I don't know how many of you saw this article, which appeared in The Atlantic, December of 2019. Though written from a secular point of view, it is a thoughtful reflection on the complexities of the abortion arguments.
The best part is towards the end. To get there, I learned way more than I wanted to know about the off-label uses of Lysol. Naïve as I am, I thought it was for cleaning the bathroom. I did know that previously the active ingredient was carbolic acid, an organochloride of phenol. As a former chemist, I was appalled that anyone would even think of putting that in their body. It goes to show what people will do if they're desperate.
Here is the section of the article which I found most meaningful:
"A picture of a 12-week fetus is a Rorschach test. Some people say that such an image doesn’t trouble them, that the fetus suggests the possibility of a developed baby but is far too removed from one to give them pause. I envy them. When I see that image, I have the opposite reaction. I think: Here is one of us; here is a baby. She has fingers and toes by now, eyelids and ears. She can hiccup—that tiny, chest-quaking motion that all parents know. Most fearfully, she is starting to get a distinct profile, her one and only face emerging. Each of these 12-week fetuses bears its own particular code: this one bound to be good at music; that one destined for a life of impatience, of tap, tap, tapping his pencil on the desk, waiting for recess.
What I can’t face about abortion is the reality of it: that these are human beings, the most vulnerable among us, and we have no care for them. How terrible to know that in the space of an hour, a baby could be alive—his heart beating, his kidneys creating the urine that becomes the amniotic fluid of his safe home—and then be dead, his heart stopped, his body soon to be discarded.
The argument for abortion, if made honestly, requires many words: It must evoke the recent past, the dire consequences to women of making a very simple medical procedure illegal. The argument against it doesn’t take even a single word. The argument against it is a picture.
This is not an argument anyone is going to win. The loudest advocates on both sides are terrible representatives for their cause. When women are urged to “shout your abortion,” and when abortion becomes the subject of stand-up comedy routines, the attitude toward abortion seems ghoulish. Who could possibly be proud that they see no humanity at all in the images that science has made so painfully clear? When anti-abortion advocates speak in the most graphic terms about women “sucking babies out of the womb,” they show themselves without mercy. They are not considering the extremely human, complex, and often heartbreaking reasons behind women’s private decisions. The truth is that the best argument on each side is a damn good one, and until you acknowledge that fact, you aren’t speaking or even thinking honestly about the issue. You certainly aren’t going to convince anybody. Only the truth has the power to move."
This article is more of a "both sides" argument than advocacy for pro-life. But it is one of the few pieces I have read from a secular source that acknowledges the humanity of the pre-born child.
While public attitudes have changed on many issues such as gay marriage, there has not been much change on the abortion issue. The young people tend to be the leaders in attitude change on issues like gay marriage. But not so on the issue of abortion. Some have suggested that it is precisely the image of very young unborn babes that have led the young in the direction of being prolife.
ReplyDeleteAnother great pro-life argument in the USA and Europe is the demographic implosion. Essentially both need immigrants to support the elderly and have enough children to prevent economic stagnation such as has occurred in Japan and will likely occur in China as a consequence of its one-child policy (which it has had to abandon).
Jack, I'm not sure women facing "problem pregnancies" are going to be swayed by an appeal to patriotism. In South Korea, there was an effort to increase the birth rate by offering an cash bonus to parents willing to have three children. As my Korean students explained, you had to be married. The idea was to ensure that an increased birth rate would rise in stable families.
DeleteJean,
DeleteMy thoughts were in the context of a supportive environment in which a problem pregnancy would result in an adoption. No I don't think someone is likely to raise a child because of patriotism, but they might be willing to have the child adopted.
I guess I don't quite see who would be persuaded by your argument. For most abortion proponents, a woman's right to control her body trumps the state's need for more children. "You shouldn't be able to force me to have a baby if I don't want one" is the proposition anti-abortionists have to address.
DeleteKatherine, thanks for the link to that thought-provoking article. It certainly induces one to try to imagine what a post-Roe world might look like. Let's all agree that we'd hope it wouldn't include coat hangers or Lysol.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI Googled Lysol. Wiki says it was used as -- and apparently known to be -- an abortifacient until the 1960s. I see no mention that Lysol was ever prosecuted for doing what "backroom abortionists" were arrested for. If you are going to break the law, it is always good to have a board room instead of a backroom.
ReplyDeleteThe sonogram is a Rorschach test. Even where clinics have to show "clients" their picture, the clinics don't go out of business. Some people can look and not see. There is a sono-van about a block away from our local abortion clinic. Some look and are dissuaded, and some drive the block and walk into the clinic. ne would think...
I also read that ingesting Lysol was one of the most-used ways to commit suicide in the early 1900s. The story was that one of my relatives took his own life that way. I didn't know him, it was before my time. Nowadays they go after the manufacturer of talcum powder for causing mesothelioma. Looks like they should have at least made Lysol put a skull and cross bones on their bottle back in the day, and a warning "do not use intermally".
DeleteWhen we were having children ultrasounds were not routine, one was sent to a large medical center for one if problems were suspected. So we didn't have any prenatal pictures of our kids. But our son and daughter-in-law shared the first ultrasounds of our granddaughters with us, our earliest pictures of them.
A neighbor lady swore by Lysol douches. My mother told me these were harmful and ineffective. Coca-Cola douches were also rumored to be effective emergency contraception.
ReplyDeleteIn a post-Roe world, I doubt there will be a lot of Lysol and coat hangers. Rather, expect a brisk trade in black market abortion pills like RU486, which will usher in a whole new war on drugs for law enforcement.
My guess is that if there is post-Roe there will be a whole lot of "don't ask, don't tell" with the abortion pills. Especially since the states would be deciding their own rules.
DeleteNot to mention Plan B contraceptive is available over-the-counter across the board now (for over 17 years of age).I wouldn't expect Roe status to change that.
DeleteTrying to curtail abortion pills from crossing borders between states with different abortion laws would be difficult to say the least.
DeleteIt would provide a new revenue stream for college drug dealers already trading in Adderall, benzos, and Viagra.
What happens to Plan B in a no-abortion state is debatable. If it prevents zygote implantation as some anti-abortion groups argue it would be considered an abortifacient.
My understanding is that there is only a 72 hour window after unprotected intercourse to use it. Supposedly the main machanism is to prevent ovulation. Seems a stretch to call it abortifacient, since it says on their site that it won't harm the zygote if it is used after the 72 hour window.
DeleteAll's I know is that some pro-life proponents have challenged the manufacturer's claims all Plan B's effects on zygote implantation. I do not know if they are correct, but I would expect it might be fertile (no pun intended) for a legal challenge from some quarters.
Delete* all Plan B s/b ABOUT Plan B.
DeleteI've never thought before that a state law could prevent Plan B pharmacy products from being distributed. I thought that was federal government jurisdiction.
DeleteI just spent 2.5 minutes on Google. I think that states don't have carte blanche to ban something which the FDA has approved; but the state might have some ability to regulate (e.g. perhaps it could require that Plan B be prescribed). Take this view with a tablespoon of salt; I'm not a lawyer.
https://www.gwlr.org/states-vs-fda/
In trying to ban opioids, the states are stepping on the FDA's privilege to determine drug safety.
DeleteIf a state is allowed to ban or restrict abortions, they are not objecting to the the safety of actual and alleged abortifacients to patients taking them, but to their illegal consequences.
For example, as Attorney General, Gov. Jennifer Granholm put RU486 in the category of "medical abortion," thus making it subject to all current and future state restrictions on abortion. https://www.michigandaily.com/content/granholm-restricts-use-ru-486-pill-michigan
I'm not a lawyer, either, but I am guessing that Plan B could be contested in court as an abortifacient on the grounds that it may interfere with zygote implantation.
"...guessing that Plan B could be contested in court as an abortifacient on the grounds that it may interfere with zygote implantation." Of course then one enters the fraught debate of when life actually begins, some would say with implantation. Which does make a certain amount of sense, an acorn doesn't start being an oak tree until it is planted in the ground.
DeleteKatherine, just expanding on what you said: My personal views about abortion have evolved to some extent, but one of the reasons I don't see the reversal of Roe as a big victory is because the law will have to wade into theological territory where pro-life proponents themselves will not agree.
DeleteBiology can tell us when fertilization, implantation, cell division, heartbeats, brain function, pain sensors, etc. begin. But biologists do not tell us at what point it becomes a sin/crime to end fetal development.
I think reframing the political pro-life debate in both parties around how to best preserve fetal life at all stages short of the state taking custody of a woman's body and forcing her to give birth would lead to more practical solutions to reduce abortions.
OK, probably enough from me.
Jim: . It certainly induces one to try to imagine what a post-Roe world might look like. Let's all agree that we'd hope it wouldn't include coat hangers or Lysol.
ReplyDeleteJim, you are being a bit naive. In the earlier thread regarding laws that would define abortion as murder, you commented that you hoped that there would be some mercy shown women who have abortions - IOW, that they wouldn't be given the death penalty. Is life in prison OK with you then? After all, murder is murder. If you believe abortion to be murder then you can't hope that women who have abortions will be treated any more gently than are other murderers. Lysol and coat hangars may be the least of the dangers presented to desperate women who seek abortion.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, it goes back to the states.
What will happen then? Hopefully most of the women who simply cannot face having a baby will travel to a state where abortion is still legal - and medically safe. But not all will have that option. In states like Alabama and Mississippi women who are desperate will find a way - just as they always have throughout history. Lysol and coat hangars may not be as commonly used as they were at one time, but women will have access to the pills mentioned by Katherine and Jean. There are dangers from this also of course, as some women might have a bad reaction, face a medical emergency, and be afraid to go to a hospital for fear of arrest for murder. These pills will not be legal of course in "no abortion" states, so they will be forced underground. Some might get "real" pills (at high cost) while others may buy counterfeit pills, facing new dangers from an adulterated product. The same will apply to morning after pills as they are seen by most in the pro-life movement as being abortifacients. Some in that movement consider oral contraceptives to be abortifacients because sometimes they fail to prevent ovulation (rarely but it happens) usually due to improper use.
The morning after pill, which reduces the chances for implantation of a fertilized ovum, will likely be illegal also,as Katherine pointed out. As will IUDs,which also act to prevent implantation.
Scientists estimate that somewhere between 50-75% of all fertilized ova do not implant, and nobody is aware of this of course. Of those that do implant, somewhere between 20-25% abort spontaneously, usually during the first 12 weeks. Katherine's acorn analogy is often used and those in the pro-life movement should think about it.
Which leads into Jean's comment about getting into religious v biological debates about when does a potential human being become a human being. Is it at conception? Is it when there is a heartbeat? Is it when their is a brain and a nervous system - when all "systems" are complete and it is just a matter of growth over the next 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 months?
The religious understanding held by Roman Catholics and some evangelicals (not all), but definitely not by ALL christians, much less by ALL American, seem a very problematic basis for policy in a pluralistic country where no single religion is supposed to be established and imposed on all citizens.
Anne, you write with a great deal of certainty about things that are far from certain.
DeleteLysol and coat hangers were desperate measures for a time when birth control was not as widespread and not nearly as effective, there was no widespread abortion-delivery infrastructure in clinics and hospitals, there weren't many medical professionals who specialized in delivering abortions, there were no Plan B pills, there was no widespread political support for abortion.
All of these aspects, and probably many more besides, have changed dramatically since the 1940s and 1950s.
I don't like to prognosticate about complicated matters. But one needn't be Nostradamus to see that some states, probably relatively few, would ban most or all abortions in a post-Roe world. And many, probably most, would continue to allow abortions in most cases.
Perhaps there will be some women for whom it will be an insurmountable hardship to travel to a state where abortion is legal. One difficult and heartbreaking category will be teenage girls who have been impregnated by their abusers. A 14 year old doesn't have the mobility that older teens and adults do.
I don't know what options will be available. Perhaps even red states would permit abortions for hard cases like those. "Except in cases of rape and incest" still is a phrase with some life in it, as far as I know.
Perhaps at least some of women without other options will carry the pregnancy to term and give birth. Let's hope that they get appropriate prenatal care.
"In the earlier thread regarding laws that would define abortion as murder, you commented that you hoped that there would be some mercy shown women who have abortions - IOW, that they wouldn't be given the death penalty."
DeletePlease don't mischaracterize what I've written. I haven't used the words "murder" or "death penalty" at all in regard to abortion. What I've said is that, if abortion were to be illegal, I'd wish that women be shown mercy. Not that it matters, but my approach would be to let the individual women off the hook, and to come down like a ton of bricks on the providers. As I mentioned earlier, I don't doubt there are better and more just ideas than my intuitions on this matter.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteSo.... what is to be done? Very few people celebrate abortion as an ideal answer to unwanted pregnancy. But, only a minority of Americans support a legal ban on all abortions. Some compromise is in order.
International data show that the abortion rate is highest in countries where it is illegal, generally third world countries. The women will risk it because they simply do not see a way – literally - to feed another child. The rate is high because of two main (related) factors - extreme poverty and lack of access to reliable birth control. The infant and maternal mortality rate is also horrific in the world’s poorest countries. In one African nation, the maternal mortality rate during pregnancy and childbirth is one in eight. Some women would seek an illegal abortion because they literally fear dying with their next pregnancy or birth.
People in rich countries like the US often have zero knowledge or understanding of conditions in poor countries. My experience in international economics included a fair amount of work involving third world economic development/poverty issues. Eye-opening. The RCC needs to listen to their people on the ground on this, but, of course, the clerics in fancy dress don’t listen to the experience even of their own priests/ women religious, and workers from Caritas, CRS etc, - much less to that of laity, and even less to lay women’s experience. So the RCC works to deny contraception in Africa, contributing not only to the spread of HIV/AIDS, but also to the high rate of illegal abortions and to a high rate of maternal/child mortality. Tens of millions of people with AIDS, countless women and children dead because of pregnancy/childbirth complications. All for lack of a condom…….
The Bishops in the US work to deny access to contraception in the US also. But at least US does not have this kind of poverty. It does still have desperate women who will risk an illegal abortion if denied a legal abortion.
Most women in the world's rich countries do have access to contraception - at least to OTC condoms and spermicides, if not to oral contraceptives or IUDs (due to cost).
The abortion rate in the US has fallen dramatically, due to the fall in the numbers of unplanned pregnancies, especially among teen-agers, and to affordable access to sterilization, the most popular method of birth control in the US among women 35 and over.
The rate of unplanned pregnancies and numbers of abortions/capita has long been lower in European countries than in the US. The US eventually caught on to what Europe had been doing for a long time (and thus, fewer abortions). They taught comprehensive sex education in schools rather than simply abstinence. They educate on the correct use of contraception. And, they provide effective, reliable contraception for free – including to teenagers.
The Puritan streak in America resists this solution. But, once many public schools replaced abstinence-only sex education with comprehensive sex education, the rate of teen and young adult pregnancies dropped dramatically. As did abortions.
"International data show that the abortion rate is highest in countries where it is illegal, generally third world countries. The women will risk it because they simply do not see a way – literally - to feed another child. The rate is high because of two main (related) factors - extreme poverty and lack of access to reliable birth control. "
DeleteAnne, what is your source for these claims? I found some tables that rank countries by rate of abortion, and some other tables tha rank countries by poverty incidence, and there is almost no correlation between the two lists (correlation coefficient of .093).
FWIW, among the 58 countries that reported abortion rates, Sweden ranked 14th, New Zealand 15th, Australia 16th, the UK 18th, France 19th. None of these rankings are in the top 10 - but they're all in the 2nd 10, and these countries all are considered prosperous and advanced by most measures.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/abortion-rates-by-country/
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/the-poorest-countries-in-the-world
I don't think there are simple answers to the problem of abortion. It seems reasonable that greater use of birth control, and especially greater use of more effective birth control (e.g. implanted technologies), will have some effect on abortion rates, but we also know by now that birth control is not a "magic bullet".
Anne and all, you might be interested in this Guttmacher report on the decline in abortions in the US from the period from 2011 through 2017. It cites a number of possible causes for the decline, from clinic closures in red states to more widespread and inexpensive birth control to changing social attitudes. It also notes, under the heading "Self-Managed Abortion", that the putative decline over this time period may not actually be a decline at all; women who utilize misoprostol and mifepristone to self-administer abortions are not able to be measured by the traditional method of an abortion-clinic census.
The entire report could be reduced to this single sentence near the beginning: "With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree."
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2019/09/us-abortion-rate-continues-drop-once-again-state-abortion-restrictions-are-not-main
"The Bishops in the US work to deny access to contraception in the US also. "
Do they? If they are, they're remarkably ineffective about it. Offhand, I can't think of any evidence at all that bishops have done anything in the last 20 years (at least) to "deny access to contraception". The most they have done, as far as I'm aware, is support religious institutions that don't wish to subsidize nor be complicit in their employees' contraception under Obamacare. That hardly amounts to denying access. I don't believe there is a movement anywhere worth a hill of beans to restrict access to contraception in the US.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteThere are ways to reduce the abortion rate while not making it a crime involving life in prison. These include increasing social safety nets (Europe again would be a model) – programs the GOP not only opposes, but is working to reduce or eliminate.
The pro-lifers as a group vote GOP with a few exceptions (Democrats for Life etc). If they seriously want to reduce the numbers of abortions, they should be letting their GOP representatives know that they would rather pay higher taxes than reduce the social safety nets.
Secondly, improve education about effective use of contraception – all methods – and make it affordable for ALL women and men. Condoms are affordable for most people (not all) and don’t need a prescription, but pills and devices and operations are not affordable for everyone. Once again, the GOP and pro-lifers (and RC bishops) are actively working against making contraception affordable and accessible to all who want it. Nobody is forcing any woman, Catholic or not, to swallow a birth control pill. Her religious freedom is not being placed in danger. But the religious freedom of those working for companies and non-profits operating with taxpayer money are losing their religious freedom when their employers are allowed to deny coverage for contraception. religious freedom for ME but NOT for thee
The cost of birth has also been rising, as insurance premiums and copays and deductibles continue to rise, including for those with employer sponsored health insurance. My son and his wife are expecting #2, six years after #1 and the out-of-pocket expenses are MUCH higher even though they are also paying MUCH more in premiums (as is their employer). The pro-lifers who vote only GOP are also helping to make health insurance LESS affordable for people, and healthcare during pregnancy and birth less affordable. Abortion is a lot cheaper.
Adoption costs are also very high – some employers cover some costs, but most do not. Why isn’t the pro-life movement doing more to help support families who want to adopt? To support women who face financial challenges during their pregnancies, and also pay for the living and emotional support many also need in order to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and give birth AND be willing to place their child with an adoptive family. A cousin gave up her child in 1958. It was emotionally brutal. She never married and never had another child, partly due to the emotional trauma. So mental health support as well as FINANCIAL support( and post-childbirth child care expense financial support for those willing to try to raise their child on their own) are all needed to encourage adoption over abortion.
A footnote about adoption; with DNA testing such as "23 and me" being common now, there is virtually no such thing as a closed adoption nowadays. There are pluses and minuses about this, but for the most part I think it is better for all concerned. Birth parents and adoptive parents can still work out how much contact there would be, and at what age. But a child's biological origins are no longer a deep, dark secret, such as they were in the 50s and 60s when I was growing up. There were "gray" adoptions, and downright black market ones then. If that kind of thing is going away, it's a good thing.
DeleteOne of my nephews had a child with a girl when they were both very young. They chose adoption. When the child was middle school aged she asked to have contact with my brother and sister-in-law, because she wanted granparents. They happily consented.
Part 4 - after days of thinking about all this
ReplyDeleteWhere are the truly "pro-life" proposals that would involve social safety net support from the GOP and the pro-life movement? When I looked at the National Right to Life website (I was a dues paying member for years) does not propose legislation to increase social safety nets for women facing a problematic pregnancy.
They do support various restrictions, and if the pro-life marchers would stop with the murderer signs they might find some common ground with those who support keeping abortion legal, while placing some limits on it.
I would like to hear from others here what they would like to see happen - specifically.
I would especially also like to see a limit (ideally 8 weeks) on when abortions can be performed - except to save the life of the mother - no limits on that. When a woman's life is at risk in mid or late pregnancy, caesareans should be 100% covered along with the $1,000.000 or so for three+ months of the ICU nursery in order to save BOTH lives.
Why don't the pro-life people propose laws to cover the enormous costs of a premature delivery and caesarean that could save two lives.
Many accuse the pro-life movement of being unconcerned about women who face problem pregnancies, and call the “pro-birth” but not “pro-life” Sadly, there seems to be a lot of truth in that charge. I have seen "defenses" against this charge by pro-life people pointing to the baby-bottle collections, the pampers collections etc. Not enough folks.
Compromise is also needed in the hardest area of all - defining when a human being comes into existence. It's not possible to find agreement on this in a religiously pluralistic society.
When abortion was first made legal, it was limited to the period before "viability" - the time when a baby born prematurely could survive outside the mother's body with medical assistance. Somewhat like the thinking of Aquinas and other theologians who defined abortion as being not a mortal sin until after "quickening". Or ensoulment. How the US got to declaring abortion legal all the way up until birth I don't know. I missed that part of the legal changes but it’s horrible and I am fully behind making late abortions illegal. A caesarean can be performed instead and the baby cared for in the NICU. But someone does have to pay those bills.
Most Americans support keeping abortion legal - but with limits. Most support legal abortion to save the life of the mother (unlike the RCC which says that the mother must die if an abortion is needed to save her life). A majority support keeping abortion legal in cases of rape and incest. Many support abortion in the event tests show a severe genetic problem.
But most also support some kind of limit outside specific exceptions.
About 90% of both induced and spontaneous abortions (aka, miscarriages) occur during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and a majority of Americans would probably support a 12 week limit on "abortion on demand'.
Pro-life people could encourage subsidizing early pregnancy tests that detect pregnancy well before the first period has been missed - in the first 2 weeks after fertilization, which is also possibly before implantation. One OTC test claims it is 99% accurate 6 days before the first missed period – only a week or so after possible conception. These tests should also be FREE along with the morning-after pill.
So, everyone, what do YOU think should be done?
A recent poll shows that most Americans support keeping abortion legal. But they also support limits. Maybe the pro-life movement should drop some of the extreme rhetoric and try to work with the non-extremists in the pro-choice movement. They are there.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-abortion-laws-are-too-extreme-for-most-americans-poll-shows
I agree that without some compromise we're never going to get anywhere. First thing I would suggest for the pro-life side is to quit doubling down on pre-implant contraception as being abortifacient. Most people don't consider something like Plan B abortion, and they do support, especially, making it available to rape victims. The pro-choice side could do what the article I linked from The Atlantic spoke of, and acknowledge what is plainly visible on an ultrasound, the humanity of the fetus at that point.
DeleteAnd I agree with your points about a robust social safety net being one of the main factors in decreasing the number of abortions.
DeleteI think that, for all of the huffing and puffing one reads about Catholics and abortion, this article and author have always made the most sense to me, i.e., he agrees with my ideas:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_on_contraception_abortion.htm
The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion
By Professor Daniel C. Maguire, Catholic Theologian, Marquette University
Also, here is a timeline on the development of the official Catholic position on abortion:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm