Kevin Drum has a disturbing picture of life in Texas under the Taliban. Two years ago, the Texas legislature passed an "informed consent" law, requiring those seeking an abortion to be berated by their doctors and misinformed about the risks of the procedure. But buried in there was also a clause restricting abortions to hospitals and "ambulatory surgical centers". The latter don't provide abortions and the former charge enormous fees, so this has had the effect of making abortion effectively unavailable in Texas (except for the rich, of course). Naturally, this has led to desperate people taking matters into their own hands - which has in turn led to 40-year jail sentances under Texas' "fetal murder" law. But it could have been worse; this being Texas, the maximum sentance is (of course) death.
Still, at least they're not at the stage of banning people from driving for being gay. Yet.
Oh c'mon. That was a revolting crime. At worst she could have held on for another few months and then had an early induced birth due to mental health reasons and then given them up for adoption.
ReplyDeleteThey killed their own children. Doesn't that horrify you? Have you no compassion for their twins? The only problem I have with this case is that she couldn't be prosecuted.
If they weren't ready for the consequences then they shouldn't have had sex.
It is also a crime which simply would not have happened if abortion had been readily available. If you want to stop desperate, stupid teenagers from doing things like this, then you need to give them accessible alternatives which aren't going to completely ruin their lives. Not to mention decent sex education, so they're less likely to get into this problem in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAs for consequences, one of the defining characteristics of the teenage brain is poor impulse control. Yes, they can think about them, but they are statisticly less likely to. Since ought implies can in any reasonable model of morality, policy should take this into account.
Argh! No, no, no. Abortion earlier is not some better alternative. It's just a medical form of the same crime.
ReplyDeleteI agree whole heartedly that teenagers need excellent, full education on the biology of sexuality. By all means explain in detail how contraceptives work, from condoms to IUDs, all the way off to depo.
Make sure that girls know all about their menstral cycles, and then make sure the boys know in detail too. Bring it on.
BUT... don't do it in some moral vacuum. Give teenagers a context for which to socially exist. And make sure that parents are in there too, not sweeping their children's sexuality and desires under the carpet. Help teenagers with their boundries, don't just toss them onto the sea of sexual adventure without moral guidence.
Teeangers are just as likely to forgo the condoms as they are to forgo the "don't do it" message. Especially if they have been drinking.
I think I'm the only person in the world that wants sex ed and abstainence at the same time. Information AND moral formation.
Ouch. Tricky case. I don't know where to begin.
ReplyDeleteBut you've gotta love Texas where the prosecutor closes with "Hold him fully accountable for this most unholiest of crimes."
Gerardo Flores committed the crime at the age of 16. He'll be 59 before eligible for parole. Remind me why they have a mandatory 40-year non-parole periods again?
Oh yeah, a lack of trust in the justice system leading to sentencing by refernda. Judicial discretion is convention for a reason.
I wonder whether this law has resulted in capital charges for amusement-park or pharmecutical executives after an early misscarrige?
Abortion -- murky waters.
ReplyDeleteWhat's truly frightening is the other stuff they try to get past that - now that abortion is a practical impossibility - increase the likelihood of people getting pregnant.
For example, there's a drug on the market called PlanB. It is NOT an abortifacant - if you are already pregnant, this will not terminate pregnancy. But it is a pill that you can take after sex in order to help prevent the risk of pregnancy. It's the same birth control, you can just take it after sex.
This is a major boon to people who were raped, and date-raped. Now, the problem is that it must be taken as soon as possible after intercourse. The more you wait, the more likely you are to be pregnant, which means that it won't work.
There was a proposal to allow pharmacists to, at their discretion, not only NOT give out birth-control of any type but also to NOT give back the prescription from the doctor, even further delaying the ability for the woman to get the medicine her doctor prescribed. This was just recently shot down but could come up again.
The things that did pass? Texas will have a referendum on putting gay marriage - already illegal in Texas - in the state constitution. Gov. Rick Perry signed the bill in a church-run school.
"For example, there's a drug on the market called PlanB. It is NOT an abortifacant - if you are already pregnant, this will not terminate pregnancy."
ReplyDeleteSigh...
There are three ways that EC (the morning after pill, as it is usually called in NZ) stops pregnancy. It stops:
- ovulation, stopping the ovaries from releasing eggs that can be fertilized
- fertilization, stopping the egg from being fertilized by the sperm
- implantation, stopping a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus
Stopping an embryo from implanting into the uterus, as per normal pregnancy, is going to terminate the embryo. The morning after pill, for example, won't necessarily stop an ectoptic pregnancy, since an ectopic pregnancy doesn't implant in the uterus. However an embryo _already_ implanted in the uterus will not be terminated by EC.
If you want to discuss women's bodies, and how they and various drugs work, then please, have your information correct. As you can see EC can be an abortifactant in certin circumstances.
Muerk: Obviously, if you are the sort of person who regards fetuses as people, then you will not regard making abortion readily available as a solution. And equally obviously, I am not such a person.
ReplyDeleteIndeed Idiot Savant, indeed. However it does concern me that we seem to be dehumanising many of the most vulnerable (and most expensive to care for I might add) members of the human race. I worry about a utilitarian concept of personhood.
ReplyDeleteA utilitarian concept of personhood? It would probably have to include consciousness, and a comprehension of past, present a future.
ReplyDeleteAruing a fetus possesed these qualities is quite a long bow. And if done would, by precedent, involve a hard look at other members of the animal kingdom (unless you wanted to exlude this possibility by assuming homo sapian DNA was somehow superiod).
I haven't heard many utilitarian arguments against abortion. I'd be interested to hear more extrapolation Muerk. Particularly; what are the characteristics of a "person"?
Of course, determining when exactly a fetus becomes a person is the crux of the debate IMHO.