That was an excellent article, thank you. Here is another: 

Abortion, on Middle Ground

by David Katz M.D.

Director, Yale Prevention Research Center

I confront the polarizing topic of abortion with equal measures of trepidation and resolve to state: I am emphatically pro-choice.

And I am just as emphatically anti-abortion.

The first statement from a public health physician with public policy leanings left of center should come as no great surprise. The second might surprise -- but shouldn't. It is the second side of the same position. No one is 'for' abortion, least of all the women who resort to it.

I know such women. They are among my friends (and perhaps yours), my family (and perhaps yours), and my patients. No one of them is for abortion. Each of them confronted it as a last resort. Some with equanimity. But some made the most anguished decision of their lives. And some have dreamt in troubled agitation ever since of that life that might have been.

Yet few would revisit the decision, even after the clarity of retrospection, and the filter of patient reflection. The regret that derives from a last resort is not resorting to it, but needing to; being left with no better options in the first place.

The moral debate over abortion is, in fact, an insoluble distraction. On the one hand are compelling arguments about autonomy, on the other, compelling arguments about competing autonomies, and the sanctity of life. Both sides of the argument inspire passions, but neither persuades. In the end, the war of words is internecine; everyone loses. An opportunity for unified purpose and unified progress is squandered.

Those, like me, who are pro choice might cite the principle of autonomy -- that I and I alone should rule the destiny of my very own skin. But ethicists point out that my autonomy is bounded: my right to swing a stick ends where your nose begins. How that relates to the unique dyad of pregnancy, and an entity that is not yet viable on its own, is debatable. The issue of viability, and privacy rights, were central to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But abortion, arguably, puts two noses in play. Autonomy is not an ironclad defense of the right to choose.

The sanctity of life is by no means an ironclad argument against it, either, because it is not a principle we fully honor. We live in a society that sanctions capital punishment, meaning some priorities -- punishment among them -- trump life itself. The same societal groups that most adamantly oppose abortion seem most adamantly to defend capital punishment, and lethal means of self defense.

We accept that our police are entitled to shoot and kill those who threaten their lives and limbs, and soldiers are entitled to kill those who might pose a threat to our way of life. An unintended pregnancy could very well constitute a far more certain threat to one's way of life than the basis for certain wars.

We even accept, although of course with deep regret, the collateral damage of war -- the death of innocent bystanders an ostensibly greater good demands.

The notion that the heavy hands of government might disentangle the delicate stands of this Gordian knot seems very far-fetched. We have historical evidence they can not. When abortion was illegal in the United States, it was nonetheless common -- just also unsafe.

According to Planned Parenthood, there are still over a million abortions each year in the United States. That number is much lower than it was during the 1980s and 1990s, but we should be able to agree across ideologies it is too high.

Lowering it will not result from ideology, but rather epidemiology: the public health science of what actually changes outcomes at the population level. Our immediate and common needs are better addressed by data, than diatribe.

Whatever changing abortion laws might do to abortion rates, it would do nothing to change the rates of unintended pregnancies, or the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Posting the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall does nothing at all.

Data show that educational programs that empower girls and convey a sense of responsibility to boys are helpful. Emphasizing abstinence as an option works, too, provided there are contingencies for when it is not the option chosen. Acting as if it always will be is among the most ineffective strategies of all: denial.

Teaching about barrier contraceptive use -- condoms in particular -- and making such contraceptives readily available is highly effective. And, of course, these interventions are just what is needed to reduce the toll of HIV as well.

Current policies in the United States all too often place ideology ahead of epidemiology. Sexual education and contraceptive access are inconsistent; abstinence-only instruction is championed. Family planning services are underfunded, and threatened by additional cuts. Contraception is left uncovered by many insurance policies.

Opposing a desperate remedy while propagating its malady is badly muddled at best, at worst, downright hypocritical. As political positions are debated and policies compete, hypocrisy should not be among the contestants. I dare to hope that whatever our disparate positions, that is a policy on which we all might agree.

Jun 5, 2011 -- 8:43AM, JRT wrote:

That was an excellent article, thank you. Here is another: 

Abortion, on Middle Ground

by David Katz M.D.

Director, Yale Prevention Research Center

 

I confront the polarizing topic of abortion with equal measures of trepidation and resolve to state: I am emphatically pro-choice.

And I am just as emphatically anti-abortion.

The first statement from a public health physician with public policy leanings left of center should come as no great surprise. The second might surprise -- but shouldn't. It is the second side of the same position. No one is 'for' abortion, least of all the women who resort to it.

I know such women. They are among my friends (and perhaps yours), my family (and perhaps yours), and my patients. No one of them is for abortion. Each of them confronted it as a last resort. Some with equanimity. But some made the most anguished decision of their lives. And some have dreamt in troubled agitation ever since of that life that might have been.

Yet few would revisit the decision, even after the clarity of retrospection, and the filter of patient reflection. The regret that derives from a last resort is not resorting to it, but needing to; being left with no better options in the first place.

The moral debate over abortion is, in fact, an insoluble distraction. On the one hand are compelling arguments about autonomy, on the other, compelling arguments about competing autonomies, and the sanctity of life. Both sides of the argument inspire passions, but neither persuades. In the end, the war of words is internecine; everyone loses. An opportunity for unified purpose and unified progress is squandered.

Those, like me, who are pro choice might cite the principle of autonomy -- that I and I alone should rule the destiny of my very own skin. But ethicists point out that my autonomy is bounded: my right to swing a stick ends where your nose begins. How that relates to the unique dyad of pregnancy, and an entity that is not yet viable on its own, is debatable. The issue of viability, and privacy rights, were central to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But abortion, arguably, puts two noses in play. Autonomy is not an ironclad defense of the right to choose.

The sanctity of life is by no means an ironclad argument against it, either, because it is not a principle we fully honor. We live in a society that sanctions capital punishment, meaning some priorities -- punishment among them -- trump life itself. The same societal groups that most adamantly oppose abortion seem most adamantly to defend capital punishment, and lethal means of self defense.

We accept that our police are entitled to shoot and kill those who threaten their lives and limbs, and soldiers are entitled to kill those who might pose a threat to our way of life. An unintended pregnancy could very well constitute a far more certain threat to one's way of life than the basis for certain wars.

We even accept, although of course with deep regret, the collateral damage of war -- the death of innocent bystanders an ostensibly greater good demands.

The notion that the heavy hands of government might disentangle the delicate stands of this Gordian knot seems very far-fetched. We have historical evidence they can not. When abortion was illegal in the United States, it was nonetheless common -- just also unsafe.

According to Planned Parenthood, there are still over a million abortions each year in the United States. That number is much lower than it was during the 1980s and 1990s, but we should be able to agree across ideologies it is too high.

Lowering it will not result from ideology, but rather epidemiology: the public health science of what actually changes outcomes at the population level. Our immediate and common needs are better addressed by data, than diatribe.

Whatever changing abortion laws might do to abortion rates, it would do nothing to change the rates of unintended pregnancies, or the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Posting the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall does nothing at all.

Data show that educational programs that empower girls and convey a sense of responsibility to boys are helpful. Emphasizing abstinence as an option works, too, provided there are contingencies for when it is not the option chosen. Acting as if it always will be is among the most ineffective strategies of all: denial.

Teaching about barrier contraceptive use -- condoms in particular -- and making such contraceptives readily available is highly effective. And, of course, these interventions are just what is needed to reduce the toll of HIV as well.

Current policies in the United States all too often place ideology ahead of epidemiology. Sexual education and contraceptive access are inconsistent; abstinence-only instruction is championed. Family planning services are underfunded, and threatened by additional cuts. Contraception is left uncovered by many insurance policies.

Opposing a desperate remedy while propagating its malady is badly muddled at best, at worst, downright hypocritical. As political positions are debated and policies compete, hypocrisy should not be among the contestants. I dare to hope that whatever our disparate positions, that is a policy on which we all might agree.

 

 

 

From your article:

We accept that our police are entitled to shoot and kill those who threaten their lives and limbs, and soldiers are entitled to kill those who might pose a threat to our way of life. An unintended pregnancy could very well constitute a far more certain threat to one's way of life than the basis for certain wars.

It's truly sad to compare the life of a son or daughter as someone to dispose of because they interfere with the mother's "way of life". 

Elizabeth Cady Stanton: 
"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." 

A culture that kills it's children dooms itself to extinction.

Why don't pro choice advocates exercise their right to choose NOT to get pregnant? Why do they demand the right to be irresponsible rather than recognize their obligation to behave responsibly?

If they are not for abortion, why are they fighting for the right to have one or twelve?

If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped and wants an abortion, should she be allowed to get a legal abortion? Would YOU tell her "No, you can't have an abortion?"

She should be informed of the ramifications and consequences of both sides of the issue including the emotional trauma she will likely suffer as a result of choosing to kill her child. Likewise, she should be informed of ALL her options. Not just those options acceptable to someone with a political agenda. I believe that when a rational person has complete information, that person will make a rational decision. If, after receiving complete information she is incapable of making a rational decision, then I do feel obligated to intervene on behalf of the child

I'm guessing you will say, "Oh, please, that hardly ever happens." You can say that if you want, but I would still like you to answer the question. If you say, "No, she should not be allowed to have an abortion", then that's all I need to know. If you say, "Yes, if she was raped she can have a legal abortion", then I would probably want to ask you why you would not "protec" the "baby" from being "killed" in this case. Isn't a "baby" a "baby" whether it's conceived in love or conceived in rape? Thank you for so eloquently stating my point. If this issue is about "protecting babies from being killed" and not about punishing "irresponsible" women who don't "behave responsibly", why would it be ok to "kill" some "babies" but not others?

Let me introduce a hypothetical scenario of my own; The father of a boy is convicted of raping the childs mother when the boy is two years old. The rape does not result in pregnancy. Do you think the two year old should be killed? If you say 'Yes, the boy should be killed.' then that's all I need to know. If you say 'No, the child should not be killed.' please explain why you think it's okay to kill one of the man's children, but not another (or all) of his children as a response to the woman being raped.

Jun 26, 2011 -- 9:24AM, watcher59 wrote:

If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped and wants an abortion, should she be allowed to get a legal abortion? Would YOU tell her "No, you can't have an abortion?"

She should be informed of the ramifications and consequences of both sides of the issue including the emotional trauma she will likely suffer as a result of choosing to kill her child. Likewise, she should be informed of ALL her options. Not just those options acceptable to someone with a political agenda. I believe that when a rational person has complete information, that person will make a rational decision. If, after receiving complete information she is incapable of making a rational decision, then I do feel obligated to intervene on behalf of the child

I'm guessing you will say, "Oh, please, that hardly ever happens." You can say that if you want, but I would still like you to answer the question. If you say, "No, she should not be allowed to have an abortion", then that's all I need to know. If you say, "Yes, if she was raped she can have a legal abortion", then I would probably want to ask you why you would not "protec" the "baby" from being "killed" in this case. Isn't a "baby" a "baby" whether it's conceived in love or conceived in rape? Thank you for so eloquently stating my point. If this issue is about "protecting babies from being killed" and not about punishing "irresponsible" women who don't "behave responsibly", why would it be ok to "kill" some "babies" but not others?

Let me introduce a hypothetical scenario of my own; The father of a boy is convicted of raping the childs mother when the boy is two years old. The rape does not result in pregnancy. Do you think the two year old should be killed? If you say 'Yes, the boy should be killed.' then that's all I need to know. If you say 'No, the child should not be killed.' please explain why you think it's okay to kill one of the man's children, but not another (or all) of his children as a response to the woman being raped.

Thank you for being honest (and consistent in your anti-abortion views) in saying that a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape should not be allowed to have an abortion. According to polls going back decades, the vast majority of people who label themselves "Pro-Life" and who consider abortion to be "murder" say they would make an exception in cases of rape. I have never understood the logic of saying, "I'm against abortion! It's murder! It's killing a baby! Oh, but if the baby was conceived during a rape, well, then, of course, I'm ok with killing it. That's different." Many Pro-Lifers have tried to explain to me why they would make an exception for rape, but I have never found their reasons, well, reasonable or logical.

Now, as to your response, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you are saying, "If a woman is pregnant as a result of rape and wishes to have an abortion, wise folks like myself should treat her as if she is a child, sit her down and explain to her why she is being irrational. If after I and other wise folks who know what's best for are still unable to convince her that she is being irrational, we have no choice but to 'intervene on behalf of the child' and stop her from having an abortion."  Am I interpreting your comment correctly? What would YOU Physically Do to "intervene on behalf of the child"?

As for your hypothetical question to me, I'm against the killing and murder of all children. I certainly don't believe that a child should be killed because of the "sins of the father" or mother. That makes no sense to me. Perhaps you are assuming that I share your view that a woman is guily of murder if she takes a "morning-after pill" within 72 hours of being raped. I don't share that view. Maybe that's why your hypothetical question seems so odd and bizarre to me.

Anyway, thanks again for your post! I recommend that you try to convince your fellow Pro-Lifers that they should oppose legal abortion in the case of rape. Tell them they need to be consistent in their anti-abortion views. Tell them Pro-Choicers might take them more seriously if they come across as really caring about the "babies", even those conceived in rape, and do not just come across as wanting to "punish" Irrational, Unintelligent, Unsophisticated, Un-educated, Irresponsible, Slow-Witted, Child-like, Naive women who don't know what's best for them, don't know what they really want and need, and need the guidance and wisdom of the Church and State.