Abortion in USA - View from the outside

[Helmut-WK]

I want to share some thoughts I got when viewing the discussion about the annulment of "Roe vs. Wade", and what I could hear in German media about the midterm elections battle. The general impression is: The debate about abortion ("pro life" / "pro choice") is much more heated in the US than in Europe.

The main reason is the fact that "Roe vs. Wade" allows abortion on a rather extreme scale. Compare it to Germany:

• Before reunification, in East Germany (GDR) abortion was legal in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In West Germany (FRG) there was on top of the 12-week-rule the requirement of an "indication" (mother in need, pregnancy after rape etc.).
• After reunification, and some debate, the law now says that an abortion is only legal, if the mother has visited a certified counselor (about alternatives to abortion, and support services for the mother), and if the abortion is done in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
• In the description above, I omitted the rule about abortion of a disabled child, which is legal up to the 20th week of pregnancy.

I am not content with this (I'm rather pro-life), but this would be off-topic here (not US Politics).

But I feel the debate in the US would be less heated if the options are not just a "Roe vs. Wade"-like ruling and no abortion at all.

Imagine someone promoting a "middle" ruling like one in other countries (e.g. Germany): Which political camp do you expect to present such a proposal? Do you think such a proposal would be good for your country?

 

[Desk trauma]

Which political camp do you expect to present such a proposal?

I don’t expect it.

 

[Fantine]

Germany, of course, has universal health care.

I think things are more heated here because lots of people don't and abortion costs were never covered.

So women or girls don't know they are pregnant as quickly and if they do want an abortion they don't have the funds.

This may seem sick to you but my daughter had an acquaintance who had a benefit concert in a tiny venue to finance an abortion. (Daughter did not attend but knew the girl.)

She worked with someone once who couldn't tell her parents and delayed until she was 19 weeks and got a 'scholarship' from NARAL and had to go to a city 150 miles away.

And of course people with no insurance are less likely to have birth control.

Just one of the side effects of our medical system...we also feature needless death and suffering.

 

[HTacianas]

I want to share some thoughts I got when viewing the discussion about the annulment of "Roe vs. Wade", and what I could hear in German media about the midterm elections battle. The general impression is: The debate about abortion ("pro life" / "pro choice") is much more heated in the US than in Europe.

The main reason is the fact that "Roe vs. Wade" allows abortion on a rather extreme scale. Compare it to Germany:

• Before reunification, in East Germany (GDR) abortion was legal in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In West Germany (FRG) there was on top of the 12-week-rule the requirement of an "indication" (mother in need, pregnancy after rape etc.).
• After reunification, and some debate, the law now says that an abortion is only legal, if the mother has visited a certified counselor (about alternatives to abortion, and support services for the mother), and if the abortion is done in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
• In the description above, I omitted the rule about abortion of a disabled child, which is legal up to the 20th week of pregnancy.

I am not content with this (I'm rather pro-life), but this would be off-topic here (not US Politics).

But I feel the debate in the US would be less heated if the options are not just a "Roe vs. Wade"-like ruling and no abortion at all.

Imagine someone promoting a "middle" ruling like one in other countries (e.g. Germany): Which political camp do you expect to present such a proposal? Do you think such a proposal would be good for your country?

First, the the overturning of Roe vs. Wade doesn't mean "no abortion at all". It only means that States can once again prohibit it if they choose to. Some States will likely prohibit it entirely, while some States will allow for it without restrictions. All the rest will fall somewhere in the middle.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Pro-life is “feed the hungry, give water to thirsty, give shelter to stranger, clothed the naked, look after the sick, visit those who are in prison. (Matt 25) , take care the widow ( Acts 6), give justice to the weak and fatherless ( Psalm 82) , pro-life to me is to take care immigrants ( Deut 10:19 / Psalm 146). And yes, pro-life is also means saving unborn baby.

That’s why I support pro-life policy like “Paid family leave”, “ free education” , “ child tax credit” , “prison reform and rehabilitation policy” , “comprehensive immigration reform” , “universal health care” other social programs.

Fine.

Many evangelicals in America thinks , godless-liberal-atheist having sex outside wedlock like bunnies and when they are pregnant they don’t want to face the consequences so they abort their babies and go back to their sinful life. Fact is more then 60% women who had abortion claim to be Christian. Less then 30% women who had abortion are non religious. So faith has nothing to do with abortion.

Faith has to do with it: Christian parents and preachers do not want to speak about contraception. So if a teen girls gets seduced, it has no idea how to prevent a pregnancy. Liberals (?) and atheists get less often pregnant, because they plan their fornication and contraception is part of planning.
Teens should be told about sex and how to deal with it - I don't speak of condoning fornication, but of preparation against the consequences if it happens.

Unfortunately, America don’t have support service like you have in Germany. Most woman making this decision on their own.

The theory looks finer than the practice. The counseling should be "open-ended", but some pro-choice organizations take this obligation lightly. Sometimes a woman can walk in, say: "I need the certificate of counseling", and she is handed the certificate that she has got that counseling, without any infrormation given to her.

If America had better social support like Paid family leave, free education , child tax credit, universal health care, we would see lot less abortion. Unfortunately whenever you bring these up, the right scream “ Socialism”.

They rather adhere to a theory that teaches an invisible hand which turns a source to all evil into a benefit for economy and all people.

 

[Fantine]

If America had better social support like Paid family leave, free education , child tax credit, universal health care, we would see lot less abortion. Unfortunately whenever you bring these up, the right scream “ Socialism”.

I think that every progressive American would agree with you there, and if a few more conservative evangelicals would vote for legislators who support those priorities we would have far fewer abortions. Unfortunately pro-lifers almost always vote for legislators who want to make draconian cuts to the inadequate programs we have.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Faith has to do with it: Christian parents and preachers do not want to speak about contraception. So if a teen girls gets seduced, it has no idea how to prevent a pregnancy. Liberals (?) and atheists get less often pregnant, because they plan their fornication and contraception is part of planning.
Teens should be told about sex and how to deal with it - I don't speak of condoning fornication, but of preparation against the consequences if it happens.

Unfortunately, as you say, there's a strong pushback from the anti-abortion camp against comprehensive sex ed (i.e. sex ed that teaches contraceptive measures other than abstinence) and contraceptive availability. At least in the US, a big part of the opposition to abortion is an attempt to enforce Christian morality on the country and "punish" those who have sex when certain groups think that they shouldn't. This fits into a broader issue of American society as a whole having an unhealthy (in my opinion) obsession with punishment.

The theory looks finer than the practice. The counseling should be "open-ended", but some pro-choice organizations take this obligation lightly. Sometimes a woman can walk in, say: "I need the certificate of counseling", and she is handed the certificate that she has got that counseling, without any infrormation given to her.

I believe he was referring to the broader social support system - healthcare availability, social welfare programs, etc - available in Germany, rather than the specific requirement for counseling (which is also a thing in some US states). In the US, healthcare is strongly tied to employment, and even then, it's often not very good. The typical worker has a very high deductible (often $6000-$10000 or more) that must be met before insurance will pay for anything at all, and after that, they may still only get 50% coverage of bills up to a higher limit. As a consequence, many Americans avoid seeking medical care in anything other than an emergency. Furthermore, with our weak social support systems, it can be very difficult for a low-income worker to afford to have a child - there is no requirement for paid (even partially paid) maternity leave and welfare programs are constant targets for cuts and are generally insufficient to live on.

The point is that the position of the American pro-choice bloc comes from the state of American society. Without first addressing the issues that lead to abortion in America, it will be impossible to get them to agree to any additional abortion restrictions.

 

[JSRG]

I want to share some thoughts I got when viewing the discussion about the annulment of "Roe vs. Wade", and what I could hear in German media about the midterm elections battle. The general impression is: The debate about abortion ("pro life" / "pro choice") is much more heated in the US than in Europe.

The main reason is the fact that "Roe vs. Wade" allows abortion on a rather extreme scale. Compare it to Germany:

• Before reunification, in East Germany (GDR) abortion was legal in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In West Germany (FRG) there was on top of the 12-week-rule the requirement of an "indication" (mother in need, pregnancy after rape etc.).
• After reunification, and some debate, the law now says that an abortion is only legal, if the mother has visited a certified counselor (about alternatives to abortion, and support services for the mother), and if the abortion is done in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
• In the description above, I omitted the rule about abortion of a disabled child, which is legal up to the 20th week of pregnancy.

I am not content with this (I'm rather pro-life), but this would be off-topic here (not US Politics).

But I feel the debate in the US would be less heated if the options are not just a "Roe vs. Wade"-like ruling and no abortion at all.

Imagine someone promoting a "middle" ruling like one in other countries (e.g. Germany): Which political camp do you expect to present such a proposal? Do you think such a proposal would be good for your country?

There should not be any "middle" ruling from the Supreme Court because the Constitution simply has nothing to say about abortion. The proper ruling, and the one that we finally got in Dobbs, was to acknowledge that the Constitution says nothing on the subject and leave it up to the democratic process. Anything beyond that is simply the Supreme Court usurping the power of congress in crafting legislation. Any middle ground should be set by actual lawmakers.

I would also say that Roe v. Wade played a major role in inflaming the abortion debate in the US (and for that matter, contributing to the polarization we see today), by usurpring the democratic process entirely, which would have probably resolved the issue much more calmly than Roe v. Wade did--just as it did in other countries where it was settled by law rather than by the judiciary inventing a brand-new right out of whole cloth, much like they did during the so-called Lochner era when the Supreme Court, for decades on end, struck down laws on workplace regulation on the grounds of it violating a liberty of contract supposedly found in the Constitution (the eponymous case, Lochner v. New York, involved the Supreme Court striking down as unconstitutional a New York law setting a maximum work week of 60 hours for bakers).

Thankfully, Roe v. Wade has finally been overturned (unfortunately, much like the Lochner era, it took the Supreme Court decades to repudiate its error), and while I expect the initial political shock to last for a while, I expect after a bit we'll see things stabilize more and the debate will be less, as you say, "heated."

 

[Fantine]

Right-to-lifers too k on the abortion issue legislatively as well. What have they been doing for the past umpteen years in red states?

When I lived in NY they had a "right to life party" for about 15 years. Most candidates they endorsed were already on a major party ticket, and they encouraged people to vote for the candidate on "their" platform so that the candidate would know that any deviation from their uncompromising standards, even for incestuous rape victims, meant defeat.

That didn't bother me. What bothered me were the candidates they nominated for president, vice-president, etc. Long Island Newsday would file Q and A's of the candidates. So it's the 1980's. A question might be: "Do you believe we are working hard enough for nuclear disarmament?" And the answer would be: "I believe life begins at conception." Same for "Did President Reagan overreach in shutting out the Air Traffic Controllers Union?" Or for "Should handguns be allowed in New York State?"

Of course, they were almost always SAHM's with very large families. And they knew they wouldn't win. But if you are running for high office at least treat it with enough respect to spend time reading the newspaper and developing positions on ALL the issues. I never was able to figure out whether their candidacy was some sort of joke to them or whether they really thought nothing else mattered.

 

[FireDragon76]

Germany and the US are very different countries, culturally. Historically, most Germans were Lutherans. Most Americans were Calvinists, either Presbyterians or Baptists, and that continues to shape Americans views on a number of social issues, including harsher views of who is deserving of social welfare. As others have pointed out, that shapes how the countries relate to these problems. In the US, if you are pregnant, many people consider that your responsibility alone. So you have responsibilities without corresponding rights (abortion)... that's a recipe for resentment and grievance.

 

[Helmut-WK]

There should not be any "middle" ruling from the Supreme Court because the Constitution simply has nothing to say about abortion.

I did not mean to say such a "middle" regulation should come from the supreme court. My impression (based on what I hear in German media) was, that dems and reps are both pressing to the extreme position in the states where they have the majority in the legislative.

But one said here: It is somewhat less black-white, more complicated. I hope it's true.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Germany and the US are very different countries, culturally. Historically, most Germans were Lutherans.

To be precise: About half of them. There are also many Catholics (in the old times when Austria was a part of Germany, there was a catholic majority), and there is a significant Calvinist (reformed, „reformiert”) minority. And some uniting („uniert”) churches, i.e. in a middle position between Lutheran and Calvinist. The largest uniting church was the church of Prussia (in the borders of 1848).

But you are right: Calvinism had much less influence in Germany than in the US, even the reformed churches were AFAIK rather mild Calvinist.

 

[FireDragon76]

To be precise: About half of them. There are also many Catholics (in the old times when Austria was a part of Germany, there was a catholic majority), and there is a significant Calvinist (reformed, „reformiert”) minority. And some uniting („uniert”) churches, i.e. in a middle position between Lutheran and Calvinist. The largest uniting church was the church of Prussia (in the borders of 1848).

But you are right: Calvinism had much less influence in Germany than in the US, even the reformed churches were AFAIK rather mild Calvinist.

True. Continental Reformed churches are quite different in tone from the more radical form in the US. American and British Calvinism fell heavily on predestination and the "invisible church", and that's the roots of its individualism.


US religion is more extreme in general, to be honest, and more totalizing. Some churches were shaped heavily by religious revivals and awakenings, and we have our own founding myth of being a "Christian nation".

 

[Helmut-WK]

What denomination each country has is not relevant. All Christian denomination teach abortion is sin. Christians around the world need to understand that we can’t create laws to ban/ stop sins. Only way you can wash away sin is by the blood of Jesus Christ.

But the sin emphasized are not the same in all churches. There is more teaching about money (as a danger to covetousness, against exploitation etc.) than on sexual sins …

My post was a reaction to FireDragon76, the context was the different attitude to things that make unwanted pregnancies less probable (and so might avoid abortion in some cases). Sexual education is one example.

Some laws against sin are sometimes barred by some Christians which view them as "socialism". But this is going to become off-topic, so I don't want to say more on it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I did not mean to say such a "middle" regulation should come from the supreme court. My impression (based on what I hear in German media) was, that dems and reps are both pressing to the extreme position in the states where they have the majority in the legislative.

I think that depends on what you consider an "extreme position". Many Republican-led states are pushing for what I would consider to be pretty extreme restriction - total bans on abortion, with only some states offering exemptions for certain circumstances (most commonly rape/incest and/or life of the mother).

On the flipside, I'm not sure I'd personally categorize the Democratic position as "extreme". It's certainly less restrictive than Germany's (and most of Europe's, for that matter) abortion laws, but, in general, it still adheres to the limits established by Roe v. Wade (no abortions after fetal viability - generally considered to be about 24 weeks - barring extraordinary circumstances). For the most part, Democratic legislation in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade has mostly focused around establishing the right to abortion in general - whether within the state constitution or as state law.

 

[Helmut-WK]

On the flipside, I'm not sure I'd personally categorize the Democratic position as "extreme". It's certainly less restrictive than Germany's (and most of Europe's, for that matter) abortion laws, but, in general, it still adheres to the limits established by Roe v. Wade (no abortions after fetal viability - generally considered to be about 24 weeks - barring extraordinary circumstances). For the most part, Democratic legislation in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade has mostly focused around establishing the right to abortion in general - whether within the state constitution or as state law.

Well, viability has been improved, AFAIK it is now about 22 weeks. And further progress in medicine might reduce it in the future.

To allow abortion up to the 20th week is extreme. At that time, the child is not an embryo, it is a fetus. It has everything a new-born child has, it is only smaller.

And you say it is not extreme to say it can be killed? There is less difference between abortion at such a late stage and killing a new born child, than between abortion at 20th week and abortion at 9th week. Maybe even at 12th week (there is some arbitrariness in deciding this question, so I don't insist on 12 weeks as closer).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well, viability has been improved, AFAIK it is now about 22 weeks. And further progress in medicine might reduce it in the future.

To allow abortion up to the 20th week is extreme. At that time, the child is not an embryo, it is a fetus. It has everything a new-born child has, it is only smaller.

And you say it is not extreme to say it can be killed? There is less difference between abortion at such a late stage and killing a new born child, than between abortion at 20th week and abortion at 9th week. Maybe even at 12th week (there is some arbitrariness in deciding this question, so I don't insist on 12 weeks as closer).

Medically, the embryonic stage goes from 2-8 weeks, so your "it's a fetus" argument would apply at 9 weeks and 12 weeks as well.

And no, medically, there is a big difference between killing a newborn and killing a 20-week fetus. The 20-week fetus has only a very slim chance of survival outside of the womb, and if it does survive, will almost certainly have permanent health and/or development issues. "It looks like a person" is an emotional argument with no substance.

Very few abortions are performed at/after 20 weeks - about 1% of all abortions in the US - and these are almost always either due to an issue with the fetus (birth defect, risk to the mother, etc) or a massive change in life circumstances.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Medically, the embryonic stage goes from 2-8 weeks, so your "it's a fetus" argument would apply at 9 weeks and 12 weeks as well.

The main argument was, that it is just smaller as a newborn, but that's all.

And no, medically, there is a big difference between killing a newborn and killing a 20-week fetus. The 20-week fetus has only a very slim chance of survival outside of the womb, and if it does survive, will almost certainly have permanent health and/or development issues. "It looks like a person" is an emotional argument with no substance.

It's not about looking, but of being human.

And viability is an issue with no substance, since the baby will survive without abortion. Killing a patient in a hospital because that person cannot survive without medical care (and maybe will even then leave the hospital with permanent issues) is a parallel to this (the womb replaced by medical care).

Very few abortions are performed at/after 20 weeks

That's not the issue. 20-week-rule is an extreme position. 18 weeks is not much better, but somewhat less extreme.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

\

The main argument was, that it is just smaller as a newborn, but that's all.

At 20 weeks, the fetus is not fully developed. Most critically, it lacks a functional respiratory system.

It's not about looking, but of being human.

That would seem to be the core of the issue - how do we define "being human"? At this point, there isn't a solid definition when it comes to a developing fetus. Everyone has their own opinion.

And viability is an issue with no substance, since the baby will survive without abortion. Killing a patient in a hospital because that person cannot survive without medical care (and maybe will even then leave the hospital with permanent issues) is a parallel to this (the womb replaced by medical care).

If that's your opposition to the viability argument, it doesn't follow that you'd support access to abortion at any stage.

That's not the issue. 20-week-rule is an extreme position. 18 weeks is not much better, but somewhat less extreme.

In your opinion. Which brings us back to my earlier post - it depends on what you consider to be an extreme position. That's a completely subjective judgement

 

[Helmut-WK]

At 20 weeks, the fetus is not fully developed. Most critically, it lacks a functional respiratory system.

The lungs are there.

If that's your opposition to the viability argument, it doesn't follow that you'd support access to abortion at any stage.

There are situations when abortion is the lesser evil. In most cases, abortion has negative consequences - in the long run even for the mother.

Yes, I support abortion at no stage. If you think about the best outcome for mother, father, and child, it is not a question of stage, but of situation.