Thursday, February 10, 2011

The choice that puts them out of business

There's a new push underway to enact new laws restricting abortion--and, as usual, those who favor abortion aren't pleased:

From bans on late-term abortions to requiring providers to offer women sonograms of their fetuses, conservative lawmakers in the United States are pushing abortion curbs this year in dozens of states.

Some bills may have a greater chance of success this year than in the past because there are more conservative legislators and governors.

"I am actually looking forward to a number of victories," said Mary Spaulding Balch, director of the department of state legislation of the National Right to Life Committee.

"We're very worried," said Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. Crane said that because anti-abortion forces have more votes, "the flood gates are open."

What kinds of laws have Crane worried? Here's a sample:

Among the more than 200 bills being proposed this year are an Ohio measure that would ban abortions once a heartbeat can be detected -- as early as 18 days for some women.

In several states, including Ohio, Florida, Kansas and Kentucky, measures were introduced banning abortion after 20 weeks. These mimic a Nebraska law which bans abortion after a fetus is deemed capable of feeling pain.

Lawmakers also are proposing bills that would limit abortion coverage in state health plans under the new healthcare law, and new parental consent requirements, according to Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization.

There's also a Texas measure that would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound first--though she has the right not to view the image of her unborn baby or hear the description of the unborn baby's stage of development--or listen to his heartbeat--if she chooses not to.

I often wonder just why these sorts of measures rile the so-called "pro-choice" side so much (before I remember that "pro-choice" really means "in favor of the choice to abort; not really in favor of the choice to stay pregnant for nine months and then give birth"). Why shouldn't we want women "choosing" abortion to have all relevant information, including information about the human being at the fetal stage whom she is about to have killed? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why shouldn't she spend a few minutes viewing something like this before saying, "Okay, go ahead and kill her," to the attending abortionist?

And why shouldn't we enact laws forbidding abortion after twenty weeks? Do we really have such a poor view of women that we think that it's going to take her a whole twenty weeks to decide to end the life of the developing human being inside of her? Even if, like most women, she doesn't realize she is pregnant for four to six weeks after conception, she's had more than enough time to ponder her "choice" by the time the unborn child inside of her is this big, don't you think?

The truth is that abortion is the one "choice" that seems to depend on women being ignorant, afraid, pressured, scared, emotional, and irrational. Pro-"choice" activists know this, which is why they oppose any legislation that brings the true nature of this "choice" out into the open.

Pro-aborts are afraid that women, presented with the full truth about abortion, will choose life instead. That is the choice that puts them out of business--and that's why they oppose sensible restrictions to abortion whenever such legislation is offered.


The Sicilian said...

Pro-aborts are afraid that women, presented with the full truth about abortion, will choose life instead.

"Pro-choice" is not as black and white as you continually paint it. As I have mentioned before, I am on the conservative end of the pro-choice sphere, meaning that I truly am in favor of the mother making a choice - an informed choice.

Sonograms? Fine. Informed about the potential emotional and physical effects of abortion prior to making a decision? Fine. Hold on to your seats - I even support parental notification! (No usurping parental rights of children under 18, and that includes by our friends at Planned Parenthood.)

I even believe that, given information, most mothers will opt to give birth to rather than kill their child, and that's fine with me, too. (Perhaps if abortion became a little more difficult to obtain, people might think a bit more before engaging in irresponsible sex?)

Given my lifelong belief in a mother's rights superceding those of her unborn child (in spite of my being raised in a pro-life, Catholic family), that's as far as I go to the pro-life end of things. Too far for feminists, not far enough for pro-lifers, good enough for me.

Red Cardigan said...

Sicilian, I think of you as someone I could work with on various pro-life initiatives (by what you write above). But the real "pro-choice" activists out there would deny that you are truly pro-choice by the criteria you list above. That's why I paint "pro-choice" as black and white as I do: because few pro-choicers actually support parental notification, let alone the other initiatives mentioned.

bathilda said...

I am a pro choicer who doesn't support parental notification in all cases. It sort of depends on the age of consent and the father of the baby. let's say a 17 year old is pregnant by a 25 year old, and that would not be prosecuted as statutory rape because she "consented"...If she's old enough to legally consent, she's old enough to not have her parents informed of her pregnancy. Ditto, even if the boy is 17. If the father of the baby is indeed the girl's own father or brother, or step dad or mother's boyfriend, say, then her parents forfeit their rights to be informed and to potentially prevent this girl from making her own decision through fear or other disgusting persuasion.
I don't "fear" that women will choose to have their babies. I prefer women to not abort. I just think that requiring an ultrasound before an abortion is pretty rich in a system that wouldn't give a free ultrasound to a poor woman who was already going to keep her baby. maybe all poor women who can't afford good prenatal care should pretend to be considering an abortion. Pro-lifers will be lining up to check and show her the baby's heartbeat. that said, I just think that some "doctors" performing these ultrasounds will likely be heavy handed in trying to persuade a likely scared and confused woman who is in a difficult situation. Have you seen the movie "citizen Ruth"? It shows the ridiculous side of both pro life and pro choice movements.

Hector_St_Clare said...

The only kind of abortions that I support (and would allow the legal choice to have) are the ones where the mother's health is very seriously compromised. In cases like that, I wouldn't imagine that most women would really be swayed one way of the other by ultrasounds or waiting periods. If they're absolutely resolved to protect their life and health, they'll choose the abortion, and if they're not, they won't. Viewing the ultrasounds and things like that would most likely be effective at dissuading women who are seeking abortions for reasons of convenience, and that's all to the good, since they shouldn't be having abortions anyway.

It's a very serious choice, and even when their are legitimate reasons to choose abortion (again: life or health of the mother) it deserves to be taken with the utmost gravity. So I'd say that these kind of laws would have many benefits, and pretty much no down side, as far as I can see.

The Cottage Child said...

""Pro-choice" is not as black and white as you continually paint it. "

Except that it is - by one choice, there is a dead baby, deliberately, by the other, there is not.

I don't mean to be dismissive of you, personally, Sicilian, but your particular argument reflects the heavily marketed duplicitous nature of abortion advocacy.

I can speak as a convert to the truth that there is no middle ground on the subject. I don't see it as illiberal to insist that the "choice" is either for life, or for death.

MightyMighty said...

Worth noting that the Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. I always wonder how scientific their research can really be, when PP has continually covered up the proven links between the pill and cancer, abortion and cancer, abortion and suicide, abortion and later infertility/miscarriages. And all of the other horrifying results of treating fertility like a disease and women like carriers.

Also, I hate the whole "it's not black and white" thing. Yes, it is. I am alive because my mother didn't kill me. If she had an abortion, I would be dead. That feels pretty black and white to me. Sort of reminds me of the story about the boy throwing dying starfish back into the sea. Somebody says that there are too many, it doesn't make a difference. The boy replies, "To those starfish it makes all the difference in the world." (Que to pro-aborts, it's your turn to say, "If you were aborted, you wouldn't know it anyway." My response: "True-if you think we have no souls, that the souls of the murdered don't cry to God for justice." or "How do you know the aborted don't know their own mothers killed them?" Glad we were able to skip that tired discussion.)

L. said...

---> "" really means "in favor of the choice to abort; not really in favor of the choice to stay pregnant for nine months and then give birth."

I already know most people who comment on this blog don't share my opinion on abortion, so I'm not going to waste everyone's time again (!).

At the very least, I would like to dispel the notion that pro-choice is "not really in favor of the choice to stay pregnant."

And as a "real 'pro-choice' activist," I would never say that Sicilian was anything but "truly pro-choice." What else could she be, if she doesn't oppose abortion 100% of the time?

c matt said...

I understand that pro-choicers can be in favor of choosing life or death, but frankly, that is a disntinction with very little moral difference. By definition, a pro-choicer believes choosing to kill the fetus is a viable option, whether limited to a grave reason or none at all.

melanie said...

To Reds point though what other types of "choices" for women require then to remain in ignorance about what they are really choosing? Require that the less information they have about their "choice" the better. Demand that they not be given pertinent information very relevant to that choice? How can that seem right to people? Even hard core feminists ought to see the hypocrisy there.

L. said...

Melanie, who is demanding "less information?" I ("hard-core feminist") am all in favor of counseling, sonograms, etc. There is a concept known as informed consent, without which "choice" is meaningless.

"Pro-aborts" aren't "afraid" that women will choose life instead. We're just afraid that this will be our ONLY choice.

Red Cardigan said...

Because, L., it's just so hard for ordinary women to pick whether they'd rather have a live baby or a dead one, right?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Red, by the very substance of your own argument, those who proclaim that "the flood gates are open" are NOT the "real pro choice" people at all.

My and Sicilian are, although I probably would consider abortion an appropriate choice in a few more circumstances that Sicilian does.

The heated rhetoric belies the legal issues involved. Roe v. Wade was a jurisdictional decision, not a statement of policy. Who decides, The State or the woman concerned? Within the constitutional framework settling that question, policy is open to the give and take of legislative politics.

Legislation about "partial birth" and "late term" abortions is manipulative grandstanding. Constitutional law is very clear that states may (and they all do) prohibit such abortions, EXCEPT if the pregnant woman's life or health are in danger. So, such legislation is either surplusage, or null and void, depending on how it is written.

Burdensome requirements in the first trimester are also null and void, because states don't even have much authority to regulate during this period, so legislating about a heart beat after eight days is more grandstanding.

During the second trimester, states have plenty of authority to regulate, although not to prohibit. NARAL can testify to what they believe is the best policy for a state to adopt, as may Archbishop Chaput, and the legislature has plenty of discretion.

Let the games begin!