Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

volchitsa wrote: »

But I though you said that in either case there was no consent given. Unless you meant the fetus' consent - but presumably if there was any question of requiring fetal consent that would be essential for an abortion in the first place? Which we know isn't the case!

Peregrinus said that whether PP were (allegedly) selling foetal body parts or (allegedly) levying charges for donated foetal parts to the effect of selling them, they are (allegedly) doing it without the consent, or the informed consent, of some, or all, or any of the women concerned, and this is illegal or unethical or both. So, if women have consented and been paid (though am946745s link doesn't actually include that allegation), that would be an alternative allegation to the allegations previously mentioned.

Potentially then, they were selling foetal body parts, or levying charges for donated foetal parts to the effect of selling them, in some cases without the consent or informed consent of the women involved, and in some cases with the consent of the women involved, who would then be criminally responsible as well. But so far there is no evidence to show this is true, other than the videos being put forward by a group with an evident agenda.

[TLDR] Or, what MrPudding said.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously the law varies from place to place but, in general, you cannot sell human remains or human tissue. So the allegations are

(a) PP is selling human remains/human tissue, and this is illegal; or

(b) PP is claiming to donate human remains/human tissue but is levying cost recovery charges which generate a profit for PP or are intended to do so, and so is in substance selling them; and this is illegal

and in either case

(c) whatever it is that PP is doing, they are doing it without the consent, or the informed consent, of some, or all, or any of the women concerned, and this is illegal or unethical or both.

Evidence that they are generating profit from claiming transportation costs please.

Overheal wrote: »

Collecting video footage for 3 years, releasing it in-line with the kickoff of presidential politics and stringing it out just to make the never-conclusive abortion issue prevalent again as they try to polarize more voters.

Courtesy of Robin over on A&A, a reasonably thorough analysis of the videos.

MrP

the allegations aren't moral they're legal. CMP and other groups lost the 'morality' side of the debate a long time ago, this is not the first time they've tried to sting planned parenthood. Several times in the last 15 years and longer, including violent acts of terrorism against clinics.

the allegations are all about whether there is "profit" on the fetal tissue transfer and such.

Some states have ran investigations on the videos edited and skewed allegations, florida turned up wrist-slap violations that are even in dispute, everywhere else I havent heard of any violation being uncovered and some investigations have been going for at least a month. States that aren't participating agree the videos are evidence of nothing and don't trigger the propensity that warrants investigating. smart congressional legal eagles have said that the allegations would be illegal - if true - but again it hinges on actual evidence not illegally captured and edited video; it is not testimony.

In ignorance the conservative right wants its representatives to defund planned parenthood with a layman's understanding of whether its even legal to do so, nevermind if the video allegations are actually true or even if PP committed any crimes or felonies. politicians in turn are under the gun in election season to not piss off voters - not just the dozen or so republicans (and donald trump) looking for election this cycle, but candidates who want to run in future cycles or have a seat to defend in the general election. So it was timed well by CMP to be a politically manipulative clusterfluff, but fortunately it would still fall in the lap of the Supreme Court which stands outside of politics in its decision-making (appointments are a whole other bag of cats): fact is you can't defund them under very cut and dry medicare and medicaid law. States that choose to defund them jeopardize 100% of that state's medicare and medicaid funding (our most basic social healtchare nets). If gross violations do turn up, they will at worst only result in a large fine (that PP is large enough to flick off). The more likely outcome is StemExpress will be put under scrutiny, not PP.

OK Good, because nobody is anywhere near such a point.

Absolam wrote: »

True, though it seems pretty obvious CMP isn't trying to build a legal case; it's trying to create moral outrage about acts that are illegal and would be considered immoral by those who consider abortion perfectly moral.


Probably more accurate to say they lost the legal side of the debate in 1973; there's no doubt there's still backing for a moral anti-abortion stance in the States, and those who morally oppose abortion have been trying to find legal arguments (however flimsy or doomed to failure) to support their cause ever since.

The CMP videos are having the effect of clearing much of the fog that the supporters of abortion like to generate and hide behind. We're seeing images of severed hands and feet, not blobs of cells. We're hearing doctors talk of hearts, lungs, eyes and heads - not the stuff of medical jargon.
All together, we're seeing and hearing irrefutable hard evidence that abortion is about killing human babies - children.

Of course, no matter what evidence is presented, there will always be those who have no qualms about killing human beings - such people have always been with us - but now we have evidence of who and what they are, and who knows - maybe someday they'll be forced to face the truth of themselves.

Two Sheds wrote: »

The CMP videos are having the effect of clearing much of the fog that the supporters of abortion like to generate and hide behind.

I'm not convinced; given the amount of discussion of the heavy editing of the videos, I'd say they're having the effect of making it look like CMP needs to create a fog for the anti abortion supporters to hide behind. I'd suggest it does the anti abortion view no good to appear to need to distort facts in order to make a point?

Two Sheds wrote: »

We're seeing images of severed hands and feet, not blobs of cells. We're hearing doctors talk of hearts, lungs, eyes and heads - not the stuff of medical jargon. All together, we're seeing and hearing irrefutable hard evidence that abortion is about killing human babies - children.

I don't think there's anyone who really thinks abortion isn't about killing humans; calling them blobs/foetuses/babies/children is really just a matter of choosing the term that sits easiest with your point of view. But the videos don't really shine any light on abortion; I suspect many who oppose abortion support stem cell research and wouldn't balk at the use of foetal tissue (like hearts, lungs, eyes and heads) to further medical research, even if we oppose the means by which it becomes available.

Two Sheds wrote: »

Of course, no matter what evidence is presented, there will always be those who have no qualms about killing human beings - such people have always been with us - but now we have evidence of who and what they are, and who knows - maybe someday they'll be forced to face the truth of themselves.

That seems to be plain nonsense I have to say; I don't see inveterate killers being exposed here, we're not going to change the prevalence of those members of society who have no qualms about killing human beings by 'exposing' a few doctors who may be making money out of selling aborted body parts. We're an aggressive species, the majority of whom I suspect are perfectly capable of killing other human beings in the right circumstances. That's a truth most of us don't have a problem facing.

robdonn wrote: »

Abortion is about terminating a pregnancy. An abortion to save the life of the mother could also be classified as just killing the baby, but you don't seem to have a problem with it there.

It's also about terminating a life. Certainly it's a life that many people feel has no value, but trying to sidestep it by saying it's terminating a pregnancy seems pretty disingenuous to me.

That's hardly the "reality of the abortion ban", PP; abortion bans don't make girls pregnant. If Paraguay permitted abortion, we might be able to conceal, or more easily overlook, the 700 child pregnancies. But I'm not sure that that would be a good thing.

It defies common sense to suggest that allowing abortion would avoid the pregnancies. And it revolts moral instinct to suggest that allowing abortion could be anything more than a footnote to our response to this state of affairs. Shouldn't our first thoughts be about how to stop child rape? And our second thoughts, and our third thoughts?

Absolam wrote: »

Not sure how the real figure could be much higher? The article says 'were recorded as giving birth', are you suggesting that more would be recorded as giving birth if there wasn't an abortion ban?

There are probably the same amount who have gone and had an abortion in another country like Irish women have had to do for decades or gone to back street abortionists, if there was a legal way for these children to abort their rapists foetus then you could probably have a better idea on how many children have been raped. Not that it matters to some on here who would happily force a 14 year old child to carry their rapists child to term and force them to give birth to it.

Absolam wrote: »

I still don't see how any of that would make the real figure of girls of 14 or under giving birth any higher? If anything, it must make it lower, as those having abortions in other countries or going to back street abortionists won't be giving birth.
I'm going to venture the opinion here that the root of the problem isn't the abortion ban, it's the rapes.

You're right it would make the birth rate for raped children lower, that you probably see that as a bad thing actually makes me pity you a bit.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And that you would think that Absolam probably sees that as a bad thing actually makes me pity you a bit.

We all know that we would never have heard about the child rape problem in Peru if it were not for the abortion ban. If the girl whose case made the western newspapers had quietly had an abortion, the world would have continued in blissful ignorance. Which underlines the point that allowing abortion wouldn't solve the problem; it might help to ameliorate some (but by no means all) of the harm to victims, but it might also help the problem to continue to fly under the radar. Which doesn't suggest that there would be even one less victim; the easier you make it for opinion-shapers and influential people to ignore the problem, the more likely it is that the problem will continue and possibly even get worse.

I am not for an instant suggesting that we should deny rape victims access to abortion as a way of combatting rape. I am just pointing out that those who think this is a story about how terrible it is to deny people access to abortion are taking a very one-dimensional view.

Fair point, thanks for that we'll written post.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And that you would think that Absolam probably sees that as a bad thing actually makes me pity you a bit.

We all know that we would never have heard about the child rape problem in Peru if it were not for the abortion ban. If the girl whose case made the western newspapers had quietly had an abortion, the world would have continued in blissful ignorance. Which underlines the point that allowing abortion wouldn't solve the problem; it might help to ameliorate some (but by no means all) of the harm to victims, but it might also help the problem to continue to fly under the radar. Which doesn't suggest that there would be even one less victim; the easier you make it for opinion-shapers and influential people to ignore the problem, the more likely it is that the problem will continue and possibly even get worse.

I am not for an instant suggesting that we should deny rape victims access to abortion as a way of combatting rape. I am just pointing out that those who think this is a story about how terrible it is to deny people access to abortion are taking a very one-dimensional view.

No I'm sorry, this is just as one dimensional as claiming that having an abortion makes child rape "go away" - which I don't think anyone in here thinks either.

Us (in the form of the international press) learning about this Paraguayan child being raped doesn't stop a single child rape either, does it?

The fact of her pregnancy coming to her mother's notice (or, if the mother was complicit) to doctors in the local hospital - whether or not she then had an abortion - that's what could put a stop to the situation. If their priority was to care for her, that is. And that's very much a matter of the mindset in the society in which she lives. If child pregnancy is an accepted phenomenon, I'd suggest that a blind eye is far likelier to turned than if it is seen as a horrifying attack on a child.

And secondly, no, it doesn't make the rape go away, but enforcing a,difficult and dangerous pregnancy on a child is in itself a second crime, one which is likely to leave her with physical as well as mental scars on top of the harm from the rape.

To say that because she's been raped, the harm done by that can't possibly be aggravated by her subsequent treatment - or that any further harm doesn't matter much - is truly sinister. It's as though she has no further right to protection because she's been "defiled". The rape effectively diminishes her other rights.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fortunately, nobody in this thread has said anything remotely like that, though, have they?

They've not said it explicitly, but it's the logic behind society committing a second crime of forced pregnancy on a raped child : she's had one crime committed against her, therefore we're going to commit another (legal) atrocity against her.

Unless you think an enforced pregnancy with a high risk of permanent physical as well as mental injury is a minor infliction on a child?

"The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher."

It's that comment I'm reacting to. 700 (or more) pregnancies among Paraguayan girls is not the "harsh reality" of an abortion ban; it's the harsh reality of child rape.

I don't think anyone thinks child rape is not the original source of the pregnancies, but Pope Palatine's comment is also correct : if all those pregnancies went on to birth then that might have been a less ambiguous way of expressing the idea, but since an unknown number will have ended in miscarriage, it whodunit be exactly right either.

The fact that those children all had their pregnancies recorded as though they were normal, wanted, pregnancies is the consequence of Paraguay's abortion laws.

Lifting an abortion ban would not be effective to address the underlying problem.

Well this is ironic. Did Pope Palatine suggest that it would?
I suspect that, like me, it is the subsequent legalized crime of enforced pregnancy that exercises her there.

For the reason already pointed out, in so far as it makes it easier to ignore the underlying problem, it could conceivably make it worse since the consequences of raping a child would now be more easily and conveniently managed .

Pure speculation. Unless you have some evidence that child abusers in countries where abortion is legal are the main procurers of abortion for their victims?
In any case, recording the age of the child requiring an abortion would have exactly the same effect as recording the age of the child forced to remain pregnant, ie, none unless that is considered a reason to act against her rapist.

That is not, I emphasise, an argument for continuing the abortion ban. It just explains why people who are concerned to address the problem of child rape generally don't start by agitating for extended abortion rights; they start by looking at the causes of the problem, and seeking to address them.

Do they really? That's not what the statistics show in countries where abortion is banned. They are (not coincidentally, IMO) also countries with very high rapes of child sex abuse. Because they don't give much importance to the idea of children's rights, or at least to female children's rights. They are generally deeply misogynistic places, and the real link between child rape and child protection is right there. Respect women's rights and child pregnancies will be reduced.

Unless you have some reason to imply that even higher numbers of children are getting pregnant through rape in countries like Sweden or Germany than in South America but that this is being brushed under the carpet, this looks very much like an attempt to claim that a ban on rape is equivalent to taking action against child rape. It really isn't.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And nor is granting a right to abortion, is all I am saying.

But no-one thinks that it is, do they? Many of us think that granting a right to abortion would prevent a further crime being committed as a result of the first crime, against a rape victim, that's all.

And, since we - or rather you - are being picky about the choice of words, you actually did say that "people who are concerned to address the problem of child rape generally don't start by agitating for extended abortion rights; they start by looking at the causes of the problem, and seeking to address them" - which seems to imply that those of us who think that when faced with a raped, pregnant child, ensuring she has access to abortion if that is indicated is urgent, actually don't care that much about preventing rape in the first place. Which is extremely dishonest and unfair.