I'm 100% pro-choice. Don't think women/girls should even have to give their names, much less submit to "information" spiels or "waiting periods", to get an abortion. And I'm frankly appalled by the lack of regulation re fetal anesthesia in abortion. I know the UK has some laws requiring this, though I can't recall the exact details. But there don't seem to be any laws or even professional "standard practice" guidelines in the US. Last year there was some proposed legislation (which went nowhere) to require abortion clinics to inform patients beyond a certain stage of pregnancy of the "option" of fetal anesthesia for an additional charge. Option???? Quick, humane killing is legally required for pets and food animals in this country. Why do we even need to have a debate on this where abortion is concerned? I really don't get it.
I'm afraid the answer is a combination of two things:
1) Anti-abortion activists who oppose any abortion at all on religious/philosophical grounds, thinking they stand a better chance of outlawing it completely, if they keep it as inhumane as possible, by NOT agitating for fetal anesthesia requirements; and
2) Pro-choice activists who oppose any regulation whatsoever of abortion, on the knee-jerk theory that any kind of regulation -- even an anesthesia requirement that in no way blocks any woman or girl from having an abortion -- is a step down the slippery slope to lots of regulations aimed at making it difficult or impossible to get an abortion.
I'm not saying that all anti-abortion activists or all pro-choice activists fit those descriptions, but I think there are a huge number in both camps who are guilty as charged.
Stupid debates about the exact stage at which a fetus can feel pain should be cut off. It's just not that expensive to poke a needle into a fetus and inject an anesthetic. At the very earliest stages of pregnancy, a fetus is simply too small to even accurately target with a needle, and certainly has no capacity to feel pain anyway. A heartbeat is a nice clear dividing line, even though it almost certainly precedes ability to feel pain by several weeks. If there's a heartbeat, there should be a legal requirement for an anesthetic injection, or for very early stage fetuses with heartbeats, a single injection that quickly stops the heart. The extra cost of this can't possibly be more than the costs being borne by the various interest groups engaging in endless competing propaganda campaigns on the details of when a fetus can feel pain, what constitutes "pain", etc.
Well, I've got to tell ya that you're the first pro-choice person I've ever read that actually sounds level-headed and makes logical points.
I disagree with you, however, but I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your point of view.
You are spot-on with both of your points 1 & 2. I would add a third point...it's all about the money. Abortion is big business, and unfortunately, blocking abortion has become just as big a business in the opposite direction.
That said, I wish it weren't necessary in the first place, but the horse is already so far out of the barn on this issue (which is a shame, because not enough people stood up to fight Roe V. Wade when it was being "sold" as a "privacy issue") and even if it's overturned and goes back to a States Rights issue (where it totally belongs, IMHO), we're always going to have abortions from here on out.
But we're seriously paying the price for it as a society that doesn't value their children; born and unborn. I read a study last week that women who've had abortions have a higher rate of mental illness, depression and addicition problems later in life. I'm certain Mother Nature knows that killing our children goes against every human animal instinct that we females possess.
Didn't mean to get all wordy, but I wanted you to know that I appreciated your point of view. :)