As per RAW's post below, the question of "abortion rights" is always a heated one, and depending on how you swing your terms and definitions, I firmly believe that you can rig up a poll to say whatever you want it to say. Comments down in the post reaffirmed this, as RAW's point on how many people self-identify as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" being based on how the debate was framed and focused has plenty of merit.

Unfortunately, like any of these debates, the core constituency of each side is pretty fervent and understand their platform quite well, while the rest of the people (at least, I believe) never really understand it because it's never formally stated. Instead, both sides do their best to paint the other side as undesirables and focus on the worst of each, trying to win a debate that's based more on beating up strawmen than having good points.

Ultimately, the debate - even on issues that ought to be commonsense no-brainers - gets twisted and turned, as the "pro-choice" lobby do their best to hold the Roe V. Wade decision as "any abortion any time a woman wants one." There's also an awkward twist in the media, since the "Pro-choice" lobby self-identifies as such and identifies their opposition as "Anti-Abortion", whilst the "Pro-Life" lobby identifies the "Pro-Choice" groups as "Pro-Abortion" instead. More often than not, the media uses the terms "Pro-Choice" and "Anti-Abortion", which seems to indicate sympathy for them.

Under it all, even as I might be convinced of the core tenet of Roe - that the US cannot just blanket outlaw all abortions - a free-for-all attitude towards it isn't good either, and I'm fully supportive of a number of things that some states have tried, only to have the "Pro-Choice" lobby go absolutely bonkers crying about "first steps to overturning Roe." Here's a few of them.


Issue #1: Parental Notification.

Parental notification, to me, seems like a no-brainer. Abortion, when you get down to the specifics, is a surgical medical procedure. With the exception of life-threatening situations in an emergency room or similar, all such medical procedures require waivers and consent forms, which anyone under 18 cannot sign legally because the courts in just about every state say that they are not yet competent to do so. Parents/Guardians are legally required to sign off on these things.

Now, the Pro-Choice lobby will argue that abortion is "different" because there's a possibility the parent will go nuts and abuse the child, or might simply refuse permission. In the first case, that is relatively easily solved by placing a procedure for the child to go to a courthouse and request an alternate guardian who can look at the case, compile some basic evidence, and have a judge decide whether permission is warranted or whether the parents should still be notified.

In the second case, well, parents refusing permission would be the right of the parent as guardian of the child - unless the goal isn't actually "choice" for adults, but the goal of seeing even those who are not competent to consent to medical procedures get abortions anyways.

Issue #2: Waiting Periods.

Abortions in America are a rather unique medical procedure. They are unique for a few reasons, one being the controversy, but the other being that they are one of the few entirely elective procedures that one can simply go to a clinic, get done, and walk right out. For most other medical procedures I can think of, elective or not, there's a waiting time. For laser eye surgery, there are consultations and measurements. For liposuction or other plastic surgery, the same. Nobody just gets up in the morning and goes in to have a vasectomy on a whim. For all of these, and even for life-altering surgery like organ replacement, they go in, have consultations with doctors, and schedule an appointment to have it done - all the while knowing that up until the point where the doctor makes that first cut (if it's local anesthesia) or they put that mask on (if general anesthesia) they have the right to say "no, stop, I don't actually want this" and the doctor will cancel the whole thing.

Again, it could be argued that "anyone" can get emergency medical care and procedures, but in those cases we're talking about things that will be done to ensure they are alive tomorrow, not things done because of appearances, and in a situation where the person is likely unconscious or incoherent due to blood loss, shock, or trauma.

Abortion also has definite medical risks. There are physical and psychological risks associated with the procedure, that ought to be weighed carefully. It shouldn't be an easy decision.

And yet, again, the "Pro-Choice" crowd insist that a simple waiting period - say, 24 to 48 hours, shorter than the waiting period to purchase a handgun - is something designed to interfere with the right to choice? This is not something I understand. My feeling is that a waiting period is good both as an emotional cool-down (in the case, perhaps, of someone who goes in for an abortion after breaking up with the father) as well as a time to really think about the decision and look over the available information. It's not about preventing choice, but making sure that choice is a relatively well-informed choice.

Issue #3: Restrictions on timing

This is the one that's always the most tricky. As medical science goes forward, premature babies can be rescued and nurtured and live at an earlier and earlier age. Normal birth is approximately 40 weeks. Any baby born around 37 or less is premature. Thanks to modern science, we can coax premature babies along earlier and earlier - according to Mayo Clinic, a "good chance of survival" is still there at 23 weeks. And this directly impacts abortion legislation, because both the federal government and state legislatures are going to be very timid about sanctioning the abortion of a fetus that could be termed "viable" and therefore an "unborn child" as it were.

Of course, as the debate goes on, medical science will improve, and eventually we may be to the point where ANY fetus is considered viable, or people "birthed" after artificial fertilization of an egg and incubation in an entirely artificial womb. Which begs an interesting question, because any artificial limit on the matter is apt towards fudging. If you say 23 weeks, then determined individuals may claim to be only at 20 weeks when they're at 25 or so, for instance. And as science improves, legislatures will find it tempting to push the barrier earlier and earlier.

This is the one issue I really have no good answer for. It's not an easy question. Hardcore "Pro Choice" individuals might push it even up to letting the woman go into labor, though that's unlikely. "Pro-Life" individuals have it easier, their answer is "never."