Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu?

[barfbag]

As the ruler of communist Romania in the late 1960s, Nicolae Ceasescu reversed his country's previously liberal abortion laws. Abortion was made illegal, with exceptions only for rape, incest and cases where a woman's life was at risk.

In addition, access to contraception was made more difficult, and sex education did not discuss it.

Over time, Romanian orphanages were filled with unwanted children whose birth mothers had been unable to prevent pregnancy with contraception or end a pregnancy with an abortion. Limited resources often led to these children being malnourished, poorly educated and socially disaffected. Mortality rates for pregnant women also rose due to the proliferation of primitive back-alley abortions. In 1989, Ceausescu and his wife were chased out of their presidential palace at the hands of a mob of youth protestors, captured and executed after a brief show trial.

Ceausescu's abortion policy - no abortion with exceptions only for rape, incest and the life of the mother; a severely anti-family planning policy - is similar to that espoused by the mainstream pro-life movement in the United States.

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

You name an extreme situation and apply it to people who are pro-life in a different country 50 years later and are ok with rare exceptions such as rape, incest, dead fetuses, and hazards to the mother's life. Those are some acceptable exceptions for allowing abortions. Not many people are against the use and/or teaching of contraceptives at all. I think our health classes should discuss both abstinence and contraceptives. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. To think that being-prolife would lead to such things is absurd. Not many people could afford to have kids because they were a communist country and being poor is what happens in countries who aren't capitalistic and don't allow the free market to work. The free market including free trade, low taxes, low tariffs, low inflation, and balanced budgets would fix the lack of income necessary for having children.

[barfbag]

Pro-choicers, how do you explain North Korea, PRC, and the Soviet Union which performed forced abortions and were /are ultra-pro-choice?.

I don't think you understand the definition of choice.

You guys are missing the point that the free market would fix all of our abortion troubles. Even if people simply didn't want to have children, we'd have enough of a surplus to provide for childcare and adoptions. Allowing gay adoptions would help too.

[barfbag]

A small percentage of pro-lifers want to ban birth control pills because they believe they can cause abortions.  I don't know of anyone who wants to ban condoms or books about human sexuality, even if they are not enthusiastic about them - that's not a mainstream pro-life position. 

I do think that pro-lifers need to consider the unintended consequences of their positions - and would be a lot more effective if they did.  Whether an outright complete abortion ban would be best or if there is another combination of policies that would be better for the protection of life is to my mind an open question.  In either case I don't expect things will be the same as under Ceausescu.

There is a combination of policies better than just banning all abortions. Exceptions such as threats to the mother's life, damaged fetuses, incest, and rape should be made. Gay adoptions should be made legal at the federal level in order to increase the chances of adoptions. Job training programs for the unemployed, disabled, and those who lack skills or are underprivileged should be funded in the forms of summer camps for the youth. A strong economy is another way to promote financial stability. In a better economy daycares and adoptions are more likely too. Our schools should also be teaching about abstinence and contraceptives. I'd even support contraceptive subsidization for low income women over the age of 18.

[barfbag]

For pro-lifers that support bans including exceptions for rape, I posted about this issue recently, so I figured I would copy my argument here:

I'd like to point out that making exceptions for rape doesn't actually protect most rape victims.  Rape and sexual assault is by far the most under-reported violent crime.  There are literally dozens of reasons why women (and men) rape victims don't report it.  It's an extremely sensitive and personal issue with the potential for deep psychological wounds.  There's a general consensus that over 50% of rape crimes aren't actually reported and it could be as high as 75 or maybe even worse depending on the society.

In order to make an exception for rape victims, the authorities have to actually know that she's been raped for one thing, so that excludes the majority of rape victims that never actually report being raped.  The exception may also require proof that the woman was actually raped which is even harder to obtain in a short time frame.  Not to mention legal procedures, but if the woman waits too long to report the rape, that means even less evidence to prove she was actually raped.  Meanwhile, all this has to happen in a period of a couple months (the biological clock is ticking ya know?)  The longer she has to wait, the more traumatic the abortion becomes for all parties involved.

All in all, it sounds fine and dandy from the pro-life stand point to make exceptions for rape and incest, but it's really hard to actually protect those victims - because most of the time nobody knows what happened except the woman and her assailant.

With a ban with exceptions for rape, literally thousands of rape victims will still fall through the cracks because they are too traumatized to tell anyone what happened.

The only way to protect these silent, traumatized rape victims is to make abortion available to everyone, even if it's limited to the first or second trimesters.

You guys are all missing the big picture. The free market could really help the situation.

[barfbag]

For pro-lifers that support bans including exceptions for rape, I posted about this issue recently, so I figured I would copy my argument here:

I'd like to point out that making exceptions for rape doesn't actually protect most rape victims.  Rape and sexual assault is by far the most under-reported violent crime.  There are literally dozens of reasons why women (and men) rape victims don't report it.  It's an extremely sensitive and personal issue with the potential for deep psychological wounds.  There's a general consensus that over 50% of rape crimes aren't actually reported and it could be as high as 75 or maybe even worse depending on the society.

In order to make an exception for rape victims, the authorities have to actually know that she's been raped for one thing, so that excludes the majority of rape victims that never actually report being raped.  The exception may also require proof that the woman was actually raped which is even harder to obtain in a short time frame.  Not to mention legal procedures, but if the woman waits too long to report the rape, that means even less evidence to prove she was actually raped.  Meanwhile, all this has to happen in a period of a couple months (the biological clock is ticking ya know?)  The longer she has to wait, the more traumatic the abortion becomes for all parties involved.

All in all, it sounds fine and dandy from the pro-life stand point to make exceptions for rape and incest, but it's really hard to actually protect those victims - because most of the time nobody knows what happened except the woman and her assailant.

With a ban with exceptions for rape, literally thousands of rape victims will still fall through the cracks because they are too traumatized to tell anyone what happened.

The only way to protect these silent, traumatized rape victims is to make abortion available to everyone, even if it's limited to the first or second trimesters.

You guys are all missing the big picture. The free market could really help the situation.

But barfbag, haven't you forgotten that an economic entity will only get an abortion if it is in its best interests?

You're referring to those who will still want abortions because they just don't want children?

[barfbag]

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

"Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially young black men. Therefore black mother's should be allowed to smother their 5 year olds in order to prevent them from growing up into criminals."

The above argument is wrong because the 5 year olds are persons. Regardless of their future potential to cause harm, they have a right to life because they are persons. Unless you're a utilitarian or something similar, the question of abortion ultimately boils down to one question "When does one become a person?".

I agree that the pro-life movement needs to have a broader agenda, but the social consequences argument doesn't really address the pro-life movement's issues and it has the potential to lead to monstrous results.

Except that we already know 5 year olds are persons. There's nothing disputable about that. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that personhood begins when one is born. That's why we have birth certificates and start counting our age from the day we were born. We don't celebrate our "conception day" or issue a certificate of conception to a pregnant woman.

My family celebrates those things.

[barfbag]

Again this thread makes it sound as if all pro-lifers have a goal of achieving the same situation as stated above when the exact opposite is the truth.

[barfbag]

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.

I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?

[barfbag]

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.

I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?

No, I'm pro-choice. I just think it's ideologically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder but then try to say that there should be situations (other than self-defense, or in the case of abortion, a threat to the the life of the mother) where said murder would be acceptable.

Ideology should be non-existent in all issues. It's about doing what's right based on the issue at hand.

[barfbag]

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.

I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?

No, I'm pro-choice. I just think it's ideologically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder but then try to say that there should be situations (other than self-defense, or in the case of abortion, a threat to the the life of the mother) where said murder would be acceptable.

Ideology should be non-existent in all issues. It's about doing what's right based on the issue at hand.

If abortion truly is murder (as I'm assuming you believe), how can it be "right" to provide an exemption for rape?

I myself find it wrong in all cases unless we're talking about the life of the mother or a dead fetus. However, I don't think it's right for government to ban abortion in cases of incest and rape.

[barfbag]

Seriously. Wouldn't incest be covered under "fetal deformities". I mean first cousins have sex and the kid is ok, how would abortion be a extenuating circumstance?  Of course you could allow abortion "in the case where there is probable cause that the abortion was caused by a felony which the person seeking an abortion is not culpable in".

Incest doesn't always lead to abnormalities. In fact, you'd be surprised at the number of cousins who engage in such things. However, abnormalities aren't enough to call for abortion in my book. This is an issue no one ever agrees on.

[barfbag]

Then incest really isn't the same as rape, at least in what level of abortion need it generates.

They are different things.

[barfbag]

Carrying them to term arguably isn't the problem. It's the 18+ years of obligation and sacrifice that come afterward.

Adoption isn't a viable option. Black and Hispanic mothers who put their kids up for adoption aren't really putting their kids up for adoption - they're handing them over to foster care for 18 years. Adoption is the plan of last resort for most parents these days, after every kind of medical intervention has failed.

On what basis are you saying that they aren't really putting them up for adoption?  If the parent wants the child to be adopted, then there are adoption agencies and other resources to help them through that process. The foster care system isn't meant for that - they place children who are already in foster care.  

There were 1.21 million abortions performed in 2008. My question to you is: if abortion were illegal and 1.21 million children were born, what would you expect us as a society to do with them? Do you really think they'd all be adopted into permanent families?

You'd rather see them die? The free market would create a livable enough society that we could afford to give them a great life. If only it were allowed to work correctly by our government. However, it's the job of the mother and father to be responsible. Gay adoptions would also help. You don't want unborn babies to be aborted do you?