Those who are Pro-Choice... is it possible to discuss the regulation of abortion?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mkrishnan, Mar 24, 2009.

  1. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #1
    This is a bit of a musing based in part on the Arizona abortion bill thread.

    Abortion procedures (D&C's, etc) are generally medical procedures (or in some cases are done through prescription medications such as Plan B).

    In general, there is an active public dialog about the safety, efficacy, and pros/cons of various procedures -- there has been vigorous public discussion in the past two years over... the value of prostate cancer screening, the benefits of aggressively pursuing spinal surgeries, the benefits of cardiac stent placement, etc. This public dialog plays an important oversight role in our culture, and in many of these cases, has led or is leading to changes in the way medicine and surgical arts are being practiced.

    Sometimes, these debates are polarized and include people who have extremely strong pre-motivated views that are not very open to debate (e.g. that autism or ADHD are not real disorders, that vaccines cause autism, that all psychiatric treatment is extremely subjective, or more personally, that the surgery they underwent is highly advisable or inadvisable because they did or did not benefit from it), but mostly these debates end up being fairly active and productive.

    My question is whether, because of the extent of polarity in discussing the legality abortion, an important oversight function that would normally exist in public health -- the people overseeing the safety, efficacy, and best practice of a surgical or medical treatment or procedure -- is lacking when it comes to abortion, and if so, what the risks are of this and how they can be managed.

    This isn't a rhetorical question, and I myself (if not obviously) support choice as well as a healthcare provider (also if not obviously, who does not perform D&C's). As I did mention, this was brought on to some extent by the Arizona legislation -- without getting into the issue of whether any of the regulations on abortion practices outlined in that bill were reasonable to me, the question that came to mind was, what if there were a regulation on abortion that was proposed that I thought was scientifically rigorous and well advised? Would we even be able to know it when we see it, and would we endorse it as proponents of choice?
     
  2. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #2
    The risks to the "overseers" is not insignificant.

    Any attempt to achieve this "board of suitability" will be fought against, tooth and nail.

    The blinkers are on, and I see no change in the U.S. in the near-future.

    Sadly.

    (That is, if I understand your post.) ;)
     
  3. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #3
    That's a fair point, but I don't even mean formal oversight so much. This is a hypothetical example and perhaps a bit far-fetched, but...

    Most Americans who are pro-choice generally oppose things like 24 hour holds because they are seen as being mechanisms to coerce the patients. I tend to agree, myself. But suppose that some study found that a certain medication or other therapy might reduce the chance of some fairly serious complication of abortions, such as post-termination depression onset, but in order to work, that whatever would have to be administered for 24 hours or whatever period of time before the termination to be able to inoculate.

    So, in the hypothetical example, suppose that a 24 hour hold on a termination was advisable on some purely healthcare-based grounds. If such a hypothetical advance came about, would we have the sense to implement it, or would it be immediately waylaid as a means of preventing choice?
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    You know it would. ;)

    I've even seen Priests, here, in Canada, speaking to girls awaiting termination of their pregnancies. Nice people, Catholics. Poor girl makes a hard choice, and here he is, a man of God, ragging on her in her hospital gown.

    Disgusting behaviour for an alleged human-being.
     
  5. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    Not being a doctor, but what are the medical risks of an abortion. I know it isn't a natural occurrence. Are there any serious side effects that can arise short or long term.

    As for the 24 hour wait, I can see pros and cons, once you have it done you cannot undo it so I think a long hard thought process should be involved before having it done. I don't think a girl should just be able to walk in and 5 minutes later it is done. I also think that she should not be persuaded either way for or against.
     
  6. Eanair macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #6
    Usually, that thought process is completed before the woman even walks into a clinic.

    As for the medical risks involved with abortions, that depends on what will be done.
     
  7. JLatte macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    #7
    Usually it is, yes, but for the ones that haven't completely thought it through, it gives them more time to think, and at the same time it's doing absolutely no harm at all to those majority that have thought it through.

    *edit*
    The only realistic con that I see are those women in far out distant rural areas in which travel time is an issue (as was mentioned from another poster in the previous thread)
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    I think if the discussion were centered on science it might be possible. If the discussion had a religious basis, then, absolutely not.
     
  9. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #9
    I would hesitate to call Plan B an abortion procedure, since it works before implantation.
     
  10. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #10
    We don't need regulation. This one day delay thing just creates tedium, both for people who need to take time out of their jobs and for clinics which will now need to make more appointments.

    The only thing we need is EDUCATION, and most people who are pro-choice, myself included, seem to support that.
     
  11. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #11
    I think this view is very interesting. Here, your view is far in distinction from general medical practice, although I think that it's also the dominant view among us who are pro choice. But at the same time, why would pregnancy termination procedures be treated in a completely different way than every other kind of surgery? No one says, "We don't need any regulation on cosmetic surgeries or cardiac surgeries."
     
  12. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #12
    I suppose what I meant was, "We don't need more regulation." I'm sure there are plenty of health and safety regulations, which should definitely stay in place to protect the people who go through the procedures.

    But what reason is there to add more regulations? All of these proposed regulations just seem to be for the purpose of making it more inconvenient.
     
  13. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
    Does it have to be religion? How about morality?
     
  14. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #14
    Again, most people (I don't know about you) wouldn't be "sure" if it came to any other medical procedure. Regulations and best practices have changed in numerous aspects of surgery and other parts of medicine, ranging from spinal repair to bariatric surgery and various other procedures, essentially all the time. Major changes have happened in the last several years for things hospitals have done for many decades. So my claim again is that, were it not abortion, no one would just assume that it is completely well regulated.
     
  15. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #15
    If I broke my leg, and there was a law that said I had to go to the hospital, then wait a day, and then come back for treatment the next day, I would not consider that an improvement over being able to be treated the same day. It would be silly and lead to more suffering without any purpose.

    The only reason people would even consider allowing that for abortion is because of the "moral issues" behind it.
     
  16. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #16
    Only religious people use the word morality and mean it. I guess your libertarian stances only go far as to deny citizens — women — their rights under the Declaration of Independence expressed wherein:

    If it makes a woman happy to have an abortion in order to control the direction and purpose of her life, that is her right and hers alone.

    I enjoy your constant twisting and turning in order to portray yourself as something other than an extreme rightwing conservative. At least you have the wits about you to recognise the brand is utterly damaged while trying to paint yourself as something new under the sun. :D
     
  17. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #17
    That and the fact that abortion is a purely elective procedure, unlike your broken leg example. A woman is in very little danger if she chooses to carry a baby to term. A broken leg however, if left untreated can result in any number of complications, many of them extremely life threatening.

    You can't just pick a random medical procedure and act like it's the same thing as an abortion. If you want to compare Abortion to another procedure, then elective cosmetic surgery is the best candidate.

    SLC
     
  18. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #18
    Hey, wow... a compliment! Thanks, Blue!



    Anyway, it's not difficult to understand why my constitutionalist/libertarian/conservative philosophies fit in with the "life" argument, is it?

    I do not believe that women have the 'right' to prevent another human's right to life. Making one persons life easier does not validate the destruction of another's life. Whether it be an unborn child, or a 90yr. old man, my position is the same. Always has been, always will be.

    I also believe our culture has a severe problem with the valuation of human life. I personally believe life is 'sacred', but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. It has to do with morality. I didn't get this value from the Bible, I got it from my heart and soul.
     
  19. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #19
    Are you purposely trying to misinterpret me? I created a hypothetical and medically sensible reason that could be determined, why there might be a reason to, for instance, wait before having a termination. I didn't advocate actually making people wait for a day on the thought that the hypothetical reason might be true -- I merely observed that, were the reason true, then medically it might be justified and good policy. You went from a hypothetical reason in response to a hypothetical regulation on termination of pregnancy to applying the same response for no reason to an entirely different procedure.

    If you want to follow that line of analogical reasoning, at least chose something else where there might be a hypothetical or real reason for delaying the procedure. There are plenty of examples. Bariatric surgery is denied until a patient is refractory to behavioral weight loss. Epilepsy surgery is generally not done until after multiple diagnostic methods lead to a consensus likely seizure focus. A cancer treatment that would destroy the bone marrow isn't done until a means of replacing the bone marrow is secured.

    I'm not even saying that there's any reason to believe waiting before one has an abortion would be a good regulation -- that was just an example. My point is that it's difficult to know how to improve termination services without a discussion of their effectiveness and complications, and I believed that such a discussion might be hampered by a refusal to engage in reasonable discussion among individuals who support choice.

    You seem to be making my point for me.
     
  20. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #20

    So this is the sum of your argument? That women avoid carrying to term because they want an 'easy' life? So on the basis of this, you'd seek to make women second-class citizens and deny them their freedom to make choices for their own life, free from government and religious interference? Remember that the embryo has no rights at all, even children have fewer rights than adults.

    But I find myself having to explain myself over and over again to a bunch of geeky young men who clearly haven't an idea of what women do. No wonder the priesthood wants to keep itself all male. It's just more of the same of thousands of years of men fearing and controlling women's fertility after we ditched the earth god for the sky god.

    I'll keep this as short and as simple as possible:

    Women have always sought abortions, regardless of the law or the morality of the times. They can become pregnant for various reasons, some of which are no fault of their own. Rightly, many of them seek to rid themselves of an unwanted child before it comes to term, because in many cases it represents a burden, financial or otherwise, that women can not cope with. Remember that on the whole, it is women who are adversely impacted by bearing children and raising families in ways that you can barely imagine.

    So, while you blokes have been dancing on the head of a pin for millennia, debating the sanctity of life, and reserving the right to kill whenever it suits you, women have just gone and got on with things, attempting to control their destiny. So, you started burning the witches as well, many of them herbalists/midwives/abortionists. It's all about controlling women's fertility.

    So, the facts are this: women will and have always sought abortions. But those with religion on their mind want to restrict or eliminate that option, but it's impossible. It's akin to criminalising drug use; it doesn't work. All you do is to push that activity into areas where it places a greater risk to women's lives.

    So what you're all essentially saying is that you'd be happier to see a woman, any woman, including members of your own family, risk her life with a coathanger than have a safe legal option. Because on the whole, women are not listening to you guys while you wank endlessly on about the rights of an embryo where none exist.

    The logical conclusion to this nuttery is someone like Bobby Jindal, who would make all abortion illegal, even in the case of rape, incest and even if the very life of the mother was at risk. He'd rather see a dead woman than a dead embryo.
     
  21. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #21
    From the looks of things, I guess the answer is NO. :p

    Don't worry, the way things are going here it won't be long before they add redacting the Constitution to changing art, literature, music etc. to eliminate the unsavory sections.
     
  22. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #22

    Again throwing around terms like 'nuttery', offending 'geeky young men', and lumping anyone who disagrees with you (straw man) into your preferred organization to hate, in this case the church. It's really unfortunate that you sink to these levels and don't just discuss the issue.

    In my opinion, you should stop speaking like you represent all women. My wife has the EXACT opposite view as you do. She wonders how some women can be so self-centered, so egotistical, as to think that they have the 'right' to destroy life simply because they helped create it and that it's inside of you. She wonders how dense other women are to think that that living, breathing, heart-beating life is "apart of them and their body", and theirs to destroy at a whim.

    She wonders if the 'feminists' fighting for "women's right to have abortions" care at all about what they're doing to fundamental morality. She has seen women get abortions like their birth control... and wonders how sick they must really be if they don't see what's wrong with that.

    There are a lot of women in this world that find it abhorrent that women like you speak like you represent them. Because they respect life, especially the ones inside of them. They realize that it's not about controlling your own body, its about protecting a life that can't possibly protect itself. It's not about 'women's rights', it's about murder.

    You argument that women have always sought abortions is supposed to help your argument? People have always committed murder, have always stolen, have always cheated and lied. What's the point?
     
  23. Eanair macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #23
    Morality is relative.
     
  24. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #24
    I already said that I have no problems with existing and relevant safety regulations, and I've not heard many complaints about the safety of abortion procedures. I'm not a medical expert, but I would support more safety regulations if there were a study done that indicated that they were necessary, just like I would about any other medical procedure.

    My point was that the reason for the outrage in the other thread was that there was no basis for making people wait a day. It was purely a political move.
     
  25. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #25
    How is just handing out abortions protecting the person. If a woman just decides she wants an abortion without giving it any thought, then has it done. Then a day later regrets the decision who is that helping? I think making sure that the woman really has a grasp about what she is doing should be considered first.
     

Share This Page