I have been seeing so much about the New York abortion law debate that I feel almost compelled to say a few words about it.
The law states that a physician “may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”
I understand that some people may believe the patient’s life is not worth as much as a fetus’ life or that God will work it out the way God sees fit and so on.
I understand that bioethicists can’t always agree on what the word “health” means. It frightens people to realize that physicians may define health in ways that they disagree with sometimes.
But I don’t understand the complete lack of empathy or compassion regarding some of these cases. How can people hate so hard and be comfortable with such sweeping generalizations?
I keep thinking about a family that desperately wanted a baby discovered after a 21-week anatomy scan that their daughter had bilateral multicystic dysplastic kidney disease. The mother writes,
Another plus point of see here cialis doctor is the actual rate. The high priced brand pills are not affordable viagra online store by each and every person. We get the medicine by the name of Kamagra, tadalafil india and Aurogra tablets have prepared this solution in different strength. viagra tablet Too much magnesium from consumption of food sources poses little threat to health.Her kidneys were not functioning, she had no amniotic fluid and her lungs would never develop properly. Three doctors told us our daughter’s condition was 100 percent fatal due to the early onset of her disease. She would either be stillborn or would not survive long after birth. My own risk would increase sevenfold if I continued to carry her.” They made the decision to terminate the pregnancy. They had to wait 72 hours, private insurance wouldn’t pay for the abortion and the government regulations contributed to the deep trauma of this family.
I think this is sad.
I think that thinking it is sad and trying to not have laws where people are more traumatized is not ridiculous and selfish.
You may disagree with my position but the memes and posts against the law don’t mention these cases, or the restrictions on these laws. This seems profoundly intellectually dishonest to me.
I wish we could stay away from language such as pro-choice or pro-life simply because these are values that most people cherish outside of the abortion debate. Are we really anti life or anti choice if we don’t hold a particular view? How many of you really believe that a large percentage of human beings are truly haters of life? How many of you really believe that a large percentage of human beings hate the concept of freedom and choice?
This doesn’t seem right and the words have so much emotive content that it doesn’t seem this type of language is likely to lead to a richer understanding of the topic.
Pro Life VS Pro Choice Debate With A Different Ending
Not long ago my main squeeze and I attended a friend’s dinner party. After dinner during small talk in the living room, two women were having a “Pro-life / Pro-choice” friendly heated debate.
What we kept listening to were arguments for both sides. The debate was so intense that that my friend’s dog took shelter under a couch cushion.
After about an hour of them taking turns making each other wrong, I realized that they were not responding to each other’s arguments. Every time either would make a point the other responded with a different point or an attack.
All of a sudden, I had a realization, cognition, and an epiphany I wanted to share. “Excuse me, can I ask you a question? All of a sudden there was a polite silence between the debaters.
Even my friend’s dog stuck his head out from under the couch cushion with an expression of relief.
I told the ladies that I found their debate informative. However I realized what they were arguing over was a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
What do you know! They finally agreed on something. I took the bull by the horns and decided to run with it.
“I have an idea!” I said, “Why not partner with each other and focus your attention on ways and means and programs to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? In this way you both will be on the track towards lessoning the issue on both sides.”
You guessed it. They hugged and decided to continue their communication with a common goal.
Your Thoughts?
Thanks for sharing how you approached this conversation,Ivan. I think it is good to find places of common agreement in dialogue. I like Margaret Little’s approach here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqZlvhW8mus
Lots of people have tried this. It will only work if BOTH/ALL sides of the discussion really DO want to reduce unwanted pregnancies ENOUGH to consider all the options, because many of those options are ALSO opposed by some involved in the argument. To just SAY that you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies but to reject the primary, most effective solutions, will get us nowhere.
I would suggest that a significant number of the arguers want to force women to have and deal with and suffer from unwanted pregnancies because the arguers consider the women involved to be immoral and in need of punishment. When that attitude underlies all the discussion, the agreement simply isn’t possible….and I would suggest, that too much compromise is foolish.