August 4, 2004
INTRODUCING A NEW GUEST BELI-BLOGGER: DAVE MEEK!
After posting several comments, my good friend Mikal has asked that I contribute as a guest poster. How ever your position differs from mine from any previous posts, I hope to provoke more thought than anger from your comments.
Mary, a full-term pregnant teen-age girl anxiously awaits the arrival of her newborn son whom she has affectionately named Dennis. Just before she reaches full dilation in her labor room she panics and wonders if she can adequately manage such enormous responsibility. After much self-deliberation during labor Mary insists that she wants an abortion. With her cervix dilated 4-6 inches, she implores the doctor to perform an abortion and end Dennis' life.
Jane, a woman in her late 20's, carelessly hooks up with a man she just met at a party. Passion takes over and they end up sleeping together without appropriate means of birth control. The next day, Jane takes the "morning after pill" since her last period was two weeks ago and she feels certain she is ovulating.
Avoiding specifically for the sake of this discussion the woman's right to choose her own fate and focusing solely on the fetus/baby, please define quantitatively from between 0 and 40 weeks the time at which you believe a fetus/baby achieves personhood and therefore is fully protected under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
For example, choose 40 if your belief is that Mary's fetus/baby never achieves personhood and therefore may legally be deprived of life at any time while inside of the mother. Choose 0 if you believe Jane's fetus/baby achieves personhood upon fertilization and may never be legally deprived of life.
There are 41 different quantitative responses but an unlimited number of beliefs why you chose that specific number. I look forward to your responses.
Posted by Guest Beli-Blogger Dave Meek at August 4, 2004 9:55 PM
| TrackBack
I feel restricted by the 0-40 weeks. I reserve the right to end my childrens stint on earth through the age of 16. I brought them in to this world.....
Where's Fridays Q's. If I wanted troll fodder I'd have gone elsewhere. I know, I know...go right ahead. Hit me when you see an opening!
For me, this post triggered a response that I haven't been able to articulate before. I always have felt there is a distinction; that there is an ethically viable time within pregnancy to perform an abortion, but now I realize that it is tied to another ethically difficult issue- that of extreme lifesaving measures for premies. What timeframe, you ask. Simply, for me, it comes down to the scientifically average time when the fetus becomes viable on its own. I'm not a doctor, and have never had children, so I'm not sure exactly when this average time during gestation occurs. But it makes sense to me that when the fetus is able to sustain its own life outside of the mother without benefit of ventilators or other extreme measures, then it exists as a separate entity than when it is dependent upon the mother completely for its survival. So, my vote is for the week # when it is agreed upon by a medical consensus that the fetus could survive on its own without help of vents or other measures.
Dave: Welcome aboard, and thanks for starting us off with such an interesting question!
I don't know the absolute answer here (nor do I believe any one of us can possibly decide for the rest of us), but I do feel strongly that in Mary and Dennis' case, if the doctor followed thru on Mary's request, he'd be committing murder. As for Jane's situation, because of the timing involved, I'm less concerned about the impact of her actions.
This is such a slippery slope, and I'm ashamed to admit that I know little to nothing about the pregnancy cycle (aside from the whole 9-month thing)... which is to say that it's difficult for me to put a number to it. With a little bit of research I might be able to... so perhaps by Monday I can provide a better answer.
Unfortunately, I have been in Janeís shoeís. I was 19, in the second semester of college my freshmen year. I had been dating the same boy from my hometown for several years, but remained a virgin until the night of my 19th b-day. For any teenager who may be reading this posting, YES it can happen on your first time! Anyway, I missed my period the following month, I waited for three weeks, hoping that it was just really, really, late, and when it never came I walked several blocks to Planned Parenthood to find out what I already knew. Two very long hours later, it was confirmed. I walked around numb for about 3 hours, I cried for another 3 or 4, then I called my boyfriend to tell him the news.
He drove up that night to stay with me, we discussed the pros and cons of having the child, and all of our options, we even made a list. I remember talking it over until after the sun came up, we came to the conclusion that we could not support the child financially, or give it any kind of life at this point. Adoption was totally out of the question, I have trouble giving away puppies when my dog has a litter. So, the following morning, tears in our eyes, money in hand, we went to the abortion clinic and had a D&C. There were protesters outside of the clinic handing out literature and throwing baby doll parts at us as we entered. It was very painful (physically and emotionally), it was scary, and it was one of the worst experiences of my life.
I donít regret my decision, I think it was the right one for me at the time. However, there hasnít been a day go by since, that I havenít thought about it at least once... and it has been almost 15 years. Iíve also recently found out that I can no longer conceive which is very heart-breaking, because I would love to have a house full of children. But I chalk this up as my punishment for being so careless with a life.
Now to be a hypocrite. I obviously believe in a mothers right to choose, but after the baby is viable and can live with support outside of the womb I do consider that to be murder. However, I am a firm believer that in many cases the baby would be better off being aborted than being born into a life of neglect and abuse... My 2¢
So the real question is when is it Friday. Right at midnight, or late in the workday the day prior when all thoughts are devoid of it being that particular day and more in line with the attachment of the much awaited day coming. Is it Four for Friday because it absolutely must appear on a Friday, or just because that's it's name. Of course it's probably more of an issue that it's your blog and it'll be Four for Friday when you are damn well pleased. From that slant, I lean towards the Pro Choice influence.
Oh, RD... you want some of my blood pressure medicine? LOL! I cannot even pretend to be able to comment on when life begins or ends. I know that it is precious to me. I know that when life ends is also a tricky question. When does the quality of life deteriorate to such an extent that the person is better of moving on? But that is another question. As a mother I can only say that I am glad I have never had to make the choice. I think once you have held your child in your hands and experienced the wonder of their response, or felt a child move inside you, or heard hiccups coming from within, or been kicked hard in the ribs, you know that child is a living viable human. I do not judge others who have tough choices to make, but I don't think it should be a form of contraception. When a person has plural abortions, one begins to wonder.
Where to start.....
First of all, a cervix, not uterus, would be dilated. Second of all, a patient can demand an abortion while in labor but the law prohibits abortions after the point of viability (26 weeks).
I also take issue with the phrase "Jane..., carelessly hooks up with a man". It was not the most responsible choice but assuming that it was mutually consensual, then the carelessness or irresponsibility is mutual, and Jane should not take the full burden; the man could have provided contraception!
The morning after pill, more appropriately called "Emergency Contraception" (EC), prevents implantation and IS NOT an abortificant. It in fact prevents pregnancy. EC consists of the same hormones as oral contraceptives; it is a safe treatment for unprotected sex planned, unplanned, consensual, or nonconsensual. For more info, visit: http://ec.princeton.edu/
EC is called the best-kept secret in women's health. Every woman who is interested should ask their clinician for a prescription to have on hand in case of emergency. Because it is most effective the sooner it is taken after unprotected intercourse. Best way to prevent abortions is to prevent pregnancy.
And just a reminder there are no perfect methods of contraceptives, even when used correctly. There are medications that can inadvertently reduce the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives.
Lastly, there are women and men and children out there who are in situations where they have no control when, where or who they have sex with, so they may not be in a position to prevent pregnancy or STI.
Cheer's to Kim. Took the words right out of my mouth!
Having never been in either situation, I'm glad I haven't had to be confronted with the decision. But, right now I can say that I would never have an abortion, unless the fetus was terribly deformed and would not live a quality life. (I know a married couple this happened to). But if it's a healthy, full-term baby, there is NO WAY I would abort it because it's suddenly become inconvenient. There's always the option of adoption in that case. Once the baby begins to grow inside the womb, it is alive. Sure, it may not be completely formed in all viable aspects it needs to survive outside the womb, but it's still life. I really want to be a mother and can't wait until the day I can hold a baby in my arms. If I had an abortion, at any stage, I would be racked with guilt my entire life. And I'd be worried I'd never be able to conceive again.
I can't say what others should do or not do. It's up to the individual woman. Those of us who are in mutual consenting relationships need to consider what they would do when faced with an unexpected pregnancy.
What Kim said: register another vote for me.
Also, there seems to be a rather Victorian attitude toward sex running under all of this, particularly when focused on women. The birth control movement was meant to liberate women from those notions. Even the hypothetical scenarios -- which seem to come straight out of operation rescue literature -- put all of the resposibility and blame for whatever imagined wrong upon the woman. For every woman there is a different case, a different solution, and a different response to her own sexuality and her own reproductive choices, all of which are her own business. Her access to as wide a range of medical technology as possible grants her that liberation that birth control was always supposed to provide: sexual, economic, and personal. Sex is not a crime, pregnancy is not always benign, and parenthood is not a punishment.
Kim: Thank you for the correction regarding the cervix and uterus distinction. I have corrected the error in the original post. However your assertion that the law prohibits abortions past 26 weeks (PoV) is false. Laws prohibiting post-viability abortions are very different in each of the 50 states as prescribed in Roe as indicated in the following link.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/maps/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=10366
Although the original post presented the very extreme fringes of the abortion spectrum, it presents some important parallels to the Lacy Peterson / Lori Hacking cases. Scott Peterson is being tried for a double-murder and it remains to be seen if Mark Hacking will be tried with double-murder as well.
While certainly not their sole focus, these two court cases will test the Constitutionality of killing fetuses/babies and their mothers whose pregnancies were intentional. Does the mother's sole motivation or intent define her fetus'/baby's existence as a person worthy of Constitutional protection?
Many have cited the point of viability as the particular time that the fetus/baby becomes protected under the Constitution. The 5th Amendment states that "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." When sentencing someone to death for crimes he/she may have committed, due process of law has been followed. No such due process has the fetus/baby enjoyed.
The consensus of those of you who have responded in kind to this discussion have posited that abortions should not be legal after this arbitrary point of viability (roughly 24-26 weeks) arguing that the existence of independence is crucial for Constitutional protection. Should those persons who are totally reliant on medical equipment and therefore not technically "viable" -- compared to a fetus desperate to cross that critical finish line of citizenry without nary a calendar and a copy of the Constitution to read -- be allowed to continue to live amongst the lucky living?
P.S. I notice a that many responses defend the woman's right to choose as an exclusive right to her alone AFTER pregnancy yet birth control is a shared responsibilty BEFORE pregnancy. If a couple unexpectedly became pregnant and the man desparately wanted the child but the woman wanted to abort, what rights does he enjoy in this decision? Conversely, if the woman decided to keep the baby but the man wanted to abort it, should he be held financially responsible? Shouldn't the man be compensated for his loss if the woman wanted to abort against his wishes?
"If a couple unexpectedly became pregnant and the man desparately wanted the child but the woman wanted to abort, what rights does he enjoy in this decision?"
First of all, couples don't become pregnant, women do. An "unexpected" pregnancy with completely diverse reactions doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the relationship. These abortions were a couple decades late.
"Conversely, if the woman decided to keep the baby but the man wanted to abort it, should he be held financially responsible?"
Yes.
"Shouldn't the man be compensated for his loss if the woman wanted to abort against his wishes?"
Compensated for his loss? Warning, do not impregnate a woman who does not want you or your baby.
Do you detect a double standard here? So be it!
Good grief RD, focusing on semantics doesn't make your argument any more persuasive. The context of the word "pregnant" merely includes the man in the act of producing an offspring.
And are you saying that unexpected pregnancies reside only in the lives of morons and since, in your saavy opinion, they or their respective offspring shouldn't have been allowed to live among the highbrow eggheads such as you? Wasn't it you that demanded during this thread, Fridays Q's on Thursday at 8:48am or else you would take your abyssal wisdom elsewhere THEN foolishly tried to cover your tracks with some nonsensical babble about when Friday actually begins? On Thursday at 2:15pm you rant aimlessly about thoughts of the following day when the much anticipated Four for Friday is published so you can narcissistically wax on about what your favorite color is. THEN, you said "From that slant, I lean towards the Pro Choice influence." Doesn't bode well for your own intelligence, my dear. Perhaps YOUR parents should have heeded your prophetic advice and a taken mulligan. (You know a simple "oops" would have sufficed when reminded what day it was)
RD, you have commented more times on this thread than anyone else yet can't seem to make a cogent nor coherent argument to the original post unlike the others who have thoughtfully done so. The "real question" is whether you will produce an intelligible argument as to the time at which you think a fetus is protected by the Constitution or whether you will pathetically defend your previous ramblings without any recognition of the current debate.
I'm betting on the latter and frankly hope I lose that bet.
Wowser! How about my answers, didn't you like any of them? I thought my Friday thing was clever, framed in the tone of your ponderings. Just trying to keep it friendly. I truly didn't mean to gouge into your deep seated sensibilities,truly. And, I'm not your "dear". I stand by my answers, because they are my answers, straight from the heart. Belicove has taken a sinister turn to the dark side. Ta.
Post a Comment:
|
