The Power of Words: terms for the abortion debate

[Rían]

And another thing about the use of the word "choice" - the aborted baby sure didn't have any choice in the matter the "pro-choice" people take away that choice from him/her ...


I had an amnio after a special ultrasound determined that my second son had some fairly significant birth defects. There were several possible reasons why it could have happened, and we wanted to know more, because we would have had to have some specialists present at birth if it was one of the options. My doctor had done thousands of amnios, and had NEVER lost a baby, so we thought it was a good choice.

I had several more amnios while I was in the hospital with pre-term labor. They were trying to stop the labor until the baby's lungs were mature enough to let him breathe on his own. You can determine this by examining the amniotic fluid for the presence of surfactant. I was in the hospital for a month, on heavy-duty labor-supressing drugs, and on the second or third amnio in the hospital, they detected surfactant, so I delivered him the next morning, and his lungs were just fine. My own doctor did them; I wouldn't have allowed another doctor to do them unless I was happy with his/her "record" with the procedure.

Personally, because I would not have an abortion, I wouldn't get an amnio to determine whether or not to abort; but for medical reasons like the ones that happened to me, I think it's a choice that is fine to make.

I also had an amnio when I was pregnant with my third child, because I really appreciated knowing about my son's birth defects early on, and wanted to see if this baby was fine (altho I wouldn't have aborted if it wasn't). It was the same doctor, so I felt comfortable with doing it. Some people might object to this, but my husband and I felt it was the right decision, so we did it.

[Minielin]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And another thing about the use of the word "choice" - the aborted baby sure didn't have any choice in the matter the "pro-choice" people take away that choice from him/her ...

I've agree- I've always considered that particular piece of nomenclature extremely ironic.

[The Gaffer]

(Rian, I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions on your doctor, but that simply cannot literally be the case if s/he has any substantial experience in obstetrics. People lose babies for all sorts of reasons (most of them unknown) all the time. Around 20% of all conceptions spontaneously abort.)

So, amniocentesis gives the parents definitive information, yet subjects the foetus to risk of death. Are we justified in subjecting a “child� to this risk in order to make our own lives easier?

I would say yes, because I don’t classify the foetus as a child; in common with others’ experiences, my wife and I wanted to remove the uncertainty surrounding a potential diagnosis to be able to plan ahead. I posed the question because I think I would have a different view if I thought of foetuses and babies as equivalent. (I certainly struggled with the morality of the question at the time when we had to decide whether or not to have the test, and in future, I may prefer to have no tests at all.)

At the same time, I can accept that there is a crucial difference (of intent) between carrying out a procedure intended to end a foetus’s life and one intended to gather information which carries a risk of death. Can pro-lifers accept that there is a crucial difference between a foetus and an unborn child? Would they accept a screening test on their newborn baby which subjected him or her to a 1% chance of dying but had no therapeutic benefit?

I’m not condemning anyone here; I am just challenging views in a genuine spirit of enquiry. I feel that there is a contradiction between beliefs and behaviour on this one. And yes, it’s all about definitions!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And another thing about the use of the word "choice" - the aborted baby sure didn't have any choice in the matter the "pro-choice" people take away that choice from him/her ...

On the other hand it would be a little difficult to wait a year or 16 until the child can have a say in it, isn't it?

[Rían]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
(Rian, I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions on your doctor, but that simply cannot literally be the case if s/he has any substantial experience in obstetrics. People lose babies for all sorts of reasons (most of them unknown) all the time. Around 20% of all conceptions spontaneously abort.)

I mean losing a baby as a direct, traceable result of an amnio. He was a v. skilled surgeon as well as an OB. I had heard nurses in the hospital talking about him and what a great surgeon he was, and they did NOT work for him and had no incentive to say those things.

Of course he could have been lying - you never know ...

I would say yes, because I don’t classify the foetus as a child ...

You're getting pretty close to the end of the pregnancy - if your wife went into preterm labor and delivered, would you consider it a fetus until the time of its full-term delivery date? (not asked in a mean way - just something to think about)

Can pro-lifers accept that there is a crucial difference between a foetus and an unborn child?

I can accept that OTHERS think that there is a crucial difference. Personally, I don't think there is.

I’m not condemning anyone here; I am just challenging views in a genuine spirit of enquiry.

Yes, I can tell that, and I appreciate it! I think that talking about difficult subjects with people that have different views is a good thing.

I feel that there is a contradiction between beliefs and behaviour on this one.

I'm sorry, you lost me there ... what's the contradiction, and who is it made by?

And yes, it’s all about definitions!

Yes, they're v. important. Obviously, if the pro-choice people thought the "tissue" involved was a baby, most of them would not be for abortion. Some of them still would, however, IMO.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
On the other hand it would be a little difficult to wait a year or 16 until the child can have a say in it, isn't it?

Of course it would The point to me was the irony in holding up "choice" as the highest good, and removing the capacity for choice from a baby that, if it had been born, would have been able to choose things. Esp. if it was a girl baby! Her choice to even HAVE a "choice" if she ever got pregnant was - taken away.

[Rían]

A general comment: (and I say this cautiously, but I think it needs to be said) I also think that there is a lot of self-deception going on with pro-choice people. IOW, they're going against what their heart is telling them on the issue of if it's a baby or just a mass of tissue without value. There's no moral problem with removing, say, a cyst; there IS a moral issue with killing a child. And if you don't want a child, or the trouble of going thru a pregnancy, then if you can view the fetus as just a cyst, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with just removing a cyst, is there? And "choice" is a good thing, so wording it that way makes it seem like those against you are against choice in general, and that your position does NOT involve a baby in any way.

I think there are many pro-choicers that truly believe that the fetus is NOT human; but I also think that there are many that DO, yet "talk themselves out of it".

Just one example on this thought - why is killing a pregnant woman considered a double murder in many places, if the fetus is not human? It seems to boil down to if you WANT the baby, then it's a baby; if you DON'T want it, it's NOT a baby. This should be ringing alarm bells, IMO ...

And no, I have not personally had an abortion; but I know people that HAVE. One is a v. close relative (and I don't shun her by any means - don't even THINK that! Why should I? We're v. close.) I can totally understand the temptation towards abortion - so quick, and relatively easy, and then the "problem" is gone ... and no one needs to know.

A lot of crisis pregnancy centers (places where women can go to get free pregnancy tests, and talk about other options besides abortion, and talk to people just about things in general, and get help with clothing and other supplies, etc. - run by pro-life people) are getting ultrasound machines, and find that when a pregnant woman who is leaning towards abortion gets a look at an ultrasound picture of the baby in her womb, she changes her mind and chooses to NOT abort. The general feeling is "that's a BABY in there!"

I've touched on some rather delicate areas - but as Gaffer said, in the spirit of enquiry, and NOT condemnation. I'd like to hear some opinions on these things, and feel free to say I'm deceiving myself, too, if you truly think that, and can say it with respect and consideration and back it up.

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Can pro-lifers accept that there is a crucial difference between a foetus and an unborn child?

No, I don't think they can. Presumably foetus is used by pro-choicers where unborn child is used by pro-lifers.

I've been having this debate with my fellow NAGTYs and two things in particular have struck.
The first was that a study (sorry, I can't give details) suggested that those who went through abortion to terminate pregnancy after rape suffered twice the mental anguish as those who actually gave birth. This suggests that even to those who had to abort a foetus which came to them in a detestable manner feel a connection with something which is sufficiently deep to regret abortion. However due to the lack of provinance and the fact it was only one study the findings were thrown out of discussion.

The other, and again I cannot verify if this is the truth, was the suggestion that some Roman Catholics perform funeral rites for aborted feotuses, but not for miscarried children.
This was news to me, and my initial reaction was revulsion (to the idea of preforming rites for something which, and I really catch myself out here, never lived... properly). Was this repulsion just the effect of society on me, or some deep belief that the feotus did not deserve the same treatement as humans?

[The Gaffer]

Lots of stuff to discuss here and not enough time at the moment, but here's a quick reply.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I mean losing a baby as a direct, traceable result of an amnio.

It's very seldom possible to make this connection definitively. The research I've seen found that, between 15 and 18 weeks, around 1% of pregnancies terminate spontaneously (i.e. for unknown reasons). Where women have had amnios, the rate is 2% (again for unknown reasons). It would be virtually impossible to point to the amnio as the definitive cause of an individual miscarraige, yet the evidence shows quite clearly that they do. All women undergoing amniocentesis in the UK are counselled about this risk.

You're getting pretty close to the end of the pregnancy - if your wife went into preterm labor and delivered, would you consider it a fetus until the time of its full-term delivery date? (not asked in a mean way - just something to think about)[/B]

(Not taken as such.) No. I think my concept of difference is due to the baby's still being inside the body, still reliant on the placenta, still having to go through the trauma of birth, all that sort of thing.

If something happened now and we lost the baby, it would be like losing a child. Not the same as losing a child, but similar.

The contradiction I was referring to was how we (regardless of our pro-life or -choice views) seem to be prepared to accept a 1% risk of death for our unborn child (from an amniocentesis, which has no therapeutic benefit), yet wouldn't accept that same risk if the child was born.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Janny
The other, and again I cannot verify if this is the truth, was the suggestion that some Roman Catholics perform funeral rites for aborted feotuses, but not for miscarried children.
This was news to me, and my initial reaction was revulsion (to the idea of preforming rites for something which, and I really catch myself out here, never lived... properly). Was this repulsion just the effect of society on me, or some deep belief that the feotus did not deserve the same treatement as humans?

Maybe it was the part "but not for miscarried children". That makes it seem more like a political than a moral action ("let's show everyone that abortion is murder") and, of course, a double standard ("oh, but miscarriage isn't really a loss of life")

It might be just a rumour, but I think I've heard it before - perhaps it's one of those rumours which everyone comes to believe in.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
It's very seldom possible to make this connection definitively. The research I've seen found that, between 15 and 18 weeks, around 1% of pregnancies terminate spontaneously (i.e. for unknown reasons). Where women have had amnios, the rate is 2% (again for unknown reasons). It would be virtually impossible to point to the amnio as the definitive cause of an individual miscarraige, yet the evidence shows quite clearly that they do. All women undergoing amniocentesis in the UK are counselled about this risk.

Interesting Gaffer... now that I hear THIS, another theory comes to mind. Don't many women get an amnio because they have a high-risk pregnancy? We didn't get one with any of our three - because we didn't feel a need to. So if those taking them include a greater percentage of high risk pregnancies, doesn't it follow that BOTH getting an amnio and the miscarriage rate could be results of that same thing... the higher risk factors involved?

A couple other matters that have been touched on:

People will get abortions anyway:
Now, how do we make our laws? Do we make them from objective moral standards? Or are they determined by people's behavior? If the latter, we could make the same statement about drug use (which some might agree with), but also infanticide, child abuse, euthenasia, assisted suicide, theft, murder, extortion, fraud, arson, etc, etc. After all, people do all those things anyway, right? Heck - why do we need ANY laws? People will do what they will do anyway!

A Women's Issue:
Another interesting thing... which I especially thought of when Hillary Clinton was pushing abortion rights in Third World countries some years ago. What happens when Elective Abortion becomes Selective Abortion? Here in America, we abort 1,400,000 babies every year (around 30% of pregnancies ). But anybody ever hear of a place called China? Do you know about their 'One Family, One Child' policy? They have a younger population which is overwhelmingly male. Why is this? Each family is only permitted to have one child - and, as in many cultures, sons are highly treasured. Couples are frequently known to abort upon discovering that the pre-born baby is a girl(!). Oh - other little girls have unusually high rates of 'accidents' (infanticide is rampant) or get abandoned and placed in orphanages (which has spurred a lucrative business for the Chinese government - adopting out young Chinese girls to caring American or other western families for exhorbitant fees - the rates (ED: as in "costs" or "price") for this have just soared).

So - what do you folks think about people having an abortion because they wanted a son and a daughter is in the oven? Or vice-versa? Or... Chrys, what's that spinal condition you have? What would you think of expectant parents getting an abortion upon finding their child had that condition? Me... I would think it was wrong!

In China it's so bad that the government STRONGLY encourages abortions to expectant mothers who already have a child (in some cases practically force them to - or even force them in actuality). (EDIT: I don't think anyone even knows how many abortions are performed in China each year)

So... is it advancing the rights of women worldwide when couples choose to abort a young daughter in hopes of later gaining a son? Think about it. Wonder if it happens here in the US of A too?

One 'choice' issue we haven't mentioned either - which is a major contributor to abortion: Upon finding out his girlfriend / wife is pregnant, how many boyfriends / husbands say; "It's me or the baby - your choice!" Is THAT the kind of 'choice' we want? That's reality though folks - and it's a story I hear all the time.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Valandil
[B]So if those taking them include a greater percentage of high risk pregnancies, doesn't it follow that BOTH getting an amnio and the miscarriage rate could be results of that same thing... the higher risk factors involved?]

Good, critical thinking there, batman. In this case, the studies looked at two groups of women who were similar except that one group had an amnio and another didn't. That is, they were matched for other risk factors to make sure that the amniocentesis was the only possible difference.

It's widely accepted that amniocentesis carries that extra risk, though sometimes you see a lower figure than 1% quoted.

Do you think amniocentesis is acceptable, Val? (Bearing in mind that it only gives you information, it doesn't have any therapeutic benefit)

Clearly, the "it's OK because people do it" argument is ridiculous on its own. However what I think this argument is saying is really "it's OK because most people think it's OK".

However, having defined it as OK up to a certain point in development, I agree that it's pretty difficult to impose some sort of moral constraint on the reasons that are justifiable. One could argue that "population control" is a better justification than, say, wanting a boy or sparing the family's embarrassment. Either way, it makes no difference to the foetus.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Do you think amniocentesis is acceptable, Val? (Bearing in mind that it only gives you information, it doesn't have any therapeutic benefit)

Clearly, the "it's OK because people do it" argument is ridiculous on its own. However what I think this argument is saying is really "it's OK because most people think it's OK".

However, having defined it as OK up to a certain point in development, I agree that it's pretty difficult to impose some sort of moral constraint on the reasons that are justifiable. One could argue that "population control" is a better justification than, say, wanting a boy or sparing the family's embarrassment. Either way, it makes no difference to the foetus.

Hmmm - tough question. I just love making my best points, and just hate answering all the hard questions! Human nature I guess.

It's truly hard for me to say. From Rian's testimonial (a doctor having done thousands without a miscarriage resulting) - I wonder if technique is a factor... ie, a medical professional doing it properly greatly decreases any risk to practically nil. Of course, he could be beating the odds... wonder how large the sample was for the study you quote... and it IS interesting that the other risk factors were taken into account. Say - what was the statistical 'plus-or-minus' from that study... wasn't 1% by any chance, was it?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
A general comment: (and I say this cautiously, but I think it needs to be said) I also think that there is a lot of self-deception going on with pro-choice people. IOW, they're going against what their heart is telling them on the issue of if it's a baby or just a mass of tissue without value. There's no moral problem with removing, say, a cyst; there IS a moral issue with killing a child. And if you don't want a child, or the trouble of going thru a pregnancy, then if you can view the fetus as just a cyst, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with just removing a cyst, is there? And "choice" is a good thing, so wording it that way makes it seem like those against you are against choice in general, and that your position does NOT involve a baby in any way.

a cyst is also a living thing... where does one decide to draw the moral line? would aborting say, a pet dog to save it's life be okay?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
a cyst is also a living thing... where does one decide to draw the moral line? would aborting say, a pet dog to save it's life be okay?

Whoa there! Are you actually EQUATING a cyst with a pre-born baby? Is THIS what the pro-choice argument rests on?

I don't understand your question about a dog though... nor do I consider ANY dog the equal of a person.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
Whoa there! Are you actually EQUATING a cyst with a pre-born baby? Is THIS what the pro-choice argument rests on?

I don't understand your question about a dog though... nor do I consider ANY dog the equal of a person.

i'm not equating... i'm trying to see where the line is drawn from a religious pov

i would assume that while killing a human is a sin... killing anything else, while it might be cruel, is not

is that basically right?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i'm not equating... i'm trying to see where the line is drawn from a religious pov

i would assume that while killing a human is a sin... killing anything else, while it might be cruel, is not

is that basically right?

*whew*

Yes - that would be essentially correct - though some may dicker about such issues as capital punishment and killing in war... but if you say 'murder', there would be general agreement.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Valandil
Hmmm - tough question. I just love making my best points, and just hate answering all the hard questions! Human nature I guess.

LOL! You and me both.

Originally posted by Valandil

It's truly hard for me to say. From Rian's testimonial (a doctor having done thousands without a miscarriage resulting) - I wonder if technique is a factor... ie, a medical professional doing it properly greatly decreases any risk to practically nil. Of course, he could be beating the odds... wonder how large the sample was for the study you quote... and it IS interesting that the other risk factors were taken into account. Say - what was the statistical 'plus-or-minus' from that study... wasn't 1% by any chance, was it?

Top notch prevarication, sir! You'll have to wait for an exact answer because the Cochrane Library doesn't run on a mac so I'll have to look it up at work. However, I do recall that it was statistically significant.

IIRC, it's not known whether technique or skill has anything to do with it. In a systematic review of published research, it would be standard practice to examine the effects of different carers or settings, as well as things like what equipment was used, etc., which you'd expect to reveal whether it's just a few cack-handed individuals that skew the data.

I'm sure that doctors would like us to believe that it's possible to be infallible, but as far as I know, the Pope doesn't do obstetrics

On a related issue, I'm surprised to come across two parents who were not aware of the risks of amniocentesis. In your own case, obviously the issue didn't come up, but it's pretty widely known about here and it's a legal requirement to inform patients of it. I did wonder if the NHS is just crap at it (always a possibility), but saw it mentioned on a US HMO site recently too.

Like I said, if a pregnancy did terminate after an amnio, it would be impossible to say whether or not it would have happened anyway.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i'm not equating... i'm trying to see where the line is drawn from a religious pov

i would assume that while killing a human is a sin... killing anything else, while it might be cruel, is not

is that basically right?

btw brownjenkins, let's don't let this (and my answer to it) obscure what we're talking about. You were the one who brought up sin... I was defining human life. And other ways that humans are killed besides abortion would be better fit for other threads, dontcha think? Other than that, you were asking a question, and I was answering it.

Gaffer - it's quite possible my wife would know if there's widespread warning that amnio's are not considered 100% safe. I'll ask her what she knows.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i would assume that while killing a human is a sin... killing anything else, while it might be cruel, is not

is that basically right?

By "anything else", do you include non-human things, like horses and cockroaches? Just wondering, because that's the way I read it, and Val read it differently ...


1% is the number I heard on amnios, too, altho I did think that the miscarriages occurred fairly soon after the procedure.