The Roman Catholic Church mobilized nearly 300,000 people to march and sign petitions in support of the ban.
"A child is not a sickness," said Henry Romero, a priest who helped lead the campaign. "When two lives are in danger, you must try to save both the woman and the child. It's difficult to say now that it isn't possible to save both."
...
Some doctors privately admit to carrying out what they believe are illegal procedures, while others say they won't jeopardize their careers.
"Many are thinking that instead of taking the risk, it is better to let a woman die," said Dr. Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine.
Doctors frequently see women coming in with infections, many likely brought on by illegal abortions that they refuse to disclose for fear they might be punished, said Dr. Carla Cerrato. Because the people with some medical training who used to do illegal abortions have disappeared, Cerrato said, women more frequently take drugs or pull the fetus out on their own using wires or other crude objects.
"What we are seeing are complications that before we never saw," Cerrato said, sitting in the dingy pre-labor room at a crowded public hospital in Managua.
She added that she sees hysterectomies and severe infections that leave women sterile or dead because obstetricians can't take any action that might harm a living fetus.
"We have to wait until the fetus dies," she said. "But often, for the woman, it's too late."
Keep in mind, y'all, lots of people in South Dakota (many of whom love to comment on this very blog) would not be troubled in the least if stuff like this happened here. "Women in the womb" should be the law's first priority, you see.
37 comments:
It's hard to know how to comment when something as rash and ignorant as that last paragraph is written, and its writer is in earnest.
Thankfully it did help me decide that you can't be taken seriously. I'll look around for Dakota women who know the difference between thinking they're right...and thinking they're right and everyone else is an evil bastard.
You've added nothing to the discussion here, so don't let the door hit you on the way out. Byez.
Jon Schaff, 10/19/07:
"I know that outlawing abortion will have the effect of some women procuring abortion anyway, often in an unsafe circumstance, and their health will be harmed. But I see abortion as killing 1.3 million unborn Americans each year, so outlawing the evil of abortion is worth the evil of injured women."
You, 10/16/07:
"Millions of women worldwide, as concerned with women’s health as you are, oppose abortion because abortion, to the total destruction of the victim, elevates the liberties, the choices of one human being over another: a fundamental “evil” that feminism aims to correct. Or, aren’t female humans in utero equal? If you don’t believe they are, then we are at an impasse."
If you don't want to deal with Olga Reyes, or the 70,000 other annual consequences of your worldview, I guess that's your problem.
Anyway, like I said, buh-bye.
Anyone who supports laws that allow this kind of thing to happen *is* an evil bastard.
And abortion being legal causes hundreds of senseless deaths... or aren't fetuses considered human in your mind?
I wouldn't drag Jon Schaff into this. He is much more equitable than I.
K: Exactly. It is possible to be both pro-life and reasonable. Anna doesn't make allowances for this.
Ectopic pregnancy is a totally separate issue from standard abortion. When the fetus is stuck in the Fallopian tubes, it is considered a medical emergency that threatens the mother's life and has an almost 0% chance of the fetus becoming viable.
Every draft of the abortion legislation in South Dakota made allowances for ectopic pregnancies.
Where in the abortion ban legislation has it ever mentioned ectopic pregnancies? At least under 1215, until you've actually started dying, you're screwed.
A number of people who comment here have made it abundantly clear, as Jon Schaff said, that they know women will be injured and killed as a result of an abortion ban, but that banning abortions is "worth" a few thousand dead/permanently injured women every month.
All I'm doing is pointing out the real-life consequences of outlawing abortion & of placing the needs of a zygote/embryo/fetus above those of the woman carrying it. I'm aware that an ectopic pregnancy isn't the same as an abortion, but women facing ectopic pregnancies are in great danger if they happen to live in countries where doctors are terrified of being prosecuted for performing surgery on a patient that might also end a pregnancy (recall the medical community's response to 1215 in 2005).
That seems to make you pretty indignant, girlfriday/et al, and I don't understand why. Have whatever opinion you want, but don't get snippy and refuse to engage with what happens in real life when your moral/religious opinion about fetuses is codified into law.
"All I'm doing is pointing out the real-life consequences of outlawing abortion & of placing the needs of a zygote/embryo/fetus above those of the woman carrying it."
For me, I would never place the life of the fetus ahead of the life or health of the mother (like the Nicaraguans apparently do). That said, the life of a fetus is just as important as the life of an infant... both are human beings in development. So in my mind anyone who argues for to keep standard abortions legal (that is, abortions merely for convenience, apart from health of the mother or sexual assault cases) is arguing to make infanticide legal. Standard abortions are, essentially, preemptive infanticide.
Yeah, pregnancy is just an inconvenience. I'm sure you know that from all the times you've been pregnant, David.
True story, I am male. Does that mean that my opinion on these issues is completely invalid? Does it mean that a fetus is somehow not a human being in development, and that I shouldn't want to protect the life of infants and those that are about to be infants?
Standard abortions are, essentially, preemptive infanticide.
Wow, and people say I'm rash and ignorant.
I think your gender does matter in considering your arguments on this issue, David.
Well, the reason I'm here is because I'd like hear your side of the argument. So far I've just absorbed two insults and two references to my gender... which doesn't help me understand anything. I strive to be a reasonable and compassionate person, but at this point I honestly can't see how standard abortions are anything but preemptive infanticide.
A fetus is as much a human being in development just as an infant is... what specifically makes there a difference between the two such that you are ok with terminating the former, but not the latter?
The tone of your comments makes it a little hard for me to believe you're simply interested in hearing the other side. Do you really not know the arguments on the pro-choice 'side'? I feel like I'm familiar with all of the anti-choice arguments. I don't have any questions for you at all...
I don't think I was using an inappropriate tone... but I suppose tone is always difficult to convey through text. Sorry if anything came across as rash or offensive, it wasn't meant that way on my end.
Yes I am really interested in how you view a human fetus differently than I do. No one has ever explained to me what specifically makes it less human than an infant.
Obviously, I can only speak for myself, here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your question about what *I* believe.
I believe a human fetus is indeed human and I believe it is alive. Anything made up of living cells -- from a plant to a worm to a spleen -- is alive. I think it would be difficult to argue otherwise. But as long as a fetus is inside a woman's body and completely biologically dependent on her (as in, it can't be transfered to anyone else), I believe her right to control her body and her future trumps any other interest.
From a policy standpoint, though, it doesn't really matter what I believe or you believe as far as the humanity of a fetus. When abortion is banned, women and their fetuses die. We have overwhelming evidence of that. So banning abortion is a bad idea, no matter how you cut it.
Thanks for your patience, I can understand your point, but if you don't mind I still have questions.
It's true that a fetus is totally dependent on his or her mother... but aren't infants also totally dependent on others as well? Sure, the fetus needs the umbilical cord, but infants also need food, love, shelter, and attention. As you noted, I haven't been pregnant myself, but it seems to me (and the mothers I know have agreed with me) that taking care of an infant is more time-consuming/life-consuming than taking care of a fetus.
Yet our laws won't allow us to choose to terminate an infant to take back total control of our life...
So why should they allow us to terminate a fetus if both are equally human? Or did I miss something?
You absolutely missed something. Biologically dependent. If I can't or don't want to take care of an infant, I can hand it to you, or my mother or my neighbor. A pregnant woman's body is host to a fetus and that cannot be transfered to anyone else.
This is not an issue of taking control over your life in a social sense. This is an issue of the right to make medical decisions about your own body. Period.
As to your assertion that 'taking care of a fetus' is easier than an infant, I'd once again say that your understanding of pregnancy and childbirth is limited. Pregnancy is hugely dangerous and taxing -- it's not something that anyone should be forced to go through against their will.
"This is not an issue of taking control over your life in a social sense. This is an issue of the right to make medical decisions about your own body. Period."
I can see where you're coming from, but "medical decision" doesn't seem to be the right term. For one, medical decisions have to do with disease and injuries. I agree wholeheartedly that pregnancy is both taxing and potentially dangerous... but unless the life/health-threatening complications do come up (ectopic pregnancy, for example), abortion isn't destroying a 'germ'... it would be destroying (as near as I can tell) an infant.
It would be like calling euthanasia a "medical decision". Personally, I'm in favor of euthanasia in certain cases of extreme pain and terminal illness, but to call it a "medical decision" would be to try to disguise what it really is. Sure it's a decision made in a hospital, but it's also a decision that permanently takes a human life.
Again, when the life or health of the mother is in danger (or in cases of sexual assault), I agree that abortion should be available. But it seems irresponsible to me for someone to have consensual sex and then terminate a human life rather than accepting the consequences. If they really didn't want to get pregnant, then why engage in the act that gets people pregnant? Doesn't that seem irresponsible to you too?
No, it doesn't seem irresponsible to me at all.
I also think abortion is very often a responsible decision by a woman who, regardless of how she got pregnant, has taken stock of her life and decided she cannot bring a child (or an additional child) into the world.
It's a seriously considered medical decision that shouldn't be trivialized with stuff like: But it seems irresponsible to me for someone to have consensual sex and then terminate a human life rather than accepting the consequences. If they really didn't want to get pregnant, then why engage in the act that gets people pregnant? Doesn't that seem irresponsible to you too?
I'm not sure why you think your belief in the irresponsibility of women who have elective abortions should matter to them.
The way I see it, responsibility is a cornerstone of the legal system... and by responsibility I mean accepting the consequences of one's actions. If I buy a house, I incur the responsibility to make payments on it. If I leave the sprinklers on all week while going on vacation, I have to pay a high water bill. These are all consequences I brought on myself with my own actions.
Why wouldn't pregnancy be just like that? A man and woman choose to have sex and thereby incur responsibility to everything sex entails. (Both of them, mind you, not just the woman.) If they can't accept that responsibility, then why should they have sex? If I can't make house payments, why should I buy a house?
If, however, the sex was irresponsible, so be it... but that doesn't mean that on a chance pregnancy the couple should be given the opportunity for a second irresponsibility in the form of an abortion. (I believe that to try to annihilate the consequences of one's actions is irresponsible, not responsible.) It seems like a responsible couple in that position would admit the sex wasn't thought out, but accept the outcome and raise the child anyway (or give it up via adoption). Terminating an infant isn't a legal option, and if a fetus is just as human (as K says it is) then that shouldn't be a legal option, either.
And finally, yes I do advocate legislating responsibility... we all do. Virtually every law we encounter from manslaughter to reckless driving is based on holding citizens accountable for their actions. What are the grounds for making an exception here?
Pregnancy and sex are not even remotely comparable buying a house or leaving the water on. Are you serious?
Furthermore, there is an enormous difference between a fetus and and infant that has been explained to you multiple times on this thread.
"Pregnancy and sex are not even remotely comparable buying a house or leaving the water on. Are you serious?"
Obviously they aren't even close to the same act, but have enough in common to make the analogy work. (ie both are human actions, and both have consequences) Feel free to offer a better analogy if you would like.
"Furthermore, there is an enormous difference between a fetus and and infant that has been explained to you multiple times on this thread."
The only difference mentioned was that one was biologically attached to the mother... which doesn't seem to be a relevant difference because both an infant and a fetus need sustenance and care from an adult... just in different ways (ie umbilical cord vs mashed carrots). We all agree that both entities are unique human beings in development. That being recognized, I don't understand why we could legally treat one vastly different than another.
If you believe that forcing a child on someone who doesn't want it is responsible, we definitely have different ideas of responsibility. That's a responsibility that is going fall hard on the shoulders of that unwanted child.
Are you actually advocating that married couples who aren't ready for a child (or more children) should be abstinent?
The only difference mentioned was that one was biologically attached to the mother... which doesn't seem to be a relevant difference because both an infant and a fetus need sustenance and care from an adult...
Why that is relevant and the difference between the types of care needed have also been explained to you more than once.
"If you believe that forcing a child on someone who doesn't want it is responsible, we definitely have different ideas of responsibility."
I don't see it as me forcing anything... if the couple made the choice to risk pregnancy, they gave themselves that predicament. Who else would be to blame?
"Are you actually advocating that married couples who aren't ready for a child (or more children) should be abstinent?"
My wife and I aren't ready to have a child, and we aren't abstinent, either. But if our contraceptives happen to fail I have no doubt that we would adjust our mindset and raise the child as best we can.
I'm not in favor of placing any legal restraints on sex at all (although deep down I do have a bit of a desire to see rapists castrated and mandatory vasectomies performed on fathers who abandon their children). I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense for a couple to choose to have sex if the possibility of pregnancy would be devastating to them. Let them use contraceptives, or let them have oral... I don't care. But if they have real sex anyway, we would have to consider it irresponsible (even though legally we don't care) just because they are engaging in a risk with consequences they can't bear.
The second irresponsibility of abortion does matter, legally, however because a human life is at stake. As mentioned in the transcripts of Roe v Wade, the only relevant legal question is that of the human-ness of the fetus,* which is one that we seem to all agree on.
Kind regards,
David
*excerpt:
JUSTICE STEWART: Well, if-if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?
MRS. WEDDINGTON: I would have a very difficult case.
JUSTICE STEWART: I'm sure you would. So, if you had the same kind of thing, you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent- after the child was born, if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?
MRS. WEDDINGTON: That's correct.
I don't see it as me forcing anything... if the couple made the choice to risk pregnancy, they gave themselves that predicament. Who else would be to blame?
Why do you feel the need to blame someone?
I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense for a couple to choose to have sex if the possibility of pregnancy would be devastating to them. Let them use contraceptives, or let them have oral... I don't care.
This made me laugh, in that shocked "he's got to be kidding" kind of way.
If having a baby would be devastating, couples should "have oral?" What is your deal? I mean, you seem to think you're God, judge, and jury over there. Directing when people have babies, what they should do when they get pregnant, under what circumstances it's acceptable to abort, what kinds of sex people should be having...? Unreal. What qualifies you to be the moral monitor of the Earth?
My husband gets the bad news tonight: until we get the house paid off, we can only 'have oral.'
This discussion has officially jumped the shark. I'm out.
Agreed. It seems dude is used to getting the last word anyway, so I'm going to let him go for it.
Thank you for the discussion ladies. It's interesting how I make one attempt at levity ('have oral') and suddenly everyone leaves...
"lot's of people [...] would not be troubled in the least if stuff like this happened here."
Sure they would. Being pro-life and anti-abortion doesn't mean feeling untroubled by the story of Reyes and others like her.
Simple conclusions. Wrong ones.
"Anyone who supports laws that allow this kind of thing to happen *is* an evil bastard."
Well, if evil bastards are people that support laws that allow bad, horrible, painful, and terminal things to happen to people, where shall we start listing all the laws in which this occurs? I'm willing to bet we can find an "evil bastard" name tag for you to wear, too.
"Wow, and people say I'm rash and ignorant."
I guess after telling your first commenter to leave the discussion which had yet to really start, I'd have to agree.
Sure they would. Being pro-life and anti-abortion doesn't mean feeling untroubled by the story of Reyes and others like her.
It doesn't seem to bother you terribly much, however.
I guess after telling your first commenter to leave the discussion which had yet to really start, I'd have to agree.
girlfriday's first comment was that I was rash, ignorant, and shouldn't be taken seriously. I welcomed her to stop reading the blog and commenting if she felt that way, and would offer the same suggestion to you.
Oh Anna, I love your sass. You're like our own little Blanche Devereaux!
p.s. I suggest that because, I mean, really, why stress yourself out by bickering with someone who you've convinced yourself is ignorant and rash and shouldn't be taken seriously? Is anything useful going to come out of that type of exchange? Don't we all have better things to do with our time?
Post a Comment