Skip to main content

Abortions are never medically necessary?

There are a few things about abortion that I think are simply inarguable. Here's one: Performing an abortion is sometimes necessary for saving the life of a pregnant woman.

I stand corrected! Joe Walsh, a member of the House of Representatives from Illinois, wants to criminally ban abortions "without exception." What about abortions that are required in order to save the life of the pregnant woman? No problem: Rep. Walsh asserted that abortions are never medically necessary due to "modern technology and science."

What? Does anyone besides Rep. Walsh believe this?

Now, resisting an explicit life exception to a general abortion ban is not all that unusual (although still on the extreme end). Pro-life activists make two arguments. First, they think that performing an abortion in order to save a woman's life falls under the criminal defenses of self-defense and/or necessity (i.e., the choice of evils defense). Therefore, a life exception is implicit in any abortion ban. Second, the term "life" is so vague that it will allow many women to obtain abortions that are not life-preserving in the strictest sense.

Walsh does think that exceptions are generally abused, which is not a unusual pro-life claim. But I suspect that other pro-life politicians and activists will decline to defend him, because saying that abortions are never medically necessary is just not supportable.

Links:

Article on the NPR web site (October 19, 2012); includes a statement from ACOG: Life of the mother: never a reason for abortion, Congressman says

Brief article in Politico (October 19, 2012): Rep. Joe Walsh: Abortion never saves mom's life

Article from New York Magazine (October 19 2012) that contains some information from the CDC on deaths due to ectopic pregnancy : Congressman Joe Walsh is the latest Republican to say ridiculous thing about abortion
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...
3 comments
Read more

Asking Pope Francis to reexamine abortion

Philosopher Gary Gutting, who always writes something interesting for The Stone column in The New York Times , recently asked if Pope Francis might reconsider the Catholic Church's traditional absolutist opposition to abortion. In doing so, Gutting makes a case for a kind of minimalist justification for abortion-- that is, abortion is immoral in most circumstances but there are a few cases where abortion is justified (in the case of rape, for example).  For that reason, the column makes for informative reading. Still, Gutting puts the cart before the horse: how and why would Pope Francis review the Church's view on abortion before reexamining its even-more-restrictive view of artificial contraception?  Anything can happen, of course, but Pope Francis has not really indicated a willingness to reconsider the doctrine of the Church on sex, conception, and abortion. Everything I have read from and about Francis is that he is advocating for a change of tone and emphas...
Post a Comment
Read more