have an abortion?

I am not blubirde, but I'd like to react to this one. Two scenarios. First, a medical one: you find out that your fetus has severe genetic disorders or developmental deficiencies; the doctors tell you that if you carry to term, the baby will not survive the first month of his life and will die in pain. Isn't abortion more merciful in this case to both mother and baby?

Second scenario: you are happily pregnant. During the fourth month of pregnancy, your husband decides he's had enough, and he cheats/assaults/packs his bag and leaves. Suddenly the much-wanted pregnancy is not so wanted anymore, plus you have no way to support a baby.

I know (virtually and in RL) women who went through both scenarios. A wife of a good friend of mine decided to risk giving birth to scenario one baby. Can you imagine the heartbreak when they finally had to disconnect their baby daughter from life support?

Throughout pregnancy, the baby is wholly dependant on the mother's bloodstream. IMHO, abortion should always be the mother's choice. We must trust women to make ethical decisions based on their judgements and unique circumstances. To deny a woman the right to her body is very, very wrong IMHO.

Ritz · Dooney & Bourke

wow. that article was amazing. thanks for posting it laken.

i'm worried about what will come of all this... but in my naivete (optimism?), I can't imagine the court really turning their backs on 30 years of womens rights and starting to ban abortions.. if they can take away one right, can they take away the rest..

sephorablue · Marc Jacobs

This quote gets to the heart of it for me:

"Intact dilation and extraction is the procedure used in 3rd trimester abortions. 0.2% of abortions are this type. (This is the type of abortion that is referred to as "partial-birth abortion.")"

I've heard it said, and I think it's a valid point, that this is being used primarily as a wedge in the door to banning all abortions. Late-term abortions are extremely, extremely rare, but the issue has been emphasized by anti-abortion activists to help inflame public opinion against abortion in general. The amount of attention the issue is being given, I think, has given rise to many people thinking this is more common than it is.

I personally find it gruesome and horrible--to be honest I personally find any abortion to be gruesome and horrible--but I am pro-choice in the truest sense of the word, which is to say that I think the choice to abort must be available, regardless of my personal feelings about it. And I don't think it's constructive to start chipping away at that right, and creating exceptions to the law (saying some abortions can't be performed) and then creating exceptions to the exceptions (saying that women whose health is in danger can have this proceure).

I also think that a qualification or exception to legal abortion, once established, could set a precedent for other kinds of restrictions. Maybe someone will decide to introduce legislation preventing girls under 15 from getting abortions on the grounds that if you are legally considered too young to have consentual sex with an adult (as per statutory rape) then you are too young to make up your own mind to abort a pregnancy.

Either abortion is legal, or it isn't, and since it is legal, there should be no qualifications attached to it.