March for Women's Lives

[Sueven]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/25/aborti ... index.html

I live ten miles from DC, so I went down and checked this out. Highlights:

Got to see Hillary Clinton. The crowd was very excited to see her. Unfortunately, I thought she came off as kind of shrill. In fairness, though, she was trying to yell over hundreds of thousands of people, it's hard to be articulate.

Got to hear Martha Burk say "I am woman, hear me vote." Hilarious. One public figure I never imagined I would see. Along those lines, I also got to watch Paul from Peter, Paul, and Mary perform a pro-choice song with his daughter. You never know what will happen at these liberal events.

Saw the Army of God, the radical group responsible for a number of clinic bombings and doctor attacks and such. At least one of their convicted felons was there. They were all men, all had mustaches or full beards, and used megaphones to loudly express their opinion that all the women in the march were whores. I also heard the word "Jezebel" thrown around quite a bit. First, a lesbian danced in front of them on stilts while playing the accordian, and that was pretty awesome. After that, some people in the crowd got provoked and rushed them. There was a little tussle (which resulted in the marchers tearing all of the Army of God's signs to shreds) before a large contingent of mounted police came to maintain order.

I was truly impressed by the sheer number of people that turned out. When I finished marching, I arrived at the mall, and it was entirely packed from the Washington Monument to the Capitol building. In addition, the last marchers hadn't even left yet, meaning that simultaneously, the entire mall was packed with people, and the entire march route was also full. I've never seen close to that many people in one place before. Estimates I've seen range from 500,000 to more than a million, but I don't have any capacity to evaluate those.

On the down side, protests and marches are incredibly reactionary and extremist. My personal opinion is that abortion is generally immoral, but should be protected by the 14th amendment guarantee of liberty. That relatively moderate view is certainly not represented by the anarchist contingent or the socialist party, both of whom were out in force. It's an exercise in rhetoric, not a valid debate.

I was actually handed a socialist newspaper with the headline "What Mumia Abu-Jamal thinks about women's rights." Because apparently a man who hasn't been out of jail in twenty years is ideally situated to comment on the complexities of the current status of women's rights and society.

Anyway, this post is kind of incoherent and I'm very tired. I'm going to end it now.

[masteen]

So did you get laid? I heard that liberal chicks really put out.

[Sueven]

Why else would I go?

[Wulfran]

I was actually handed a socialist newspaper with the headline "What Mumia Abu-Jamal thinks about women's rights." Because apparently a man who hasn't been out of jail in twenty years is ideally situated to comment on the complexities of the current status of women's rights and society.

/snicker but then again, is he really much more ill informed than the "bearded men" who were there from the Army of God?

[Mort]

Can I ask why they were marching for abortion rights when abortion is legal? (Im pro choice BTW). Just wondering.

[Sueven]

The premise was that reproductive freedoms are under attack by the current administration. The issue that resonates most with me is that the Bush administration denies foreign aid to family planning agencies that mention abortion. People are also concerned about the partial-birth abortion ban, the unborn victims of violence act, and Bush's stocking the judiciary with ideologues. It's NRA-style: They have the right, but they're very concerned about losing it.

[Voronwë]

Can I ask why they were marching for abortion rights when abortion is legal? (Im pro choice BTW). Just wondering.

laws are not immutable. This is an issue that is very much still in play. The next presidential term could result in Roe v. Wade being reversed. Bush will likely have an appointment on the Supreme Court, and it is a virtual certainty that any of his nominees will be pro-life, thus shifting the balance from 5-4 in "favor" of the decision in Roe v. Wade to 5-4 against.

i think that naming the march "march for women's lives" is pretty sensationalistic, and it will marginalize any message they try to get acrosss.

the pro-life movement is very much pushing their cause this election season, and this is a response. Even though many people don't understand it, this is an issue in this election.

Mak made a point on another thread about how "the left" objects to images of mutilated fetuses, etc being used by "the right". I think they are within their legal right to do so, but i think it is in extremely poor taste. #1 if they truly believe that the life depicted in the photograph is a soul, in my opinion , it is disrespectful to use an image of it as political propaganda, splayed out naked and disfigured. #2. I think it is extremely irresponsible to have those images out in certain public venues. Little children see them.

Not too long ago, i was driving to day-care to pick up my daughter, and there was a driving billboard (flat-bed truck, w/ a sign on it basically) with a huge picture of (probably a late term) aborted fetus with its skull smashed in, and other debris scattered about it.

Then i turned onto the street where day care was and there were people holding placards up with similar photos part of the same marketing campaign. This is on the street where a fucking kindergarten is. 4 and 5 year old children should not be injected into this debate in such a base fashion.

If i think pedophelia is wrong that doesnt mean i need to show a video of a man sodomizing a boy to children to get the point across.

the images are powerful, and part of the debate, but the use of them in such a sensationalistic fashion is completely countercurrent to the respect for the 'individuals' that these activists claim to have.

[Sueven]

Agree with Voro, except for:

Bush will likely have an appointment on the Supreme Court, and it is a virtual certainty that any of his nominees will be pro-life, thus shifting the balance from 5-4 in "favor" of the decision in Roe v. Wade to 5-4 against.

His retiree will probably be Rehnquist. Scalia and Thomas have an axe yet to grind, and I really doubt any of the moderates or liberals will resign. Maybe Stevens or Kennedy is Bush gets another four years.

If the Democrats can take either the presidency or the Senate in the coming elections, they can prevent Bush from appointing another conservative ideologue to the Court.

[Voronwë]

you might be right.

i love the mindless droning about "the left and activist judges". i know that those who say such things only parrot talk radio, but it is just such a sad misunderstanding of reality on their part.

[Aaeamdar]

O'Connor and Rehnquist are both in poor health. Both have all but announced their retirement at the end of this session. That said, abortion is not currently 5-4, it is currently 6-3.

[Aaeamdar]

This is on the street where a fucking kindergarten is. 4 and 5 year old children should not be injected into this debate in such a base fashion.

I am mostly pro-choice, but I do disagree with your comments here. I think abortion is taken fairly lightly because people do not really vicerally understand the consequences. Human limitations being what they are, it is a very different thing on one had to say "Abortion kills the unborn" and another to show it.

I don't support their adjenda, but I do think their tactics are appropriate (well, then ones you mentioned anyway). They are not being untruthful.

If i think [sexually abusing a child] is wrong that doesnt mean i need to show a video of a man sodomizing a boy to children to get the point across.

That's because no one (or only the tiniest minority) things its ok to sexually molest a child. If you lived in a society that generally accepted adults having sex with children, then you might feel very differently on what tactics are and are not appropriate.

[Voronwë]

great post dar, but i think that if you are going to use these potent images, you need to do your best to focus their display such that only adults are going to see them.

there are ways to do that.

i don't think its illegal , i think its irresponsible.

[Sylvus]

This is on the street where a fucking kindergarten is. 4 and 5 year old children should not be injected into this debate in such a base fashion.

I am mostly pro-choice, but I do disagree with your comments here. I think abortion is taken fairly lightly because people do not really vicerally understand the consequences. Human limitations being what they are, it is a very different thing on one had to say "Abortion kills the unborn" and another to show it.

I don't support their adjenda, but I do think their tactics are appropriate (well, then ones you mentioned anyway). They are not being untruthful.

You think that it's an appropriate tactic to parade around pretty graphic images in front of children who have absolutely no idea what the issue is about or how reproduction even works? I find it rather appalling, myself. They do that shit around football games and sporting events, and it's totally the wrong place to do it.

Quote:
If i think [sexually abusing a child] is wrong that doesnt mean i need to show a video of a man sodomizing a boy to children to get the point across.


That's because no one (or only the tiniest minority) things its ok to sexually molest a child. If you lived in a society that generally accepted adults having sex with children, then you might feel very differently on what tactics are and are not appropriate.

Okay, say one were an anti-gay marriage activist, would you agree with them driving past a school showing images of two adult men having sex with each other to illustrate some sort of a point? I'm not sure what that point would be, I'm just trying to illustrate that it's totally irresponsible outside of the appropriate forum.

[Aaeamdar]

They do that shit around football games and sporting events, and it's totally the wrong place to do it.

There is an ugly side of abortion that most people choose to ignore (as opposed to having processed it and chosen to accept it as a necessary consequence in a larger scheme). Causing discomfort about that willful ignorance is exactly the point, making places like sporting events, shopping malls, and other places where people carry on with their daly lives exactly he right place to do it.

On the children thing. I think it would be a waste of resource to intentionally target children, but if I were planning some pro-life event and was going to display graphic images of aborted fetuses, I can't say keeping the images away from children would be high on my list. Personally, I think you are both understating the ignorance of children (yeah, they don't know what sex is, but I bet a huge majoirty of 5 year olds understand that "mommy is carrying my baby brother/sister in her tummy." That is about the level of understanding required to start dealing with the abortion issue - though it is much harder to explain why having the right to choose an abortion is necessary until later - 9ish?) and over overstate the effect these images would have on kids that age.

Finally,
Yeah, if some anti-gay bigot wants to march around with signs dipicting gay sex - great (as long as the guys are cute). Wish that had happened more often when i was in school.

[Kriista]

when i was in highschool there was this creepy old lady that would hand out those gore photos, during lunch hour

i remember the days she was there the whole mood in the shcool was down
seeing hacked up fetuses is revolting
but not because they are 'unborn lives', but because its fucking disgusting

the oldest highschool student is 18 , maybe 19, so at least 75% of the schools population is underage(probably having sex, but still children in the sense), and they would specifically target that, is in poor taste
i wish i wouldve had a better understanding as to why it disturbed me more i wouldve thrown shit and rotting steaks at that woman everytime she showed up

id love to see a lawsuit come from a parent of a child in a circumstance like that(not highschoolers, but 4-5yearolds), as thats got to inflict some serious trauma at that age
much less if the psycho pro lifers start gabbing at the kid telling him that couldve been him or whatever the fuck they say to children

that, and im personally keeping a bag of popcorn around for the first lawsuit about someone teaching an athiest child about god(particularly hell and sinning)
i know when i have my children im gonna go apeshit if my kid comes home one day saying someone told him hes going to hell, to write in eternal agony

[Kluden]

I stopped by with my roomate. She really wanted to go, and wanted me to go to increase turn out numbers.

It was definitely ill-named. The march for womenz lives was kind of a weird title, since everything there was all about women. The original tag line I believe, was developed due to the pro-choice item...not expecting it to be about voting, and other stuffs too.

It was neat, saw the same people as Sueven...and had some good laughs. Lots of good people, and the fanatics were the majority for a change at one of these marches.

No, I wasn't attacked by any men hating women...I was relieved.

[kyoukan]

i think that naming the march "march for women's lives" is pretty sensationalistic, and it will marginalize any message they try to get acrosss.

It's pretty appropriate in the context that it is used in. Many feminists view the abortion debate as another tactic by the pro-lifers (mostly fundie christian males and weak women that were raised by fundie christian males) to control their lives. I don't think the average pro-lifer honestly gives a flying fuck about unborn babies being terminated. They want control over women's bodies like they have historically enjoyed.

Usually when I see pro-lifers they are as Sueven described them; creepy looking bearded men. The women are usually decently stupid looking. Most of them sport t-shirts with slogans like "breeder and proud of it!" (no I'm not joking).

[Voronwë]

i agree with you Kyo.

my comments were more about 'branding' the march from a marketing standpoint.

with American politics being so polarized, and this is probably the most polarizing issue in our society, you are typically trying to do one of two things with your PR. Either mobilize your base (so more radical message), or attract people who are on the fence.

If their goal with this march was the latter, i don't think the title will help that objective. That is basically the point of my comment.

[kyoukan]

I think in their point of view they branded it exactly how they wanted to. the entire point of the pro-choice movement is that it is our bodies and we can do whatever the hell we want with them. It is a very feminist issue that is only a moral one when it goes over to the pro-life side.

I don't necessarily agree with that position, but I am not what you would call radically pro-choice.

[Winnow]

Women should be fixed before puberty and then apply for licenses to have children and their tubes untied.

Who's with me!?!!1

Lets shoot for that and hopefully end up with the freedom to abort as a compromise.

I'm pro choice. That's one issue I'm far left on.

[kyoukan]

Hey, Winnow. Thanks a lot for contributing to the thread.

[Thess]

My sister, my sister-in-law as well as her mother were all at this.

Stolen from my sisters website - http://www.cakenyc.com

Did you know that in 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court justices were initially going to vote 5-4 to overturn Roe v. Wade? Indeed - to overturn Roe - in 1992, the same year that some of us around here graduated high school! Recently released private papers of the late Justice Harry Blackmun reveal that only because of the last-minute pressure that he and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter placed on Justice Anthony Kennedy, did Kennedy switch his vote and rescue Roe.
What exactly made Justice Kennedy come around? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that during the same year - some of you might remember or may have been there - a million men and women marched on Washington to support women's rights and equality. In the end, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding Roe - once again confirming what Justice Blackmun eloquently identified as "a step that had to be taken as we go down the road toward the full emancipation of women."

Fast forward to 2004. After three years, it is clear that a major preoccupation of the Bush Administration is the systematic undermining of reproductive freedom - the very freedom that is essential to women's health, privacy and equality, and yes the full emancipation of women.

The record speaks for itself -

Attempting to block women's access to contraceptives (which drive down the number of abortions),
Delaying FDA approval for emergency contraception over the counter,
Removing scientifically accurate information about contraceptives and abortion from federal websites,
Declaring war on any sex education that discusses ways, beyond abstinence, to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases,
Prohibiting federal financing for research on all new stem-cell lines (despite the hopes that this research could lead to breakthroughs in treatments for diseases like Parkinson's, cancer and diabetes),
Packing the judiciary with individuals whose hostility to Roe v. Wade matches his own and that of his famously anti-choice attorney general, John Ashcroft,
Resurrecting the gag rule which broadcasts the president's disdain for freedom of speech to emerging democracies (while crippling the international family planning programs that work to prevent hundreds of thousands of infant and maternal deaths worldwide each year),
Attempting to block an endorsement of condom use to prevent AIDS.
Whew - to name a few.

On the surface, the Bush administration's war against women's rights is a series of largely unnoted changes. It is intended to look that way. In reality, it is a steady march into the past, to a time before Roe v. Wade, when pregnancy was more a matter of fate than choice and women were second class citizens with little options for education, careers, independence and choice. The presidential assault has a true and present impact on our lives: women's constitutional liberty has been threatened, and essential reproductive health care has been denied or delayed.

But make no mistake - President Bush's assault on reproductive rights is part of a larger and long ongoing cultural battle. Beyond women's health - if that wasn't enough to make you start marching around your room or office - this administration has also proposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage (this is the constitution people! - we couldn't get an equal rights amendment for women back in 1981!), the FCC is censoring television and radio (Howard Stern is even pissed!) and the Justice department is demanding access to private hospital records of women. Talk about amending the constitution to get what you want...

And yes, one vote on the Supreme Court is still the only thing that stands between a woman's right to choose and a generational step back into the 1950s when our mothers were being told that housework and valium were a perfect combination! The more things change, the more things seem to be the same...unless a new generation of people stand up for our rights and continue Justice Blackmun's bold vision for female empowerment.

For both women and men alike, it is impossible to have sexual pleasure and equality without reproductive rights and freedom. CAKE firmly believes in making our voices heard to create social change. This culture war going on in Washington is about equality, freedom and the right to privacy - it is time to March in the name of women's freedom once again.

On April 25th, join CAKE and thousands of other organizations in The March for Women's Lives and send a message to Washington that they must stop chipping away at reproductive freedom and stop playing politics with women's health and lives.

If ever there was a time to stand up for what you believe in, the time is right for a public demonstration of historic size in support of reproductive freedom and justice for all women.

Edit: Changed what I linked

[Jice Virago]

This is really just another facet of a broad attack on left and centrist classes in this country by the radical right. This same sort of shit went on during the civil rights movement when blacks came into their own as a powerful political/social lobby. The government's response at that time was to flood the inner cities with cheap drugs and hound the leaders of the movement. Ultimately, neither side won. Blacks still recieve second class treatment in many parts of the country, you just don't hear as much about it because the focus of xenophobia is on Islamics at the moment.


Fast forward to the present:

Several middle class blocks of people are under sustained attack from the current administration. Free women are under direct attack as their medical privacy and family planning rights are under attack on a worldwide scale. Bush policies have literally shifted back to philosophies from the 1950s regarding sexual education, STD prevention, and women's rights. Many of the changes were highlighted in Thess's article above. What I find most disturbing about this is that we are sending a message to the outside world that the US is a hardline christian theocracy, and make no mistake that is the impression that people in foreign family planning centers are going to come away with.

The next block of people under attack are homosexuals, who are being denied fundemental rights based on the false assumtion that marriage is a purely religious institution. Nevermind the blatant violation of church and state at play here, the corps and insurance companies do not want the additional cost of recognizing gay unions. The cards are very much stacked against homosexuals, who are in many ways as discriminated against as Islamics and blacks in the country have ever been. They are essentially being forcably pushed back into the closet.

There has also been a carefully orchestrated takeover of free speech in the country. One of the first things Bush did when taking office was to immediately deregulate the radio industry, allowing big companies to own more than one station in a given market. This effectively allows these companies to strong arm advertisers, using superior market share, and drive all but the most entrenched competetors out of business. The results were telling, as in less than four years the vast majority of all radio stations are owned by two companies. The largest of these two companies was Clear Channel, who own more than half of all radio stations nationwide. Clear Channel is also the company that started banning Howard Stern shortly after Stern migrated from pro Bush to anti Bush on his program. They also were one of the largest contributors to Bush's presidential campain.

Finally, there is a direct attack on the middle class white collar worker as a matter of policy in this country. The IT boom gave the country the largest boom of economic growth of any industry in the last half a century. The Bush administration's reaction was to open the floodgates on outsourcing labor and corperate welfare, including attempts to deny overtime pay to certain segments of the labor force. In less than five years, an entire industry has literally gone overseas with no restrictions for the corps exploiting the situation. An entire segment of the population, many of whom persued education towards this (and sever other afffected) field are essentially jobless in the highest unemployment rates since Reagan held office. Between corp welfare and fundimentalism, most of the key technological advancement is no longer being done domestically, but rather oversease.

Ok that was a long ass post, but here is the summary:

I personally feel that the Bush Machine is directly weakening all the major centrist and leftist blocks of the country, effectively solidifying the power of the radical right. This series of actions, combined with him being in bed with Deibold (the company that makes the election tabulation machines, which have been proven easily compromisable, yet Deibold refuses to have hard paper backup on any of their machines) whos machines were involved in the floriday fiasco and now are the bulk of electoral tallying machines in the nation, are bad portents in my eyes. I watch Fox News and I see a propaganda machine at work, pushing the neocon agenda in a manner that state radio once did for Hitler and Stalin (and the parallels to Al-Jezeer are chilling too) not too long ago. Lable me a conspiracy nut, but I think the country is mutating into a theocracy and our days as the most respected and powerful nation are long past.

[Jice Virago]

Here is some more amusement regarding this issue.

[Adex_Xeda]

Do you guys belive a kid is only alive after it has totally left the womb?

[Karae]

Do you guys belive a kid is only alive after it has totally left the womb?

If it wasn't aborted!

Ok, in seriousness, I believe a child is "alive" at the point it can live outside the womb. Up until that point it's just a part of the woman's body.

Also, when it comes to complications, I'll always pick the life of the mother over the life of the unborn baby.

However, it doesn't matter much what *I* think. We're supposedly, everyday Bush is in office it becomes more ficticious, living in a free country. What the pro-life fucktards don't seem to realize, is that means people can decide to abort their child even if they don't agree with it.

Let me leave you with this: True freedom is freedom, not for the idea you love, but for the idea you despise the most.

I realize you're just asking a question - but if you're planning to use this thread as some pulpit for pro-life rhetoric expect my foot up your ass.

[Sylvus]

Ok, in seriousness, I believe a child is "alive" at the point it can live outside the womb. Up until that point it's just a part of the woman's body.

That's exactly the way I feel too. And I'm still not sure that I'm prepared to say that just because it might be able to live outside of the woman's body that it should be illegal for her to terminate her pregnancy. Having a child is such a tremendously life-altering experience that I think it's preposterous to say that a man should be able to offer anything other than support and advice; ultimately it's the woman's choice.

Personally I don't think I would ever encourage anyone that I were to impregnate to have an abortion, I'd probably do my best to discourage it, but I'll do everything in my power to ensure that the right to have a choice in the matter is protected.

[Niffoni]

I really liked Jice's post, but in all fairness, it kinda looked like those economic issues like corp. welfare were already a problem before Bush and Co. took office. I wouldn't trust the Dems to fix that.

As for whether I think a kid is only alive after birth... certainly not. it is as alive as any creature or organism. It also has the potential to become a human, but that argument doesn't fly with me. So does every egg that isn't fertilized. Frankly, I think that a lot of people who want to legally control women's reproductive systems would claim she was a murderer every time she went the rag if that weren't so logistically impossible to regulate.

But in the end my opinion doesn't mean crap. I would almost like to discourage abortion myself, but I've never had a baby, and i know deep down that I never have to worry about it, so that kinda renders any thoughts i have on the matter invalid.

[Adex_Xeda]

Why do you define life to begin as you have?

Is convenience the main motivator?

If not what?

I'm not setting a debate trap. I'd just like to hear your reasoning.

[Toshira]

Do you guys belive a kid is only alive after it has totally left the womb?

If it wasn't aborted!

Ok, in seriousness, I believe a child is "alive" at the point it can live outside the womb. Up until that point it's just a part of the woman's body.

What do you mean by "alive"? Self-sufficient? So say at age 8, it is a child, when it can fend for itself in the hunter/gatherer sense?

Debating when "life begins" is fucking pointless. Does it begin at conception? Before that - sperm and egg are both "live" cells, fully functional. More to Adex, if you're trying to find some sine qua non moment to define where one life is somehow more sacred than another, good luck.

I think the pro-life movement would like to define life as beginning at the point of sentience, but seeing as that will be pretty difficult to prove, they needed some biological definition to run home to, thus clinging to "conception".

Abortifacients have been around how long? Decades? Wrong. Millennia. It was mostly out of a concern for women's health that led the AMA to spearhead legislative efforts to make abortion illegal in the latter half of the nineteenth century. When research data became available in the 1950's and 60's showing that under the proper conditions, abortion was actually safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term, the illegality of having an abortion was overturned (by, as stated above, a very "weak" S. Court vote).

The Catholic church will never, ever convince me that they pay anything but lip service to "the sanctity of life", as long as their antiquated notions to produce more lil Catholic zombies result in situations like This (no images).

Anyway, as Geore Carlin so eloquently put it: "You ever notice that most of the women who are pro-life, are women you wouldn't wanna fuck anyway?"

[Truant]

Why do you define life to begin as you have?

Is convenience the main motivator?

If not what?

I'm not setting a debate trap. I'd just like to hear your reasoning.

Instead of just hopping into this thread and occasionally questioning everything you don't agree with.

Why don't you explain why you define it the way you do...without the words God or jesus being used.

[Xzion]

Why do you define life to begin as you have?

Is convenience the main motivator?

If not what?

I'm not setting a debate trap. I'd just like to hear your reasoning.

If you wanna get technical life has the ability to be produced begins in your semen when you have that 1st wet dream at the age of 12

The baby IS ALIVE in the womb, il give you that, buts its a VEGETABLE, it cant think, it cant feel, it cant do shit and is 100% reliant on a machine (the mother) to survive
family members have the right to pull the plug on former family members who have become vegetables, as women do when it comes to there bodys.

[Winnow]

Think of it in terms of EQ or online games. You create characters all the time. Sometimes you delete them even before they enter the world. Up until a certain level, there are no penalties for death. If you could twink babies, people would be more inclined to keep them.

You can also make an EQ analogy with genetic designer babies. How many people use the random generator for characters in games? Not many. As shown in the movie Gattaca, picking and choosing your best characteristics for your baby wouldn't necessarily give us a bunch of clones but would help prevent the equivalent of a baby with the stats of a ranger from popping out.

[Thess]

Do you guys belive a kid is only alive after it has totally left the womb?

After the second trimester, I believe a child is alive. Like Karae said this is the point where a child can live outside the womb (of course the child still needs help from people at this point).

I consider myself strongly pro-choice. While I've never had an abortion, I still like to be able to choose. My opinion is below (written better then I could express it)

November 30, 2003
Frank Talk About Abortion
Source: The New York Times

The current debate about so-called partial birth abortion has produced some strange and unfortunate consequences. Among the most disheartening is the widespread impression that the pro-choice movement does not regard abortion as a serious matter, and that women seeking to terminate a pregnancy require a condescending reminder from Congress to understand that the fetus they are carrying is a potential life.


Now that the debate has moved from Congress to the courts, the public could benefit from a fuller and franker discussion about abortion policy. The profound nature of the issue must be acknowledged. But it must also be made clear that few understand its practical, heart-wrenching dimensions better than the doctors who perform the procedures, and the people fighting in a difficult political environment to preserve a woman's hard-won right to decide whether she will carry a pregnancy to term.


The 'Partial Birth' Strategy
"Partial birth" is a political battle cry, not medical terminology. People who want to end all abortion rights have made no secret of the fact that their strategy is to single out the aspects that create the greatest popular discomfort, chipping away until, as a practical matter, access to legal abortions is no longer available.
The strategy is potent because the clinical details of abortion are disturbing to consider. The chief sponsors of the "partial birth" ban recently passed by Congress said it was intended to outlaw a procedure the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists calls an intact dilatation and extraction. That generally involves the doctor's pulling out the fetus up to the neck and then collapsing the skull. It is hard to imagine a doctor performing such a procedure on an almost fully developed fetus except under the most drastic medical circumstances. And, although no definitive statistics exist, the evidence suggests no doctor does.


The "partial birth" controversy has given millions of Americans the idea that abortions in the final months of pregnancy are common and easy to obtain. But unless a serious medical problem occurs, a woman's right to choose abortion correctly ends at the point of viability, when the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb. Even before viability, abortions in the seventh month and beyond are illegal in 41 states. Although many of those prohibitions are undoubtedly unconstitutional, since they make no exception for times when a pregnant woman's health or life is endangered, they remain on the books because no one, including the reproductive freedom movement, has made a concerted effort to overturn them.


More common, though still rare, are abortions performed during the second trimester of pregnancy, roughly the fourth through sixth month. During the most common procedure for this stage, the fragile fetus is generally broken apart during extraction. Legislators who supported the "partial birth" bill claimed it would have no effect on these second-trimester abortions. But because the law does not single out one procedure to be banned, physicians who perform midpregnancy abortions have good reason to fear being prosecuted. That is one reason the current "partial birth" law is being challenged in federal courts in three states, and it was one reason the Supreme Court overturned a Nebraska statute remarkably similar to the one just passed by Congress.


The other reason the Supreme Court overturned the Nebraska law was that it provided no exception to protect a woman's health. That was a particular concern to the swing justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, and the Republican majority in Congress could have gone a long way to protecting the new law from successful challenge by taking the health of the pregnant woman into consideration. Many average Americans who shrink from the procedure described as "partial birth" would also want to make an exception if, for instance, a woman discovered that the fetus she was carrying was hopelessly deformed and that extracting it later or by another method could leave her unable to have children in the future.


Why, then, did the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the other crucial proponents of the ban fail to seize Justice O'Connor's virtual invitation to add this exception? The answer, of course, is that it would have diverted public attention from the details of how the abortions are performed, to the thought of women who might be put at risk. A full debate on the floors of the House and Senate about which dangerous pregnancies should be exempted from the ban would have been welcome, but it would not have served the sponsors' purpose of fuzzying up the abortion issue by portraying pro-choice advocates as heartless extremists.


Drawing the Line
Abortions always mean ending a potential human life. But most people do not regard terminating a pregnancy that is only a few hours old, or a few weeks old, in the same light as ending one in the seventh month. Drawing a clear line about when an abortion can be performed is a difficult and divisive problem. The wisest line, in our view, is the one laid down by the Supreme Court 30 years ago in Roe v. Wade: Government should have the right to step in only when the fetus has developed fully enough to be able to exist on its own.


Another clear line, of course, would involve banning abortions entirely, from the moment an egg is fertilized. That would mean no IUD's or other contraception methods that involve dislodging the fertilized egg, no ending of pregnancies in which the fetus is discovered to be terribly deformed, no exemption for women who have been raped. That option is preferred by many people of good faith. But most Americans do not agree, and enforcing it would constitute an enormous and unconstitutional intrusion on the bodies and lives of women.


As a practical matter, no law — even an act of Congress — can prevent women bent on aborting a pregnancy from doing so. All it can do is make abortions unsafe. That lesson is being brought home today in countries like the Philippines, where an estimated 400,000 abortions take place each year despite a strict ban. One unsurprising result is the alarming rate of medical complications and of abortion mortality.


Finding Common Ground
It would obviously be better to avoid abortions entirely by eliminating unwanted pregnancies. That will never happen, but we should strive to reduce the need for abortions as much as possible. President Bush and Congress could help by moving beyond their backing of programs to promote abstinence and embracing a wider range of approaches, including effective sex education and easier access to contraception, including over-the-counter availability of the so-called morning-after pill.


There is no denying that America's pro-choice majority has become increasingly queasy about even second-trimester abortions. Modern sonogram technology has contributed to that feeling by allowing people to view the features of a developing fetus with amazing clarity. But too often obscured in the ruckus over "partial birth" is a perverse fact: It is the opponents of reproductive freedom, not pro-choice advocates, who pose an obstacle to achieving the humane goal of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and second-trimester abortions. Through political harassment and the imposition of various restrictions, they have made it increasingly difficult for women who are young or poor, or who live in rural areas, to obtain access to abortion services in the first weeks of pregnancy, thereby needlessly delaying procedures until the fetus is further along. While the pro-choice movement has been fighting to protect women from the need to have abortions later in pregnancy, the other side has been vigorously engaged in a battle that will inevitably make them more common.

October 21st, 2003

Senate Approves Bill to Prohibit Type of Abortion for first time since Roe V. Wade

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the first federal ban on a specific abortion procedure, ending eight years of divisive debate and clearing the way for President Bush to sign the measure into law.

Both sides declared the 64-to-34 vote a historic turning point in a controversy that has split Americans for decades, ever since the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion in the case of Roe v. Wade 30 years ago.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court rejected a similar law in Nebraska, saying its language was so broad as to outlaw more than one type of abortion and that it was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the health of the mother.

The bill is an assault on the right to privacy established by the Roe case, and an intrusion into the ability of doctors and patients to make their own medical choices.

President Signs $15 Billion Emergency AIDS Bill on May 27th, 2003
In an effort to fight the continuing HIV and AIDS crisis on the African continent and in the Caribbean, President Bush on May 27th, 2003 signed a bill to spend $15 billion on prevention and treatment programs over the next five years.

How the money will be spent?
The bill provides funding for prevention programs and medical care for those dying from the disease. It would also provide drugs, known as anti-viral treatments, for about 2 million of those infected with HIV in Africa and the Caribbean.

The entire $15 billion package directs 55 percent of the aid to treatment programs, 20 percent to prevention programs, 15 percent to palliative care -- care meant to ease AIDS related suffering -- and 10 percent to helping children whose parents have died from the disease, according to a CNN report.
The American effort comes as the epidemic continues to ravage part of the globe. In Sub-Saharan Africa more than 25 million people are infected with HIV and AIDS. In the Caribbean, 390,000 people suffer from the virus, according to the Office of National AIDS Policy.

Countries that will benefit from the package include Haiti and Guyana in the Caribbean; and Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Botswana, South Africa, the Ivory Coast, Namibia, and Nigeria in Africa.
In the U.S., about 900,000 people have HIV/AIDS. In 2000, the U.S. spent more than $10 billion on healthcare, research and prevention to fight the disease domestically.

Source - The News Hour/PBS

Stolen from http://www.cakenyc.com

[Voronwë]

Why do you define life to begin as you have?

Is convenience the main motivator?

If not what?

I'm not setting a debate trap. I'd just like to hear your reasoning.

i'll try to give you a real answer Adex.

for starters the term "alive" is not meaningful. The embryo is always alive. The bacteria on my hands are alive, but it isn't illegal to wash my hands. Obviously i'm not trying to compare the two, I'm just trying to demonstrate why that word has no meaning in this debate.

"alive/life" etc in the abortion debate is a political term. because you are not saying the tissue is alive, you are saying the tissue possesses a soul. those are two completely different things.

I totally understand the viewpoint that persons who believe in souls have with saying that, at conception, the living tissue is infused with something divine, etc. That is obviously part of a larger religious framework. You are certainly free to believe it, but i would challenge anybody to verify the presence of a soul anywhere, let alone the insertion of one at a particular stage of embryogenesis.

Let's stick to the parlance of biology since that is the most objective and acccurate approach to the situation. That the embryo is alive is not the issue - in my view. There are many different spots where this biological tissue takes major progression steps.

OK so what criteria, in the absence of a verifiable soul, do we have to establish any person's right not to be terminated (ie person with brain damage, severe birth defects). newborn infants most certainly do not have the same sort of "conciousness" that adults do, but that certainly doesn't mean they aren't "persons".

but again, where is the 'line'? and i'm not trying to be evasive, i'm trying to kind of think thruogh this as i type it - so its a useful discussion (for me anyway ).

some would say that the point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb, it has rights of its own. I believe this is the law in most states (~30+). So basically at 22-23 weeks gestational age, which is an ultra-premature birth, most states prohibit abortion afterwards. We can refer to this point as the time when the fetus is "viable". I think the obstetrician who will perform abortions in this range are extremely rare where it might be legal - with the exception of a woman's life who is severely endangered.

I tend to think that 'viability' is a good demarcation point. There aren't many 'demarcation points' along the way really where you have true distinct transitional stages. Conception, viability, and parturition (vaginal delivery) are the 3 big ones.

back to the issue of 'soul'. If i deny that, i must offer something in its stead as the 'guarantor' of individual rights. That is our brain. So at what point in development does the brain take on the characteristics that make us 'a person'? I don't think there is any one point. I think it is popular to take the anthropomorphic view that "conciousness" is a uniquely human phenomenon. I am of the opinion that like most other neural systems, it is something that has arisen gradually throughout evolution. There is probably something unique to mammalian cortex (sheer number of cells and cell layers making such associative connectivity possible) that produces the phenomenon, but it is still something that has gradually progressed through primates - obviously, exponentially magnified in hominids - and is probably present in a minimal state in most mammals. I think it certainly *appears* that our dogs and cats have some basic level of capability to understand their state, for example they appear capable of suffering. SOOOO...i have made an evolutionary point? wtf does that have to do with a human fetus?

well because roughly, embryonic development retraces evolution.

so wehre in development does the fetus take on enough 'adult human neurological traits' to have a brain that is in ways equivalent to an adult. I actually think this never happens in utero. So much of higher cortical development occurs after the child is born. So i think you can't use that as a hard and fast criteria either, and again, it would only put you somewhere on a point along a continuum, not at a clear demarcation point.

so i think for the purposes of evaluating a fetus there are things that seperate it from other biological tissues. First and formost, it has the potential with proper care to develope into a child which can live outside the womb. this makes it unique obviously. but if you abort a 5 week fetus (my period is late - shit buy a pregnancy test), what is the nurological equivolency? probably somethin like a fish. but i picked the easy example. what about a 15 week fetus? the fetus moves around, responds to movement when probed. it looks like a little person. the response to movement is not concious, it is mediated by brainstem circuitry (ie the same thing that lets a reptile move away from something that touches it). my daughter is 5 months old , and she is still wiring up the part of her brain that controls intentional movement (motor cortex). it is funny watching her try to shove her pacifier into her mouth. she concentrates so hard on it, hehe.

its an extremely difficult question to answer. i think that most people who get abortions have emotional feelings about that decision that last a lifetime. It is not something that is done casually in most cases, in my opinion.

i think it would be useful to the debate to find out at what gestational age the majority of abortions take place. I would be interested in knowing those numbers.

[Burke]

....well because roughly, embryonic development retraces evolution.

All you had to say was ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

[Sueven]

My feelings on abortion:

In the world we live in, rights often come into conflict. When they do, it is our task to resolve the conflict by establishing a system of priority. The pro-life argument rests on the premise that the right to life is granted highest priority. This argument is incorrect. The right to life has never been sacrosanct. Many people choose to waive their right to life, and in many cases, someone else makes the decision to waive an individual's right to life, regardless of guilt or innocence. Saying that a fetus has an immutable right to life, regardless of other circumstances, is pure ignorance. When we firebombed Dresden, I'm sure we killed a number of fetuses, along with their mothers. We chose to do so because we felt that the good that we produced by our actions outweighed the importance of the death caused.

This simply means that the right to life is not immutable. It is waived for a variety of reasons that we consider acceptable. It is also true that a number of innocent people have their right to life involuntarily waived, and we consider this to be acceptable. Thus, the innocence of the fetus is irrelevant.

Next, we must consider the moral standing of the fetus. Many in the pro-life movement will simply claim that "it is human," and thus it must be protected by the rights that we grant ourselves. This is again a worthless argument. Species membership cannot rationally be the criteria for moral standing. To grant some rights to members of one species but not another without making a distinction between the species is clearly arbitrary, and arbitrariness is the antithesis of ethical thought. We must make a distinction between humans and other animals if we wish to grant ourselves greater rights than them, and this distinction is the reason for the difference.

The only answer that appears sensible to me is that the characteristic is rationality. Humans have mental capabilities far beyond that of other animals. We have the ability to develop complex languages and systems of logic. We plan for the future, perform great acts of altruism, and distance ourselves from natural selection. I am neither a philosopher nor a biologist, so I cannot provide an exact definition of rationality, but I fail to see how any other characteristic could provide a distinction between ourselves and other animals so vast that it would be strongly morally relevant.

Fetuses are not rational agents. Neither are babies. It isn't until a significant amount of time has passed that an infant human develops rational capabilities. This implies that fetuses and young infants do not possess the full moral rights of humans.

(An objection is that this argument justifies infanticide. I'll get back to that.)

Some argue that the fetus should be accorded full moral standing because it has the capacity to eventually become rational. This argument doesn't seem to hold up, though. Potentiality is not a guarantee. 8th graders have the potential to eventually be 18. They are not given the right to vote. Foreigners living in the country have the potential to become citizens. They are not given the full rights of one. Furthermore, they are not guaranteed of ever achieving these rights: Most of us would say that the United States has the right to alter it's immigration laws, even if the changes mean that some people who would have been granted citizenship under previous laws would now be denied. On the other hand, potentiality often grants some rights. A law student may not have the right to practice law, but he may have the right to perform certain legal work, attend certain legal functions, or join certain legal organizations.

The most sensible conclusion seems to be that the moral standing of a fetus falls somewhere between an animal and an adult human.

What this means to me is that, as a general concept, abortion is acceptable. Adult humans do not have a full right to life, and fetuses have less moral standing than adult humans, meaning that their right to life is weaker. The issue again becomes tricky when we consider the other important right involved: The right to kill.

As has been stated, adult humans do not have an immutable right to life. However, even if this post really pisses off some pro-life advocate, they cannot kill me. Unless I perform an action which invalidates my right to life (such as waiving it or attacking someone), then they have no authority to change it on their own. So why, then, does a mother have a right to abort her fetus?

The answer lies in sovereignity and legitimacy. Some guy I pass on the street is not my sovereign. The government of the United States, on the other hand, is my sovereign. The government has also been granted legitimacy in this role. This legitimacy has been granted by the constitution, years of stable rule and direct election, and so on. As such, the government has the right to distinguish between rights when they conflict. Let's say I own a mall and ban pro-Bush clothing in my mall. The government has the right to decide whether my property rights trump my patrons speech rights. Similarly, let's say that terrorists living in the apartment below me are ten seconds from remotely detonating a nuclear weapon. The government could stop them by unleashing missiles on my apartment. They have to decide whether my right to life is trumped by the various rights of other people that the terrorists are about to end. I don't think that any person here would say that the government should not blow up my apartment.

This explains my opinions on abortion: I feel that, while a fetus is inside the mothers body, she has sovereignity over that fetus. Legitimacy is granted by the facts that:
1. It possesses only partial moral standing, as it is not rational
2. It is inside the mother, granting her great responsibility and demanding of her great sacrifice. Further, she is the only person who can affect it's well-being.

I also feel that a mother loses sovereignity over an infant when it is born. After birth, the mother is again autonomous. She could be shot dead on the spot and the baby could never know. After birth, actions that the mother takes in order to care for her baby are sufficient for it's survival. Before birth, the same actions are necessary. The necessary/sufficient distinction explains the sovereignity distinction. Further, this explains why the rationality standard does not justify infanticide: while newborn infants do not necessarily have the right to life, no individual has the right to unilaterally kill them.

That's basically the part of the argument which explains why I feel abortion should be legal: Fetuses don't have a strong right to life, mothers do have a right to kill (or, more accurately, to deny the resources needed for continued life). To ban abortion would be an infringement on liberty.

Sovereignity is not synonymous with absolute power, however. The United States government can't just kill me because they don't like me. They can only kill me because doing so serves some greater cause. Similarly, a mother should only choose abortion when the value of the life of the child is outweighed by some sort of circumstance. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to place a value on that sort of thing. I would say that abortion is justifiable in the extreme rape/incest cases, and in some cases where bearing the baby would be an excessive hardship (say a 15 year old single mother with AIDS). Many people have looser standards than I do, but then, I'm a male, and don't have to deal with the consequences of pregnancy firsthand.

So: I can look at a particular case of abortion and feel that the goal achieved was not worth the life of the fetus. But I also have to understand that I didn't have sovereignity over that pregnancy; whoever had it aborted did. It's not my decision to make for someone else.

[Karae]

What do you mean by "alive"? Self-sufficient? So say at age 8, it is a child, when it can fend for itself in the hunter/gatherer sense?

I meant when it wouldn't immediately die after being removed from the womb. I thought that was pretty clear...

[Aaeamdar]

The hypothetical most appripriate to this is as follows. If two Adults A and B have compatible blood types. A gets in an accident and requires a tranfusion, immediately, from B. B agrees and is "hooked up" to A. An hour passes. B changes his mind. Do we force B to continue to be attached to A? If so, for how long?

I like the scenario because it eliminates most of the irrelevancies of abortion, namely all the questions that relate to whether a fetus is an entity deserving of rights and all the questions of "blame" on the part of the mother.

That said, I think the hypothetical can be answered in almost any way. B did volunteer, afterall. A just society could force him to carry through (at least to the point where his own life was endangered). I think you can go even further and say a just society could mandate B's cooperation in the first place. Likewise, a just society could recognize B's right to walk away (or never enter into) the situation at any time.

The problem, for me, with prohibiting abortion is not so much that it invades the personal bodily integrity of a person carrying a child, but that it does so (by force of nature) exclusively to women. It is one thing to mandate that B remain attached to A. It is another entirely to mandate that B remain attached to A only if B is female.

In this way, the right to an abortion is an essential component to equality. I think it is very easy to pass laws that you know can never effect you. That problem is the fundamental reason for human rights - to prevent a demoncratic majority from tyranical rule of minorities.

I am not a fan of legal reasoning behind Justice Blackman's RvW decision, but I feel its outcome was entirely appropriate. The fundamental balancing of interests is square on. (It would have been nice if it was founded on principals of equal protection, rather than substantive due process, but that is a quibble at this point.)

Ultimately I think I can clearly without doubt say that it is an undue burden to require women, and only women, to bare the burden's of unwanted preganancies. To do so eliminates any possiblity of women and men being equal under the law.

[Ashur]

I favor the legality of abortion, but I wish that people would just admit what they are really protecting is the convenience of last-ditch birth control (not implying in ANY sense that birth control is not used because the option of abortion is available, but that it is the "final method" of birth control when conventional methods have failed).

Does anyone have the numbers of abortions performed due to deformation/medical necessity/rape versus simply the woman's choice to abort the baby? Almost every case of abortion I am personally aware of was done because the pregnancy was unplanned or otherwise "inconvenient".

I do believe women have this right, since thier bodies have to serve as the incubator/growth chambers, although it's a real bitch that any parental right of the father is tossed out the window.

EDIT: changed "late term" to "last-ditch" for clarity

[Sueven]

The problem I have with the hypothetical is that I would argue that many women who have abortions do not volunteer to become pregnant in the same way that someone volunteers to provide a blood transfusion.

So my question is: Do you consider sex to be an implicit acceptance of pregnancy? That is, if the woman becomes pregnant, she has "volunteered" to do so by virtue of her consenting to sex?

Ashur: In regards to the male role in abortion:

I feel that men should be given an option, very early in pregnancy, to decide whether or not they will be a father. If the man says yes, then things proceed as normal. If the man says no, then he immediately relinquishes any and all parental rights he ever had. In addition, he becomes financially responsible for providing an abortion to the mother, if she would like one. If she would rather not have the abortion, then she can keep the child as a single mother.

The result would be that men would have the option to choose whether or not to be a father, via their acceptance or declining of parental rights, and women would have the option whether or not to be a mother, via their choice to have an abortion or not. The only circumstance where it wouldn't work is if the woman wants an abortion and the man wants the child. In that case, I would say that the man has the right to ask that the woman carry the baby to term, and deliver it, either as the child of both parents or only the father. The mother has a right to decline or accept such a request. This means that women would have slightly more control over the pregnancy than men. While this is an undesirable outcome, I can't think of a way to eliminate the complication and fully provide equal rights.

Thoughts?

[Winnow]

Ultimately I think I can clearly without doubt say that it is an undue burden to require women, and only women, to bare the burden's of unwanted preganancies. To do so eliminates any possiblity of women and men being equal under the law.

Executive Summary.

I'd remove the "I think I can clearly" though so it has a little more punch!

"I can, without doubt, say that it is an undue burden to require women..."

You had a good post but your A's and B's threw me off. Personalize it with names!

[Aaeamdar]

Do you consider sex to be an implicit acceptance of pregnancy?

No. Having sex is no more a consent to get pregnant than walking ourdoors is consent to be struck by a passing car. Both are risks, neither is consent. That said, I find the question irrelevant, which is why the hypothetical avoids it entirely.

[Voronwë]

I favor the legality of abortion, but I wish that people would just admit what they are really protecting is the convenience of late-term birth control

it is illegal to do 3rd trimester abortions in over 30 states.

i seriously doubt 99.9%+ of obstetricians would perform abortions that late even if it were legal unless it is medically necessary to safe the mother.

i would guess that most abortions occur before a gestational age of 10 weeks. but i would like to see some unbiased numbers on that (probably hard to find as devisive as the issue is).

if by "late term" birth control you mean somewhere between gestational age 4 and 20 weeks....

[Ashur]

Voro - I did. Bad choice of words on my part. I meant really "last ditch" i.e. "Oh shit, I don't want to be pregnant!"

Sueven - bingo. The father has zero "choice" (other than to have sex or not), but has responsibility. Is a male having sex giving implicit consent to be a father and assume responsibility for any child born of the union regardless of his desire? If so, then males have less rights than females.

P.S. My father always jokes that he favors abortion of the child anytime between conception and age 18. Yes, that's more a joke about mouthy teens than it is an endorsement of infanticide.

[Winnow]

Is a male having sex giving implicit consent to be a father and assume responsibility for any child born of the union regardless of his desire? If so, then males have less rights than females.

You're correct there. ATM, the female has the choice to abort. The male has the choice to pay child support or go to jail if they didn't want the child and the female does.

In that respect, the males are "screwed" more than females for a mutual act of indiscretion.

Has anyone considered legal documents that allow a man to legally abort a child before birth? A written document stating they don't want the child and will pay for an abortion should get them out of child support if we are being fair. (rapes and other unusual circumstances not considered) That would give the female total choice still but allow the father total choice as well.

[masteen]

Sueven - bingo. The father has zero "choice" (other than to have sex or not), but has responsibility. Is a male having sex giving implicit consent to be a father and assume responsibility for any child born of the union regardless of his desire? If so, then males have less rights than females.

If you're riding girls bareback, you damn well better understand that pregnancy isn't just a possibility, it's LIKELY.

[Siji]

Pro Choice.

That is all.

[Voronwë]

the father should have the same amount of 'choice' as he does in the physiological responsibility for the pregnancy.

none.

until you live with a pregnant woman and watch her go through labor and give birth, i think - as a male - you will not understand the truly massive physical toll that it takes.

when one of these: .

becomes one of these: 0

on a man, then they can decide the fate of the fetus.

[Winnow]

the father should have the same amount of 'choice' as he does in the physiological responsibility for the pregnancy.

none.

until you live with a pregnant woman and watch her go through labor and give birth, i think - as a male - you will not understand the truly massive physical toll that it takes.

when one of these: .

becomes one of these: 0

on a man, then they can decide the fate of the fetus.

The male wouldn't decide the fate of the fetus Voro, he would decide his own personal fate related to the future of the child after birth and then the female can decide on the fate of the child. Equal choice for personal fate although still leaving the female with ultimate choice in the fate of the child.

It takes nothing away from the females choice at all for the male to be able to choose legal responsibility or no legal responsibility during the time an abortion can take place. There's nothing I see morally that should allow a female to control a man's fate after a mutual act of sex consented to by both.