A treatise on why I am a "pro-lifer", from an atheist's prospective

[truhavoc]

First off, I know that what I am about to say is going to be met with a lot of resistance. I hope that people on both sides of this debate won't take anything I write personally, we are all friends here are we not?

Let me initially qualify that I am an atheist, I come into this debate without religion shaping my opinion on this issue. I am not going to approach this as if I realize when life begins and everyone else does not, as some right-wingers maintain. I have formulated my beliefs over years (albeit that I am only 23) and I have been firmly planted on both sides of the debate over these years. I have not taken this decision lightly, and I hope that everyone reads this in its entirety before flaming me.

First I must state that I am an advocate for sexual education. The key is to limit unwanted pregnancies in the first place, thus to eliminate the need for abortions in the first place. There should be access to contraception, and "morning-after" pills for any and all that want them. I do not believe that life begins at conception anymore than I believe that sperm and ova need to be protected under the definition of human life. A mass of stem cells is not a life, therefore you can conclude that I am a supporter of stem cell research as well. There does however reach a point when the stem cells become a fetus, which is not up for me to decide, I will leave that up to science to determine. We have to decide at what point a fetus is a life worth protecting. Some of us here would fight with their own life to protect the life of an animal, we need to decide at what point then is a human fetus on the level with the life of any animal or life form that we value protecting. Obviously nobody supports infanticide, but what about the baby that is a day away from birth? 30 days from birth? 180 days from birth? Where is the distinction made? At this very point should be where anti-abortion legislation steps in, not to be "anti-choice" but to be "anti-murder". A woman should have full ability to limit unalterable changes from happening to her body unwillingly and I would work to give her all that is needed. However there reaches a point when a choice for the mother becomes a choice of clear-cut murder for the fetus. We should take our democratic ideals of protecting children and helping them to have a successful future, our anti-war ideals, our anti death penalty ideals, and come together for a coherent message. Not a message based on the prejudices or ignorances of religion, but a message based on supporting the very principles of life that most liberals hold.

The problem with most of the pro-life crowd is an anti-sex approach to the topic. Sex is evil, sex is a sin, sex is dirty, and so on and so forth. The biggest fear they have is their little baby girl growing up and having sex before marriage. They want to keep her in a box without knowing what sex is, and they want her to think that if she does have sex that it will be painful and cause nothing but strife for the rest of her life. What better way to do this than to force any mistake that comes from the act of love or lust to last that child a lifetime. The goal here is to use their pro-life stance as a deterrence, don't have sex because you WILL have a baby. These people are not in the same mold as people who come at their decision through a similar thinking process as myself. I am not coming at this topic with an out of date idea that life begins at conception, while still supporting the death penalty, war, and an anti-welfare state.

The major problem I have with my idea is I have a hard time enforcing the law. I think that abortion at a certain point is murder, but not the same level as normal murder, maybe on the level of killing a pet. I don't think that punishing doctors only works, this just allows the rich to leave the confines of the nation only to come back and be free and clear. Also the state of sex ed is not up to par with being able to institute the law I advocate. I would really like a civil discussion on this, I think it would help us all out in our debates with the other party to really base our beliefs on a sound foundation one way or another, whichever stance that may be.

[Jesus H. Christ]

1. Let's see... checking the profile...

Nope, no surprise there.

[truhavoc]

2. Let's see...a post without reading the message....

Nope, no surprise there.

[Jesus H. Christ]

3. Oh, I read the message.

I particularly like the part where you compared killing a fetus to killing a pet.

Good form.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. I read your message...it was specious at best...and the poster is right

you can guess the gender of an abortion poster by the content of the post

[truhavoc]

18. So therefore because I am a male I do not have any right to judge?

What right then do any of us have to make laws? I guess that attempting to create a more just judical code is just the interest of one sex?

Using your logic no woman should ever be involving in hearing a case that concerns exclusively men?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. No..it's just the specious argument was a dead giveaway..you have every

right to be wrong...just don't expect people to take you seriously..you argued a point that you are not even clear on the facts regarding.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. You do realize doctors don't abort viable fetuses...right?

Sort of shoots your argument out of the water

[truhavoc]

9. The point is definining what a viable fetus is

And who makes that determination. Is there any reason other than wanting an exception for the life of the mother that we democrats are against late-term abortion legislation? For if the life of the mother is the only consideration then I second the support.

[Jesus H. Christ]

11. Who makes that determination? Usually a qualified doctor.

As opposed to some self-righteous bigoted politician who doesn't have a problem killing babies as long as they're Iraqi.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Please educate yourself...late term abortions are not performed

but for the life or health of the mother

[truhavoc]

29. Then please tell me what all the fuss is about then?

You are telling me that in no circumstance other than the life of the mother, "health" seems like a BS term in this definition, are late term abortions performed? Also I am talking about a viable fetus, are viable fetuses ever aborted outside consideration of the life of the mother? I am fully willing to be corrected and get my facts right.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. My understanding is that viable fetuses, i.e. that can survive outside the

womb are never aborted..health isn't a bs term since there are several long term consequences that a woman can be stuck with that are not life threatening but the consequences can be life altering such as stroke etc.

My ex is an obgyn, btw

[truhavoc]

36. I will research this further...

So you are basically saying that if we support legislation banning "partial birth" abortion with an exception for the life of the mother we are just maintaining the status quo? This does not seem like something that would be such a big deal if that was so. Also I would consider a potential stroke or something along those lines as being for the life of the mother.

[LisaLL]

93. life vs health

truhavoc,

The problem is that under the law "potential stroke" is considered health because death is not imminent or guaranteed. Many of the things that I consider potentially life-threatening and in this category of "will cause severe harm" are not included legally in the exception of life of the mother. That's why the "health exception" is needed and is not bogus. Who determines how potentially life-threatening a condition is? That's best determined by a physician who has managed pregnancy complications and life-threatening situations and not by legislators who have not. Do you really want lawyers practicing medicine without any training?

[RUDUing2]

76. problem comes also in who gets to decided what viable outside the womb

means..

a fetus w/severe anencephaly can be considered viable because he/she can live for a few minutes to hours to even in rare cases days outside the womb...and then there tey sachs, trisonomy, etc...these fetuses are born alive and even survive for a period of time..but they have conditions that are incompatible w/life...so who makes the detirmination of what comprises *viability*...

[Az]

33. There are cases of voluntary late term abortions

But they are the exception not the rule. However the right turns this to its advantage. The mere fact that there have been a handfull of voluntary late term procedures denies the left from saying it never happens. This gives the right the moral high ground and allows them to howl all the more.

But the standing practice is that beyond a reasonable date a voluntary abortion is not considered. The criteria is based on a number of factors but primary is the development of the nervous system and the brain.

Beyond this point in the pregnancy it would take a severe health consideration for a doctor to intervine. The right would have you believe that doctors are just hanging around materinity stores asking expectant mothers if they want an abortion.

[truhavoc]

37. This is what I thought, thanks for clearing this up n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

54. No there are not any cases of "voluntary" late term abortion

There isn't a state in the union that allows women to have late term abortions without good reason.

[Az]

61. It wasn't a question of whether it was allowed or not

There have been cases where doctors did perform later term abortions at the request of patients. Its not a good thing. Its not a typical thing. And it shouldn't have happened. But it did.

[Cheswick2.0]

52. I don't know what the hell all the fuss is about.

You are the anti-choicer, you tell me.

If you understood the issue you wouldn't have to make a fuss.

[tk2kewl]

5. I think your argument gets a bit hosed up when you say

"but not the same level as normal murder, maybe on the level of killing a pet"

that is just freaking weird.

[truhavoc]

13. Not a very pretty analogy I admit

I would not charge anyone with murder for abortion, I would however like there to be some penalty along the same lines of killing a pet if there even is such a penalty other than "animal cruelty". I think abortion of a fetus is not on the same par as murder of any type even though I feel it is still wrong.

[Jesus H. Christ]

15. People put their pets to sleep all the time.

Perfectly legal.

It's only animal cruelty if they kill their pet cruelly.

Haven't thought this through very far, have you?

[truhavoc]

42. I would agree that people have the right to assisted suicide

This is on the par with putting an animal to sleep, not killing it with intent.

Also we need to get away from the distinction that if something is "perfectly legal" that makes it perfectly moral.

[tk2kewl]

19. if you say there is time when fetus should be protected then

it should be murder plain and simple. 1 day before birth you pay a fine next day life in prison? come on. it destroys your entire argument. I think you make some good points but this is not one of them.

[truhavoc]

30. I also mention this....

I wrote, "Obviously nobody supports infanticide, but what about the baby that is a day away from birth? 30 days from birth? 180 days from birth? Where is the distinction made?"

This is a problem, the difficulty here is determining that point. Also it means if determining that point as being outside the confines of the viability of the fetus.

[Cheswick2.0]

56. you think women a day before their due date are aborting living

fetuses?

WTF?

[truhavoc]

66. Read the full quote, that is not what I say whatsoever n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

55. I think all males over the age of 12 should be sterilized

Then women won't have to worry about birth control or abortion.

[truhavoc]

67. Smart, very smart....

This is why I asked for rational debate, not pointless statements. This debate cannot be summed up in a one-liner.

[unpossibles]

87. actually, as a male I agree

and then if you truly wanted a baby, you could go get tested for congenital diseases, etc. before being made fertile

It would also simplify the many facets of birth control. Maybe we should just sterilize everyone at the onset of puberty, with a full option to get it reversed barring any major health issues. As long as we did not turn control of the decision to politicians (ie: political eugenics), I'd be totally for this. Of course, the RW would never go for this one either....

[LisaLL]

95. justified killing

Even for people there are situations considered justified killing by some: self defense, defending one's children, certain wars, to prevent someone from killing others, discontinuing life support when a person in a coma has no chance of regaining consciousness. Perhaps you can view late term abortions that are done for saving the life of the woman, health/life-threatening situations, fetal diagnosis incompatible with life, severe deformities in the same light.

Would you penalize the woman and doctor for an abortion used to save the life of the woman? To prevent the likelihood of a stroke? To abort a fetus with anencephaly? A woman hemorrhaging too fast to prolong the pregnancy? A woman with conjoined twins--the kind that could not be separated with either surviving? Why do you think these people need to be punished?

It seems like you are having trouble of letting the "punishment for something you disapprove of" go because you may think people are taking this too lightly. Some information on this issue and why these abortions are done would probably be helpful to you. Try to make sure your information comes from reliable, medical sources and not propaganda from "pro-life" groups (which have a track record of being inaccurate and uninformed).

[Misunderestimator]

7. Well, thank you for giving women all that is needed... except for what

you have decided is "murder." Nice way to slip such a provocative statement into the middle of such an innocent post: "However there reaches a point when a choice for the mother becomes a choice of clear-cut murder for the fetus."

Clear-cut murder, eh? Where exactly is that point in your mind?

[truhavoc]

10. I wish I knew, "clear-cut" was an overstatment

Like I write, there is a need to rationally decide these things.

[Maple]

8. The basic principle

is not abortion per se, but keeping reproductive rights in the individual's hands. Not the hands of the state.

If you give the state control of your reproductive rights, they can just as easily order you to have 15 children, or none at all.

Like China with it's 'one child' policy, and forced abortion for any other pregnancies.

Each person must be able to decide for themselves. It's not the government's choice to make.

You can educate, you can persuade, but you can't, as a govt, order on this matter.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. I believe most pro-lifers would probably say

you are pro choice because you don't believe life begins at conception, and apparently have no problem with an aboriton during the first trimester, which, I believe, is the time when abortions are considered legal in this country because the fetus is not viable at that point.

[truhavoc]

39. In theory I would say that you are correct

However my problem comes, I believe, is with abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. I think there is something wrong if you wait more than three months to make the decision.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. late term abortions should be, and are, rare

I don't believe anyone gets a late term abortion for something like they just don't want the kid. I've heard of people who have found out the fetus has a condition where there is no brain, only water. The child, when born, will live in extreme pain for maybe three days.

I knew someone who had a condition like this, and had to decide whether to abort or not. There was, I emphasize, NO hope that the child would survive. It was the most difficult decision the woman ever had to make in her life. One thing that many 'right to life' people neglect to mention is that the decision to have an abortion is not an easy one, nor is the procedure something that is easy on woman's body.

[Cheswick2.0]

57. Oh for goodness sake

How judgemental can you be? You have no idea why women might have an abortion after 12 weeks? How about after 16 or 24 weeks.
When you can tell me why women have abortions after these dates, then you might begin to understand the issue.

[noamnety]

16. Let's discuss this later

After we make it mandatory that all eligible men must donate blood on the day they are eligible, as soon as they are eligible without fail, when it's mandatory that they register in the bone marrow donor program, and when it's mandatory that they give up a kidney whenever they are found to be a match for even a total stranger.

Let's talk about it when the government can decide randomly that men must take time off from work for all that to happen, with no notice, even if it costs them their jobs. And when men have to foot the bill for the medical costs of donating their blood, marrow, and kidneys.

Let's talk about it when men no longer have a choice in the decision to use their own body parts as tools at the government's whim to save someone else's life.

[truhavoc]

34. Nice false analogy

The problem I have with this logic is that there is some choice involved in pregnacy. This is not "at random" or "at the government's whim" this is two people making a choice. I am not trying to be sexist here, I mention this later in this thread when I write:

"I would argue that any man that gets a woman pregnant through rape would not only have to suffer the consequences of the rape punishment, but suffer the penalty that would be normally imposed on the mother. Same would go for incest, or anything else along these lines. The woman would have full right for a legal abortion and the offending male would pay the cost. I would also entertain holding a male that did not use protection as co-defendant in a case of abortion. Obviously this is not at all perfect, just an initial attempt."

Both parties are equally liable for the resulting pregnacy of their actions. This is why I stress the importance of sex ed and always available contraception.

[noamnety]

45. And there we are.

Once you drag in the "The woman chose to have sex" argument, you've moved beyond the issue of the right to life or viability; carrying the baby to term becomes punitive action.

Every pro-lifer I've argued with has eventually drug that into it, it's no longer about what's fair for the fetus ... deep down it always comes back to the "morals" issue and whether women should or shouldn't be having sex.

If being raped justifies abortion, but willingly having sex doesn't justify it, this has everything to do with controlling women and punishing them for having sex and nothing to do with what you really think the fetus's rights are.

[Fleshdancer]

94. great post lwfern

I'll be using that last line a lot. I've always thought the same thing but was never able to articulate it as well and efficient as you just did.

:toast:

[Cheswick2.0]

58. women don't get pregnant because they don't understand conception

If you would all just get sterilized then we will have no problem with failed birth control and unwanted pregnancies.
Both men and women have sex witout intending to become parents, but only women get pregnant. That is why a woman decides to remain pregnant or not.
In your law and order world it really would make more sense to pass laws against recreational sex. That would be equitable. Then if your girl friend gets pregnant, you can spend nine months in jail to equal the inforced slavery she is enduring.

[Az]

17. Brains

Let us examine what it is about ourselves we wish to preserve. Would you feel safe and all immortally if someone took a skin cell sample and preserved it imperpituity? Of course not. Would you cease to exist if you lost your arm? Liver? Heart? With proper medical intervention all these can be survived. Now the kicker. Would you survive a brain transplant?

If such a procedure were possible your body would survive but the individual would not. The individual that was defined by the brain would replace you in your body.

The thing we wish to preserve is identity. Religions and philosophies focus on this aspect of self preservation. Even going to the extreme of imagining that identity is some how seperate from the physicality of the brain/body. But to date we have never varified the existance of identity without a brain. They are intertwined.

So it is not life per se that we seek to defend and protect. We think nothing of the 1000s of cells we lose each day. Each as much a human cell as a fertilized egg. It is not an individual cell or even a small group of cells that we defend. It is specifically a functional mass of cells that have exhibited traits of identity.

Thus any moral criteria of determining whether terminating a pregnancy is right or wrong impinges on this issue. Is there an identity present? Once such an identity is theoretically possible we must extend the moral considerations we extend to others.

The upshot of this is that until a brain is present and functioning no moral consideration beyond the invasiveness on the woman's body is impinged. Anything prior to that is just the removal of cells that have the potential to be a human. But a human being is not potential. It is an actuallity. It is now. Thus a potential human is not a human being. Being is a verb.

So what of once a brain has developed? The right of the woman still presides. We may certainly think what we may of her but the right to control her body still overrides any other considerations.

Consider this story. A famous musician has come down with a rare blood disorder. He desperately needs a long term infusion of blood. Say about 9 months of being connected to someone. Due to his extremely rare blood type a search is put out for someone matching the description. You let it slip that you happen to have the same blood type. You wake up to find yourself hooked up to the musician via IV. If you disconnect the musician will surely die. Do you have the right to walk away?

In this scenario it is not a question of wheter an individual is present or not. It is clearly a fully developed and talented and valued human. But they do not have the right to your body. There is no statement or condition that can force you to continue to subject your body to his demands. No matter the consequence. He does not have the right to your body. It is the only thing absolutely yours.

[truhavoc]

23. You make a very good point

I think the senario you pose rings true. It gives me reason to rethink things, this is exactly what I was looking for, a logical reason to be truly pro-choice without abandoning my true principles. Thank you.

[Ladyhawk]

68. Question: if the fetus can feel pain and fear, is it still nothing more...

...than a bunch of cells?

Don't yell at me. I really want to know. At what point can a fetus feel pain and fear? Newborn babies are capable of quite a lot more than we give them credit for. This doesn't happen overnight.

(I know I'm going to get yelled at...sigh.)

By the way, you don't have to check my profile. I'm a woman. And I think some of you should lighten up on the guy trying to figure things out. I'm still figuring this one out myself.

The thing that pisses me off most about the abortion issue is that:

1) Republicans are against sex education.
2) Republicans only care about the welfare of the child when it is in the womb.

Me? I have trouble believing a zygote is a human being, but I think a fetus becomes human at some point before birth. And I believe it can feel pain and fear quite early on. This is important to me.

I would like to see more time, money and energy spent on preventing unwanted pregnancies and early abortions, but no way would I want abortion outlawed under the Republicans. :scared:

P.S. Please don't hate me because I don't think just like you.

[Scout]

77. How can a fetus experience fear?

Don't you have to have knowledge that pain is coming, or knowledge of some other event that would cause you to fear?

How would a fetus, who cannot "think" and has no experience except that in the womb, know that it should be afraid?

I could believe that at a certain point it could feel pain, but I can't believe that it could experience fear.

[unpossibles]

88. not necessarily

"Religions and philosophies focus on this aspect of self preservation."

Buddhism and several other Eastern religions are generally about losing one's identity/individuality in order to become one with the universal.

[msgadget]

20. Well reasoned,

except the things you advocate are already being done: sex education, birth control, the determination of viability...

I sense you have a problem with animal rights activists being pro-choice, perhaps think it's hypocritical...?

[truhavoc]

28. In part, however that is not my only justification

I would like that what is being done be done to a much greater extent. I am also commenting on the hypocracy of the majority of the pro-life crowd.

[David Zephyr]

21. Sorry, But You Need to Think Through With Your Advocacy For Lawmaking

On one hand you write, "The major problem I have with my idea is I have a hard time enforcing the law. I think that abortion at a certain point is murder, but not the same level as normal murder, maybe on the level of killing a pet. I don't think that punishing doctors only works..."

A law that is not enforced is silly.

So are you advocating "punishing" the woman? You seem to have skipped over that part? Personally, I believe that forcing a woman through childbirth, because of your personal views, is a vicious and extremely cruel punishment. How can you not possibly see this?

You advocate for lawmaking, yet you won't "punish" the doctor. So who would you suggest be punished for a violation of your law? The woman?

What you are really saying is that men have a special right to procreate through rape. There's no way around it. That's the crux of your argument for making law to make women give birth.

[truhavoc]

26. That is not what I am saying at all.

I didn't make this statement a complete rationalization of all my thoughts. I would argue that any man that gets a woman pregnant through rape would not only have to suffer the consequences of the rape punishment, but suffer the penalty that would be normally imposed on the mother. Same would go for incest, or anything else along these lines. The woman would have full right for a legal abortion and the offending male would pay the cost. I would also entertain holding a male that did not use protection as co-defendant in a case of abortion. Obviously this is not at all perfect, just an initial attempt.

[David Zephyr]

41. An Initial Attempt? At What?

Why is any initial attempt needed to chisel away at a woman's right to control her own body and reproductive organs.

An intial attempt? At what?

[truhavoc]

43. An initial attempt at a non gender biased solution

You wrote,

"What you are really saying is that men have a special right to procreate through rape. There's no way around it. That's the crux of your argument for making law to make women give birth."

My comments were an initial attempt at proving your criticism false. Your charaterization is not correct of my ideals whatsoever.

[FizzFuzz]

90. Picking at semantics, but

you did say:

"I would argue that any man that gets a woman pregnant through rape would not only have to suffer the consequences of the rape punishment, but suffer the penalty that would be normally imposed on the mother."

Penalty normally imposed on the mother. A rapist who impregnates a woman should suffer penalties normally imposed on the mother

What penalties are you thinking should be normally imposed on mothers? The penalty of forcing women to bear children they didn't want, regardless of how that unwanted pregnancy came into being (unless it was a rape)? Punish her, force her to carry the pregnancy regardless of the consequences to the woman, her family, the child that you forced into being? Some other penalty? Prison perhaps, for women who undergo a criminalized procedure?

You did say punishments should normally be imposed on the mother........

[jdots]

24. you point is well considered

# 1 it is a womans ( woman ) choice. this is how i cop out and have a observational point of veiw.
#2 sit thru what women have had to go thru to get this right.
# 3 This issue has been going on way before the death penality under modern law which has the unfortunate fault of not being right all the time.
#4 knowing what is life is as complex as knowing there is a bigger power than humans or knowing there is not.
#5 I can't change your mind about this nor can you change mine.
#6 I wish a licence was needed to bring human life into the world,it is alot more important than a drivers licence.

this is a button issue like gun control,I am too crazy to own guns,but some people aren't.Some people should have the same choice with abortion because what is murder ? That law is kind of iffy too.
If this country looses this right.it is another step into the ignorant past of superstition,racism,classism and all the stupid stuff humans seem to do.

[txaslftist]

25. The pet thing was a little goofy, but the point is valid....

You are saying all of the things (in different ways) that the Supremes said in Roe v. Wade. The Supremes didn't have the luxury of waxing philosophical and coming to no conclusions, however, they had to make a decision on this difficult, divisive issue.

What I think it boils down to is, yes... in the third trimester a mother does not have a right to "abortion on demand"; on the other hand, if her life is threatened, the doctor and patient should decide what to do.

As for the first and second trimesters, there's a different practicality. The practical reality is that during these trimesters expectant single moms and teenage girls WILL abort, even if they have to go to a back alley coat hanger guy. The morality issue has to take a back seat to the practical realities. People who ignore this ignore our own historical attempts at abortion prohibition. The govt. should try to ensure that abortion is safe and rare.-the Clinton position.

That is a non-religious, practically driven justification for being pro-choice, which is not the same as being pro-abortion or anti-life.

The personal attacks on truhavoc don't help, by the way.

[TwentyFive]

27. Another guy here speaks out!

Any woman who wants to have an abortion - but is forced to carry the baby to term - will not make a good mother. The kid will probably grow up to be some kind of psychopath.

Furthermore, she will most likely not take proper care of herself during pregnancy o smoke, drink, drugs, etc. Worse, she could opt for one of the many black market otions available, or, try the do-it-yourself method for the low cost of a coat hanger.

Unwanted pregancies? The least harmful solution is a safe, legal, abortion by a trained doctor.

[Peter Frank]

31. You make the same mistake...

...allot of right wingers make. You seem to presume that pro-choice people actually embrace abortion. No sane person actually likes abortion. It's a reality that I wish this world would do without; but it is a reality.

Women are going to have abortions. This has been going on in some form since pre-history. The question is one of health and fairness. You even intimated this yourself. If we go back to the bad old days, pregnant wealthy women will go on "vacation" and return healthy and un-pregnant. ...While poor women will pay the death penalty at the hands of a sleazy backstreet quack with a coat-hanger.

No one likes abortion. But as long as it's a reality, women should uniformly have access to it, if they choose.

[truhavoc]

35. I'm not trying to make that mistake.

It is the philosopher in me that attempts to make the world a better place, but there are problems with every ideal. I truly realize that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, this was my very way of thinking for many years coping with this issue. I think we need to get down to the root of why we say that pro-choice is not pro-abortion, this insinuates that you recognize there is something wrong with abortion, however it is too big of a problem to fix.

The philosopher in me wants to fix these problems, fix it to a point of rationality. For in philosophy a mere contradiction in your theory undermines the entire thing in most cases. I know that what I am advocating is not perfect, and I doubt anything will ever be, but I guess that I know there is something, just something wrong with abortion the way it exists now and that is what I wish to fix. If this fix can be accomplished through sex-ed alone, then so be it.

[Az]

38. The problem

The right likes to deal with things in absolutes. Black and White. Good and Evil. The world is not so convieniant. Unfortunately liberals try to live in the real world and try to address issues with real world solutions. The right has a much easier time selling their black and white fantasies.

Abortion is a messy issue. It is the ultimate grey. It involves issues that strike at the most emotional of factors. It is illdefined. It is not static. The very nature of the thing we discuss changes as we speak of it. What may be arguably moral one moment can shift to immoral the next. It is far easier to sell people are the easy concept that an abortion stops a beating heart. But so does heart surgery. The clarity of simple slogans is never quite so clear.

The real world solutions that liberals tend to find can be convoluted. They often do not satisfy everyone. But they attempt to deal with the reality of the matter.

Life is not lived in a text book. Life was not made convieniant for our laws. We use our laws to try to make society as fair as we can manage. Unfortunately some people crave rules carved in stone. Others realise that such a stone will eventually be used to crush them in the end.

[truhavoc]

40. Thank you Az

You have added a great deal to this conversation and I really appreciate it. You comments are always well-stated and measured and I just wanted to say thank you for that.

[punpirate]

47. Well, philosophizing is one thing...

... but you also have to recognize that philosophizing without a complete grasp of the facts is ill-advised. When you say "... there is something, just something wrong with abortion the way it exists now...," that's not an attempt to be logical, or to intellectualize a solution. That's a gut feeling, and it might become the basis for beginning to think through a rational explanation, but, by definition, it is not logical.

Part of the problem derives not from how liberals frame the debate, but how fundamentalists have done so. It's a uniquely American fundamentalist position--and they have attempted to dominate the debate. Here's a different perspective: in Judaic Hassidic law, a fetus is not a human being until it draws its first breath on its own outside the mother's body. How does that, for instance, affect intellectual analysis of the problem, i.e., is that legal concept appropriate for American culture, for example? If not, why not?

As well, abortion is but one part of a constellation of activities which the religious right wishes to proscribe--for religious reasons. To what extent should religious precepts influence secular law? That has to be part of any philosophical discussion about abortion and other social issues. After all, some of the same people advocating changes in secular law for religious reasons also want to be able to stone to death homosexuals and women who lose their virginity before marriage. In that way, this argument is not only about abortion, but is also about the primacy of individual rights as defined by secular law as opposed to religious influence. That's a fundamental of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

In essence, that's the heart of Roe v. Wade. A result of the decision is that women now have access to safe and medically appropriate abortion. But, the heart of the decision is that a woman's right to choice is one of those fundamental rights protected Constitutionally, and the state is not permitted to interfere, nor is the state permitted to abridge that right, even though religious factions in society claim it should.

But, if you believe that your gut feeling is "philosophizing" on the issue, you must accept that your's is an individual belief, rather than a reason. The legal ruling, based on the rectitude of choice, enables choice for you. You can decide not to support abortion in the realm of your personal affairs. You can say, on your own behalf, "this is something I will not and choose not to do in my own life," and the law protects your individual right to make that choice. However, the moment you say, "this is what others must do, and the law has to reflect this," you must provide a compelling reason for secular law to embrace your position. An indistinct belief is not a compelling reason.

Myself, I'd like to believe that education, freedom of availability of contraception and common sense will eventually make abortion unnecessary, but I'm also practical enough and experienced enough in human nature to also know that is not likely. What remains is that fundamental right to choice--how valuable is that? Deny that right, and a host of other arguments can be made to restrict individual rights in ways that are hard to predict--many of them specifically harmful and prohibitive to women. Such would violate the equal protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

What you and, I think, the fundamentalists miss in this argument is that it's really not an argument about enforcing morality, but is actually about what is proper under the basis for our society, the Constitution. The Constitution makes ours a secular society, and the fundamentalists dislike that intensely. They believe the only way to enforce morality is to impose their version of morality on secular society.

In a way, your call to modify abortion law has a similar motivation--you want to "fix" the problem, without defining what that problem is (it is a problem by your definition; others would say that the legal rulings currently in effect are a solution to a problem). You've described the problem as abortion being "somehow wrong." As I've mentioned, that's a starting point for philosophical investigation, not the result of the application of philosophical and legal thought, both of which are required in any discussion of the intersection of social affairs and secular law.

What I suspect, however, is that you are equally motivated to offer your views because of recent assertions that Democrats/liberals/progressives should modify their views on the issue of women's right to choose for purely political purposes. That debate has arisen because Democrats have been losing elections lately. Democrats, bending on this issue, will then be required to bend upon many more. They have already given in too much, and acquiescing to a return to back-alley abortions for the sake of gaining a few more votes would, in fact, be immoral and unethical.

Cheers.

[truhavoc]

62. Some very good points..

I just wanted to clarify a little further. When I mentioned my "gut" feeling that there is something wrong with abortion, it was said in the context of the following statement:

"I think we need to get down to the root of why we say that pro-choice is not pro-abortion, this insinuates that you recognize there is something wrong with abortion, however it is too big of a problem to fix."

Anyone that says the statement I mentioned is implying that they too have a "gut" feeling that something is wrong with abortion. This gut feeling alone is what takes me out of the pro-choice camp and into the pro-life camp on some issues. We typically acknowledge the fact that there is "something wrong" with abortion, while fighting for the women's rights part of the issue. There is nothing wrong with fighting for women's rights, this is an equality fight that I am on the front lines for, however my thinking on this situation marginalizes my entire stance it seems.

At some point we need to consider the (potential) child, and fight for what it would "want". I find that possibly a term of four months, with an exception of the life of the mother, would be an ideal situation for abortion law to maintain. I maintain the full rights of a woman to choose, but something has to be said of a woman if it takes her longer than four months to decide. This is a painful situation for anyone to decide, however a term limit should be necessary. You reach a certain point where the fetus has matured to a to be determined extent, where several more months of change for the mother is sufficient to bring about the life of the child. The is another part of the debate that needs to be determined, is a life of a child that is not wanted, a life that will be spent in and out of foster homes, worth protecting. I maintain that life of any sorts (except sure, painful death or something of the like) for a child is better than non-existence.

It is hard to come into this debate on the pro-life side without it seeming that you are against women's rights, but women find themselves in a unique situation via their biology which afflicts only them. I would like to think that I give them everything that is necessary to make their own choice over their bodies, namely sex ed, contraception, morning-after pills, and abortions up to four months. This may even put me into a mainly pro-choice stance who just favors a ban on certain time-frame limited abortions with an exception for the life of the mother.

You make the suggestion that the point of this is in response to the recent elections. This is true to the extent that I think democrats should maintain a sound philosophy to go along with the entirety of our platform. However if you follow my idea, it should be those on the right (not necessarily the religious right) who find themselves to be pro-choice if they were to truely consider the implications of their platform.

[LisaLL]

85. fixing the problem

Truhavoc,

>I think we need to get down to the root of why we say that pro->choice is not pro-abortion, this insinuates that you recognize there >is something wrong with abortion, however it is too big of a problem >to fix.

When a woman is faced with a pregnancy without the means to raise a child, there is something wrong with *each* of the options.

There is something wrong with a woman having to give her baby away to strangers. There is something wrong with having a woman raise her child in poverty. There is something wrong with having a woman raise a child who feels she is not ready to be as good a mother as her children deserve. And there is something wrong with abortion.

The option that is *least* wrong for each woman varies by situation and the individual and the woman is the best one to know which is least wrong for her.

Pro-choice means that we work to prevent the situation where women have to choose the least bad option for her. We also work to make sure women don't die by keeping all options legal. (This is based on extensive evidence of what happens in societies when they change policies).How is that "not fixing" problems?

[REP]

46. Murder Is a Legal Term; Pets Cannot Be "Murdered"

When you say "I think that abortion at a certain point is murder, but not the same level as normal murder, maybe on the level of killing a pet," you make no sense. Animals cannot be murdered. They can be killed, and sometimes that killing is unlawful, but it is never murder. Only persons can be murdered. If you think that killing a fetus at some point in its gestation is like killing an animal, you agree that it is not murder, and therefore, that a fetus is not a person.

As for an abortion being performed one day before birth, as soon as you can provide a documented case of that ever happening, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. Until then, it can remain what it is - yet another sick fantasy of the antiabortnoids.

[truhavoc]

51. A correction

I never said that abortions have taken place a day before birth, that would truly be a crime without reason. I was trying to make the statement of when does a fetus become a child, 1 day before birth? 30 days before birth? 180 days before birth? This was the point I was trying to raise, and I think through the discussion that followed we determined it was the viability of the fetus that determines its status.

The pet statement has gotten me in the most trouble with this debate, I took an easy way out with the argument. What was meant is not that I would say that a fetus is less than human, but due to its unique need-based position, killing of it should not entail the same penalties of murder (1st, 2nd, & 3rd Degree) or even manslaughter. With the animal statement, I was attempting to set a moral implication, not a judicial implication. That in the terms of right & wrong, in the terms of morality, that the killing of a fetus (after a certain, yet to be determined time) is tantamount to the willful killing of an animal. Yes I know there are no true penalties in the courts for the intentional killing of an animal (excusing situations of an animal being "put to sleep") other than cruelty, but the statement is only supposed to imply a moral standing.

[sandnsea]

60. It's NOT RELEVANT

Because NOBODY is ripping viable babies out of wombs. Is that clear enough for you?

[truhavoc]

64. I will pose one question for you then

What is the point of a "partial-birth abortion" ban? Is this just empty legislation? Why should democrats not come out and support it, of course with an exception for the life of the mother? I am sure that with the exception, it would still be embraced by the right if raised.

[sandnsea]

69. Sensationalism, YES

And dumb-ass Democrats who are too chicken shit to tell their fundi citizens that it's done for MEDICAL PURPOSES. That procedure won't stop late term fetuses from being aborted, for MEDICAL PURPOSES. We'll just chop the fetus up inside the womb and remove it limb from limb instead. Fucking dumbasses. Grow the hell up and face the reality that life is just full of horrific situations that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy and have a little goddamned compassion, like we used to when mothers had pregnancy complications.

:argh:

[LisaLL]

74. so-called partial birth abortion ban

The reasons to oppose this is that

1)legislators are not physicians and do not understand the situations and complications that could be life-threatening to pregnant women.

2) It is ill-advised to put physicians in a position that they have to choose between saving a woman's life and fear going to jail for it. Under the current law, if a woman at 20 weeks gestation with an inevitable loss ( a miscarriage in process) arrives at the ER hemorrhaging a doctor is prohibited from taking any action. How close is close enough to death?

Health exception and risk of death can be perilously close. SOme examples that would not be covered under risk of death: a woman carrying a fetus with a condition incompatible with life/fatal condition, a woman with cancer who waiting several months for treatment would make it much more likely she will die of cancer, a woman with a clotting disorder who suffered a stroke already--pregnancy increases the risk of another stroke and the best medication to prevent her from this is contraindicated in pregnancy. These are would be classified as "health exceptions" even though there is a decent chance of death.

3) The ban does not prohibit abortions based on gestational age. In fact, because the law is worded by non-medical people, it is not precise at all and can be interpreted to ban any abortions past 12 weeks gestation.

After viability, abortions are not done. If a woman is at medical risk at this point, a premature delivery is performed.

4) Righ Wingers will not accept this with a dire health exception.

[RUDUing2]

80. it is just empty legislation. Most of what it covers is already in place

under state laws..and the reason it will never pass SC scrutiny is because they *convieniently* leave out a health of mother and/or child claus. If this was inserted it would pass congress, it would be signed by any president (is the reason clinton vetoed the bill, because it did not include), would be constitutional as well..but as long as they leave it out, they know it either wont pass or that if it does it wont be found constitutional by the SC and they can continue to blame it on the liberals...

for info on current state laws..

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fhometown.aol.com%2Fabtrbng%2Findex.htm

[ChairOne]

48. If you want to be serious about the topic...

... it may interest you to know that there *do* exist well-thought out, detailed, secular, and subtle discussions of the matter, which end up coming down more-or-less on the pro-life side.

See for example, Rosalind Hursthouse's *Beginning Lives*.

I don't buy a lot of what she says (for reasons that are too wide-ranging to make into a DU-soundbite), but at least she actually put a good deal of serious thought into it...

The book is somewhat dated - certainly after RvW, of course - I would guesstimate that it was done sometime in the 80s. For DU-level discussion tho, it's a fine first resource. I'm certain other good stuff has been done more recently - I don't follow the topic at a professional level, so I'm not up on it...

Deep philosophical beliefs formulated over the first 23 years of life - ROFL.

[Peter Frank]

49. Yeah, that phrase got me too...

...If a person is going to argue philosophy alone, OK. Abortion is not an "ideal" solution. Pro-choice people would agree. (Now excuse me while I poison my Chihuahua).

[ChairOne]

50. For those special times when drawing & quartering just isn't enough...

lol

[Cheswick2.0]

63. you just keep poisoning those little doggies for convenience

poisoning on demand because you forgot to buy dogfood or something.
There is just something wrong with that. I don't know what, but something is wrong with that I think.

[noiretextatique]

71. if you repeat a lie long enough

perhaps i should read that pro-life book because i've never seen a good pro-life argument here. funny that...those who claim to be pro-life seem to know very little about abortion (among other things). at least this has been my observation, after several discussions here.

[ChairOne]

79. "[T]hat pro-life book" isn't really the right way to describe it....

It's really a work of applied ethics - (academic) philosophy. Concepts and issues such as Aristotelian virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and the like are applied to the case of abortion, and what comes out is a medium-pro-life position.

I don't agree with a bunch of what she does there, but my disagreements are in the arena of (academic) philosophy, not "social activism" or whatever. I'm pretty certain that this is (a) the most natural way in which to take the book, and (b) how the author intended it be taken.

The book is nothing even remotely similar to what one would find on DU. If you're not familiar with (US-style academic) philosophy, there's a large chance you'd be asleep within 10 pages or so.

That said, it's a fine place to start, if you're looking for a thoughtful discussion that *ends up* somewhat more pro-life than pro-choice. US-style academic philosophers are pretty good (tho not perfect, of course) about not begging the question. The book isn't an *apology*; rather, it's an application.

And as I'm sure I mentioned earlier, I'm sure there's more recent work that's comparable - I'm just not familiar with it.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. How is it appropraite for the government to make decissions for women?

This is the only question that I ask pro-lifers. Why do you assume that women can't make their own good decissions on abortion and thus they are better off having the government do it for them?

[That Name Taken]

83. Wrong conceit

The concept is not that "the government is making a decision for a woman", the concept is that "the law will prevent harm from coming to a person who cannot speak for themselves" (the fetus)

This is a conceptual mistake I see at DU often (long time lurker); the pro-life position is not a positive enforcement ("you *will* have this baby!!!") it is a negative one ("you have no right to end another life!!").

This is an important paradigm shift, and critical in understanding.

[sandnsea]

59. Doctors & patients decide

How fucking hard is that to understand? Doctors and women ARE NOT willy-nilly ripping fetuses out of wombs a day before birth!!!! Why can a woman and her doctor not make medical decisions anymore????????????

[Cheswick2.0]

65. Join our crusade to have all men sterilized at 12

They can freeze some sperm before they have the operation. Then they would have to forgo sex for a couple of years to make sure the sterilization took.

At the point when they make a commitment to support a child and they can find a wife willing to have a child, they can unfreeze some of the little swimmers.

[noiretextatique]

70. where is your evidence of abuse of the current law?

you aren't the first person to post this belief that the current law is being abused by women, but...where is your evidence? no one even provides ANY EVIDENCE OF THE NEED TO CHANGE THE CURRENT LAW. there aren't legions of women lining up for late term abortions, just for the heck of it. it seems that belief, that abortion is an epidemic, is a theme in many anti-choice arguments, like yours. where is the evidence?

[RUDUing2]

78. plus most states already have laws in place that place limits on abortions

esp. so called Late term (which can mean pre viability..some place late term as starting at 16 wks)

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fhometown.aol.com%2Fabtrbng%2Findex.htm

[ernstbass]

72. I consider normal murder killing a pet

[ernstbass]

73. Abortion is a women's issue

and when youcan get pregnant you can have a say. If men were the ones who got pregnant we wouldn't even be having this debate.

[That Name Taken]

84. I'll take that deal!

And, by simple application of logic, we'll repeal all child support, alimony, and joint property laws at the same time. Since I have no say in what happens to the kid before birth, I have no say after, either. Bereft of all responsibility, we'll go our merry way.

See ya'!

[ChairOne]

89. So much for "one citizen, one vote", eh?

Even tho I'm pro-choice, the following rule seems to me to be completely specious, and its application to the case of abortion even more so:

Only those primarily affected by a law shall have a say in whether or not that law gets adopted.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is an awful and undemocratic maxim by which to run a country?

I suppose such a rule, in the case of abortion, gained traction from Steinem, or some such person, talking about a small hegemonic group of rich, fat, cigar-smoking, white men making decisions for everybody else. A *true* "tyranny of the minority", as it were. An essential part of the validity of such a stand is that it

But turning that into "men have deserve no say on issue X" is a complete caricature of the original (and valid) point. Indeed, it completely *reverses* the original point - that *everybody* (not just those rich white few) gets a say in the outcome.

Or try it this way - suppose we adopted the notion that men get no say in abortion. On what grounds can one then go on to - without cognitive dissonance - disallow the next members-of-group-X-get-no-say-on-issue-Y initiative?

EDIT: If men were able to get pregnant, I would say the same: that it's perfectly appropriate - even necessary in a democracy - that women get a say in the matter.

[RUDUing2]

75. major problem with your premise is that you seem to think that

all abortions are about choice "The key is to limit unwanted pregnancies in the first place, thus to eliminate the need for abortions in the first place."...you ignore the abortions due to changes in circumstances and those related to either health of the mother or health of the fetus.

[theorist]

81. I'm also a 23 year old male atheist Democrat. For what it's worth

here's my take on it. I am vehemently pro-choice. Like many Progressive atheists, I can be filed as a "social libertarian" when it comes to these "moral values" arguments. (This is all for the sake of this debate, I don't actually think it's fair to compartmentalize people when it comes to these things.)

Abortion is a safe medical procedure. Therefore, it must be made available to all pregnant women at all points of a pregnancy (of course under the supervision of a responsible medical doctor). All cases are different, and scientists are not ever going to agree on the point when a fetus becomes a person. There is far too much diversity within a species to determine such a thing, and we shouldn't waste our time discussing it.

From observing this debate as long as I've been paying attention (10 short years, or so), it always seems to come down to one question: "Who do you think owns the womb?" If you honestly believe that the woman does, then you must be pro-choice, and you must be willing to fight for the woman who wants to save her own life through a safe medical procedure. If you hold that God or the father/sperm donor owns the womb, then you probably disagree with the some of the basic freedoms extended by the Constitution and you should promptly leave this country. You are a danger to all of us.

[LisaLL]

82. why you should be pro-choice/pro-prevention

Truhavoc,

I believe you have misconceptions about what pro-choice means and the different approaches to abortion. Because, as far as I can read from your initial post, I would call you pro-choice. The labels aren't great. I would like to change "pro-choice" to "pro-Prevention" and "pro-life" to 'Pro-Punishment" to describe the two different approaches to unintended pregnancies.

1) No woman wants to be in a position where she is pregnant and does not have the means to raise a child. Pro-choicers understand this and are working very hard to *prevent* unintended pregnancies and abortions by supporting the policies effective in doing this.

2) As pro-choicers we know that legality of abortion is not related to the frequency of abortion. Making abortion illegal doesn't reduce abortions but it does increase the number of women who die from pregnancy-related causes. Preventing unwanted pregnancies reduces abortions and the number of women dying of pregnanct-related causes.

3) It is because pro-choicers respect the life of women and children that we defend keeping abortion legal while reducing the numbers of abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies (and supporting policies that improve resources and communities so more woman can choose to continue their pregnancies).

4)It is because pro-choicers value health, safety, and the life of women and children that we oppose turning the abortion into a game about power. Unwanted pregnancy and abortion are too important to use as punishment for women having sex. Most "pro-life" organizations are supporting policies that *increase* unintended pregnancies and abortions because of the principle of punishment.

5) Pro-choicers value honesty. You will notice that the policies supported by pro-choicers about preventing unwanted pregnancies, reducing abortions, reducing the number of woman who die from pregnancy-related causes are the ones that actually *do* those things. These policies are also supported by the other groups who are committed to health and safety and understand how to evaluate the research (the credible medical and science groups like Am Col of Obstet and Gynecol, Am Acad of Pediatrics, Am Acad of Public Health, AMA, etc, etc.)

So, really, who values life more, pro-choicers or pro-lifers? Pro-choicers do.

Pro-choicers work to reduce unwanted pregnancies, reduce the need for abortions, reduce the number of women dying of pregnancy related causes, use honest, accurate information in their discussions, and don't promote policies that increase unwanted pregnancies. Our goal is Prevention.

Pro-life policies increase unwanted pregnancies, increase the need for abortions, increase the number of women dying from pregnancy-related causes, and relies on distorting the science to pass their agenda. Their goal is punishment. By increasing the chances that sex will result in pregnancy, it serves as punishment to women.

It sounds like, because you value life and health, that you are a pro-choicer.

[Cronus Protagonist]

86. Almost every sperm that leaves my body is alive

And any spermatozoa that leave dead, can't and don't create a new human being. Every ovum is also alive in a similar manner. So there's clearly no beginning to life, only endings, since the beginning happened only once that we know of, and is so far in the past.

Dead flesh cannot beget life.

This whole argument surrounding abortion rights and a woman's control over her own reproductive system is not about life, it's about power over death, a power that we each have and exercise regularly when we do not use our living seed to procreate. This is a power that the male and the female both have, and clearly it is our right to have that power as imbued by nature herself, or God for those who prefer.

However, if one really wants to claim the argument that life in general must not be taken or lost, one must think a bit more about it next time one ejaculates or has a period and casts one's living seed upon the ground.

Oh, the humanity!




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[LisaLL]

91. increasing rights with gestation

It seems like the crux of your post is that you feel increasing discomfort about abortion as the gestation advances. Most people do. I do and so do the women making the decisions about their pregnancies.

That's why we see more and more compelling reasons for terminations as gestations advance. The bulk of first trimester abs are the reasons about not being able to provide for a child because of age of woman, resources, other children. Some people call that "elective". Second trimester abortions are predominently for (some would say) more compelling reasons: genetic abnormalities, deformities, fetal conditions incompatible with life outside of the uterus, severe medical risk or risk of death to the woman. These decisions are not made lightly and are not because woman *want* to have abortions. These are predominantly wanted pregnancies and awful situations. (I can provide examples if you like).

Sometimes there are abortions just into the second trimester for nonmedical reasons because women were delayed from having an abortion earlier (not able to afford it, needing judicial bypass, etc). There are ways to help these occur earlier rather than later.

So, is the only reason you are calling yourself "pro-life" is that you don't trust pregnant women to take this issue of advancing gestational age as seriously as you do? It turns out that they do.
I say this with the experience of counseling many women in these situations. I am an ob/gyn physician.

[LisaLL]

92. an addition to last post

I'd like to add to the past paragraph:

So, is the only reason you are calling yourself "pro-life" is that you don't trust pregnant women and physicians to take this issue of advancing gestational age as seriously as you do? It turns out that they do. I say this with the experience of counseling many women in these situations and knowing many physicians who help them. I am an ob/gyn physician.

[Jim__]

96. If supporting Roe v Wade is the definition of pro-choice, then I think you

are pro-choice. Roe v Wade does take into consideration the questions you've raised Roe v Wade; from the summary:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.


(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.


(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.