The Great Abortion Lie

[Nederland]

There is a lie in the abortion debate. It is a lie told over and over by both sides. It is a lie that has been repeated so many times that even those that utter it have even come to believe that it is true. Sadly, it is a lie that is repeated here on DU on a regular basis. What is the lie? Very simply it is this:

There are only two positions in the abortion debate.

Both the radical pro-life and radical pro-choice sides of this issue would have you believe that there is no middle ground in the abortion debate. Like most misguided extremists, they seek to divide that population into two distinct groups with nothing in common. They paint the issue as being black and white. There is an “us”, and there is a “them”. You are either for us or against us they say. You are either a baby-killer or a woman hater.

They are both wrong.

The simple fact is that when asked if abortion should be legal, a significant majority of people in this country say this: sometimes. Not yes, not no, but a very equivocal and annoyingly vague “sometimes”. The radical pro-life crowd will tell you that life begins at conception and killing the fetus at any point thereafter is murder. The radical pro-choice crowd will tell you that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite and anyone who restricts abortion in any way is an enemy of women.

They are both wrong.

Not only are they both wrong, but they are both going to lose this debate. Yes, both of them are going to lose this debate. As time moves on the law is settling on the middle ground occupied by most Americans. A middle ground that will neither outlaw abortion, nor guarantee that it be legal under any and all circumstances. A middle ground that is inevitable for the following reasons:

1) Roe vs. Wade supports it. Yes, Roe vs. Wade supports the middle ground, not the pro-choice position. The ruling clearly articulates the view that over the course of a woman’s pregnancy the rights of the woman decreases and the rights of the fetus increases.

2) The world agrees with it. Look at abortion laws in Europe and you’ll see the middle ground staked out in one form or another in almost every country. Most make abortion on demand legal for the first 10 to 24 weeks, and then legal after that only to protect the life or health of the mother. No European county allows abortion on demand for the entire pregnancy, and no country (save Ireland) bans abortion entirely.

3) Technology supports it. Pictures of an embryo early in development show us a fetus that is nearly indistinguishable from any other mammal. A picture of the same fetus in the eighth month of pregnancy shows us something that is nearly indistinguishable from a new born child. None of this evidence supports the position of the extremists.

I’m not sure how this post will be received here at DU given that there are so many that hold what I call the “radical pro-choice” opinion. Like the NRA tells us that any gun law is a slippery slope leading to the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, these people argue that any law that restricts abortion will eventually lead to its complete ban. Like the NRA argument, it is complete bullshit. In the long term laws come to reflect the will of the majority and the majority thinks that abortion should be legal in some circumstances but not all. In time, both they and the Christian fundamentalists will lose this debate.

[4morewars]

1. Most big issues are not black and white

but somewhere in between, the so called gray areas. I think most thoughtful, mature, people know this.

[Cheswick2.0]

144. I think most thoughtful mature people know that women have a

right to control their own body. Since you have no Uterus I'd say the issue doesn't concern you.

[IdaBriggs]

196. I have a uterus. This concerns me.

I'm also a pretty thoughtful, mature person, and I think anytime someone isn't willing to look at someone else's viewpoint they are being overly rigid. Doesn't mean your issues aren't valid; it just means you aren't willing to listen to other people, and its kind of rude and pretty darn disrespectful.

Here's a history lesson:

The question of when the soul entered the body of an infant was settled by one of the Christian theologians a thousand years ago or so, who decided the "half a soul" on the sperm argument made no sense, and only God could figure it out. It was decided that when "quickening" occurred (that's when the mother can feel the baby moving) was when God put the soul in. Made sense to everyone -- you don't have a funeral for a miscarriage -- especially because one out of three pregnancies were ending in death for either the baby, the mother or both (trivia: evil step-mothers in fairy tales came from this time period), but keep in mind this was also the time when people were convinced birth defects were caused by different sexual positions and/or having sex on a religious holiday, and rich people were the only ones with access to contraception. Anyway, the "quickening" definition worked until the 1860's when the Lord spake unto the Pope because He changed his mind. (Note sarcasm) Now "conception" was the automatic soul inserter.

Souls were important back then. Huge theological arguments occurred over whether or not women had them. (They finally decided we did.) And the black folk -- were their souls as beloved by God? Did they even have them? (Note sarcasm) Anyway, souls are still important, and so is religion. Reagan the Bastard stopped the funding of infertility research for what became TWELVE YEARS because he didn't want folks "playing God." Turns out he was wrong about it (creating life) minimizing the importance of it; as technology increased, and people were able to "see" ultrasound pictures of babies and whatnot, the idea that "abortion was murder" started taking a firmer hold. Abortion started reminding people a lot of infanticide, which has been around for millenia, and they didn't like it.

Ever hear the argument "if you can't afford a condom, you can't afford a kid?" You'd think that would stop people from "hoping" but it doesn't. Call it passion, or stupidity, or just a cheap thrill. The easy availability of birth control contributed to the PERCEPTION that irresponsible people were using abortion as a "last ditch" contraceptive measure, mainly because a lot of them were. One of my sisters did that. She used to use coca-cola as a douche (because it killed some of the sperm), and this was AFTER her first out of wedlock pregnancy. If she hadn't had a cold when she went to the clinic, Nicole (her second out of wedlock child -- her abortion count is unknown, but believed to be four or five) wouldn't be here.

To put abortion in its coldest, nastiest form: A breeding attempt that has been deemed unworthy of one year of the mother's time, plus or minus eighteen years of raising.

Personally, I'm still pro-choice. I've miscarried three pregnancies, once hearing my baby's heartbeat beforehand. My children were more than a bunch of cells to me -- they were hopes, and dreams, and very dearly wanted. My sister was an irresponsible moron who provided illegal drugs to minors; her two daughters are joys. I get "my body, my choice." I also get the feelings of those who call it "unfair." I think the original poster said it very well -- this is a gray area, and getting more so all the time.

Bottom line: I know quite a few people I wish weren't breeding. :(

[cally]

205. Thanks for your post

This debate always seems insane to me but it helps when we discuss personal stories. I have children that I love. My oldest almost died after birth and I think I would have died giving birth in earlier times or in countries with less westernized medical care. I'm adamantly pro-choice but I agree that I wish many were more responsible about reproduction. Not for a second do a think banning abortion will ensure that less abortions occur or that more folks use birth control. That's why I think the arguments are crazy.

[ChocolateSaltyBalls]

2. While I appreciate your lengthy and well thought out diatribe..........

Abortion is nothing more than an unimportant wedge issue.

It is legal to have an abortion in this country, and the only way that changes is if Roe V. Wade is overturned, which will never happen.

There are a multitude of actual issues that need to be discussed and solved, and this is not one of them.

Some people will think it's murder and some will not...and so it will ever be.

[robodruid]

4. Never????

That is a long time.
The "Roe Effect" suggests otherwise.

[Nederland]

5. I agree

Though I suspect we will soon hear from people that would object to your calling it "unimportant".

[noiretextatique]

8. it is unimportant or should be at all EXCEPT

the people involved. of course, that's a simple truth that escapes those who feel they have the right to determine which choices are available.

[Cheswick2.0]

145. funny coming from some one who started the thread

it's unimportant but you just needed to post a long explanation about how the rest of us are wrong. hmmmmmmm

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

64. Agreed.

I wouldn't say it's unimportant, but it is merely a wedge issue. If those in the right wing were truly concerned about all these fetuses they're supposedly working so hard to save, they'd be working to improve health care & the adoption system, and pushing for comprehensive sex ed in schools instead of setting kids up for failure with this "abstinence-only" crud.

George Carlin once did an interesting rant on this...

"Conservatives..all in favor of the unborn. Anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't wanna know about you. They don't wanna hear from you. No neo-natal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'. If you're pre-born you're fine, if you're pre-school, you're f***ed.

Conservatives don't give a s**t about you until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine...just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.

Pro-life. These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything to save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?"

Abortion should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE...but then it wouldn't be a wedge issue anymore, would it?

[Jokinomx]

77. Great Post...Kaelinn I agree with you 100%

I don't think ANYONE is pro abortion.... it is something that should be an option with a doctors opinion involved. If the mothers life is in danger... or rape...or incest...other than that... I say no.

With that... Welcome to the D.U. I look forward to seeing more of your posts.


:dem:

[0007]

121. It is the women's right to choose, your freedom ends where the

women's nose begins. I'm pro rights for all women.

[Cheswick2.0]

146. you can say no all you want

you have a penis and not a uterus so I really don't care what you think. But if you think you are changing the law you can think again.

[noiretextatique]

197. " i say no"...that about sums it up, doesn't it?

i keep asking why this kind of authoritarianism is acceptable as a "liberal" position on this issue, when authoritarianism is the ideological stance that serves the rw agenda, in general, and is an anathema to true liberalism.
if you look at all the wedge issues, including abortion, they all serve to assert control and authority over others regarding issues that have absolutely NO IMPACT on the lives of those who seek control.

[Susang]

210. As a woman, I am sick of hearing "no"

Particularly from people who would fight me tooth and nail if I were even to attempt to impose a similar type of restriction on their rights and freedom. After all, you saw what happened when some dared to suggest vasectomies as a birth control solution in another now infamous abortion thread. :eyes:

Last night I swore I wasn't going to post on this thread, that I had had enough after the ridiculous "framing strategy" thread in GD/Campaign 2004. But you and Cheswick's posts just struck a chord with me and kind of hit on exactly what has been bothering me about these flame-fests that have been mysteriously (ha!) popping up all over DU in recent weeks.

After all this time and all the work we, those before us and those after us have done, there is still a fear of and a need to control women's bodies. I try to understand it and intellectually I can come up with all kinds of reasons and explainations, but deep down inside, I just don't understand it and I'm starting to believe that I never will.

[DODI]

3. My view -- this issue should not be legislated. It is a woman's choice,

guided by her doctor and her beliefs. The courts should not have a place in this, nor should the gov't.

[Nederland]

6. So....

You disagree with the laws in France and the rest of Europe? You think they should all be repealled?

[Cheswick2.0]

147. who gives a flying flame war about what the laws are elsewhere?

you have got to be kidding with that question.

[noiretextatique]

7. so you support the current law

:shrug: your position is little different than what you call "radical" pro-choice. of course the REAL problem is that pro-control fanatics aren't willing to accept the law.

[Cleita]

11. Thanks for saying this.

I also wonder why this subject always crops up just before elections? Gee there's been two whole years to bring this up since the last election.

[Nederland]

13. Depends

What do you think the law is today?

I support parental notification laws. I support waiting periods. I would support a partial-birth abortion ban that made an exception for the life and health of the mother. All of these are laws that NARAL opposed.

As to who is the the "REAL" problem, I would disagree. The pro-choice crowd can be just as dangerous. For example, I'm pretty sure they pressured Clinton into vetoing a bill that banned partial birth abortions that contained a health exception clause. The net result is that the Republicans were able to use the issue as a wedge and eventually pass a ban that contained no exception clause. In other words, we are worse off than we would have been if Clinton had simply signed the original law.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. Waiting periods are the hugest insult to a woman's intelligence

that has ever come down.

It suggests that a pregnant woman put no thought into her decision and if she goes through a cooling off period, she'll come to her senses.

It's infuriatingly condescending and no doubt thought up by men.

[Nederland]

22. I believe

...that denying women the right to vote was a bit more insulting, but that's just me.

[Mandate My Ass]

24. Making people jump through arbitrary hoops to your satisfaction

is hugely insulting, no matter how many snide quips you offer to the contrary.

[Nederland]

29. My point

was that the radicals on both sides tend to express a great deal of hyperbole in this debate. Your assertion that 24 hour waiting periods are the "hugest insult to a woman's intelligence that has ever come down" is merely one example of the exaggerations that accompany this debate. Clearly, far worse has come down.

I would concede however that the current state of our health care system makes waiting periods unjust. In many rural areas where services are scarce, waiting periods have the effect of pushing what could be a perfectly safe procedure into later terms where abortion is more dangereous. As a result, I would like to see the scarcity issues resolved before enforcing waiting periods.

[Mandate My Ass]

32. "enforcing waiting periods"

gee, your control issues are showing.

What is the purpose of a waiting period except to pressure the woman to change her mind? Or do men just think women are so dumb they show up at the abortion clinic one day because it was on their route to the supermarket and slammed on the brakes and went inside to get an abortion before she picked up her groceries?

It's both insulting and coercion.

That's not hyperbole, just the truth spoken without apology.

[Nederland]

39. The "purported" purpose

of a waiting period is to ensure that a woman has accurate information and time to review such information. With this principle I agree. To assume that every women who seeks an abortion already has this information is not only naive but dangerous. Make no mistake, I understand full well that the sole RW purpose of waiting periods is to make having an abortion more difficult. My support for waiting periods was more of an expression of support of the principle that such laws claim to express.

[Lindacooks]

42. How about you mind your own business?

What a woman decides to do with your body is none of your business.

[Nederland]

58. Deal

...and as soon as we are talking about something more than a woman's body, I will stand up for those that have no voice.

[Cheswick2.0]

152. lol and the truth comes out

You are anti-choice and your views are just like the "right wing" view you disparage in other posts.

[ant]

47. then can I assume...

...what you really support is mandatory waiting periods for all people seeking medical treatment?

If this is about the principle of well-informed patients - and really, who wouldn't support that? it's like supporting the principle of cute puppies - why limit it to only women seeking abortions?

Let's just make everyone wait a set amount of time before receiving medical treatment to make sure she or he is fully informed. Of course, we probably don't do this now because we assume that most patients are fully informed by their doctors - that's part of the doctor's job already - but if there are concerns then I can't see why those concerns would be limited to only abortion providers. I see no reason to believe abortion providers are less ethical or competent than other doctors, after all.

By the way, the waiting periods are an extra hassle when you consider that over 80% of US counties don't have abortion providers. Many women have to travel to find a provider, that means time off work and other extra costs. To then make them wait even longer, well...that's more time and money that many of them probably don't have. These are the kinds of issues that result in women waiting longer to have an abortion, which is ironic when you consider that public opinion tends to believe that the earlier the better.

Like I said, if you want a waiting period you already have it. It's the time between pregnancy test and decision making. I would imagine it's practically impossible to schedule an abortion the same day you find out you're pregnant. Counseling and options are usually discussed at the time of a pregnancy test. Women then go home, think about it, and make their decision, which means these waiting periods are targeted at women who have already made up their minds. Their only purpose is to make it more difficult for women to have abortions. It is not about being fully informed; that's an issue that's dealt with (or should be dealt with) at the time of the pregnancy test.

[Nederland]

59. Good solution (nt)

[noiretextatique]

50. would you need a "waiting period" before deciding to have a medical

procedure? for having a wart removed or for open heart surgery?
it's insulting and ridiculous to believe women can't make important decisions without the state imposing a waiting period.

[noiretextatique]

61. can you explain this "danger" thing please?

can you explain why it's dangerous and naive to assume that every women who seeks an abortion is "informed," and why there are no proposed informational waiting periods for say, breast implants, which (unlike abortion) have proven to be dangerous to the health of women?
i know the new, imporved implants supposedly don't have the problems of the old ones that leaked silicon into a woman's body, but i'm sure you understand the gist of my question. the manufacturers and the doctors knew that there were potential risks involved with those implants and purposely withheld that information from women who got them.
some of these women got the implants as prosthetics after mastectomies...pretty horrible what they went through physically, and they had to sue to get the force the manufacturers and doctors to fully inform patients of the risks of implants.
in the case of abortion, there is no compelling evidence that suggests:
1) women are not being informed before having abortions
or
2) there is a known risk (as in the case of implants) that is being withheld for women seeking abortions.

[Nederland]

67. You pretty much summed it up for me

There is a danger anytime an uninformed person undergoes any surgical procedure. Perhaps the poster ant had the best suggestion below: make waiting periods mandatory for a wide range of medical procedures. That would eliminate the admittedly sexist nature of applying the principle to only abortions.

[frankly_fedup2]

100. A friend of mine was getting her tubes tied and she had to wait . . .

30 days after signing for the elective procedure. After the 30-day-waiting period, she reread the information and signed it again. She then had the surgery.

I think I spoke to you last time on the abortion debate Nederland (I could be wrong though)

My point is if the pro-lifers are going to raise holy war against a woman's right to choose, then why aren't they raising holy war against a couples decision to have IVF? After all, they do not use all the fertilized eggs (per pro-lifers, conception is the moment life begins), and they never use all the fertilized eggs.

So tell me this, how many so-called lives are being discarded because they are in a petri dish, instead of a uterus, and no longer needed or wanted. What is the difference?

Who is speaking up for the petri-dish babies? Is it because pro-lifers have never looked at it this way?

[frankly_fedup2]

141. WOW. No one has an answer for my question regarding IVF.

That is the way the issue is treated with politicians. Why aren't the anti-abortionists raising holy hell and be "the voice" of the petri dish babies that are washed down the drain just like they do for a fetus that is aborted?

Does this confuse the anti-abortionists? Have they never thought of what happened to the fertilized eggs that are not used to impregnate a woman. They can freeze them but if the parents do not come back for them, down the drain.

Tell me the difference if you truly believe that life begins at conception, because there can be conception inside the womb as well as outside the womb. And then the fertilized eggs can be placed in the womb. And 9 times out of 10 the procedures fail with a spontaneous abortion.

I believe life begins when you take your first breath just as I believe life ends as you take your last breath. May sound too simple to some, but that is what I believe.

[Cheswick2.0]

155. Maybe we can have a whole class of women who have to carry those

petri dish babies to term. Perhaps lesbian women should be the chosen since they are currently being written out of state constitutions everywhere and have no other real use for their Uteruses.

[Cheswick2.0]

154. petri dishes didn't spread their legs and get fucked

that is why petri dishes avoid the wrath of those who are "speaking for those who have no voice" as Nederland is.

[Cheswick2.0]

153. Women who have abortions are always "informed " beforehand

you are making up non existant problems because you are "sticking up for those who have no voice"... you said so yourself.

[doodleysquat]

228. But

don't most elective medical procedures already have a built-in waiting periods? Not many hospitals or clinics I know of can or will do a surgery the same day someone walks and and asks for it. Unless it's an emergency there has to be appointments made, lab tests done, consultations, etc. I don't know about abortions. Are they done the same day they are requested?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

131. A little correction

Most people belive that the "old silicone" implants were a "known health risk" because of what they heard in the media. Most of it, bunk. Silicone is a common thing, you ingest it every time you drink a beer, it's in your deodorant, shampoo, used to lubricate the needles used by diabetics and the list goes on an on an on. Read a few ingredients of every day products. The whole "silicone implants are a health hazard" was created by the attorneys to make huge piles of money. Do a little research and see what you come up with.

[Cheswick2.0]

156. Tell that to the women who got sick from it

we ingest all kinds of poisons in tiny amounts. That doesn't mean we should all inject mercury into our veins.

[noiretextatique]

195. i think some women and doctors might disagree with you

as to the effects of the silicon used in the old implants. it was women, with the help of attorneys, who pursued the manufacturers of the implants. two women in particular literally hounded the FDA to do something about the implants, and collected the stories of women who were suffering because of these implants. it makes sense that long-term exposure to something leaking inside your body that isn't supposed to be there just might cause some problem...even if the substance is relatively inert and commonly used.
http://www.medical-library.net/sites/framer.html?/sites/_silicone_implant_disease.html

[GodHelpUsAll2]

132. Not strictly accurate

Actually, not all of that post was strictly accurate. I'm the chief engineer for the leading supplier of silicone polymers to one of the two companies in the U.S. that still produce silicone gel for mammary implants. First of all, no single case wherein any woman attempted to claim damages caused by a mammary implant was ever decided by a judge or jury in favor of the claimant--one major company whose name we all know settled a number of cases out of court in an attempt to avoid legal fees, although it didn't do them much good. In point of fact, no significant health risk has ever been attributed to the use of silicone in mammary implants. The actual reason they were banned was because an FDA audit of the leading U.S. supplier discovered deficiencies in their quality systems that potentially could have--never "did," just "could have"--resulted in impurities which could in turn have caused health problems. There is also a known condition, called "silicosis," which can result from exposure to a flavor of silica (silicon dioxide, not to be confused with silicon the element or silicone the polymer) known as "crystalline silica." No mammary implant ever used this. The ones that used silica at all used the opposite flavor, "amorphous silica." Actually, even the saline implants common today still come in a silicone sac. The U.S. and the U.K. are the only two countries that have banned silicone-gel-filled implants; they're still perfectly legal to manufacture, sell, and implant in Europe--in fact, my company makes more money selling silicone gel to our Dutch customer than we do on any other product line. As a final point, if anyone really thinks they've never been exposed to silicone, go home and check your deodorant, antiperspirant, beer, shampoo, makeup kit, or just about anything else in your home that comes in a liquid, gel, or gelatinous form; if the ingredient list includes "dimethicone," that's just the industry-sanitized term for "dimethyl silicone," the exact type of gel that allegedly caused so many problems, according to the uninformed public.

In case all of that was too boring, the simpler version is this: To compare abortions to silicone breast implants is a facile argument. Silicone breast implants never caused any problems, it was all a bunch of media hype and attorneys profiting from deep-pocketed chemical companies--just like the Alar scare and "black mold." In the mean time, if anyone can provide a link or other documentation to establish (credibly) that silicone gel implants were ever proved to have caused any health problem in any woman anywhere, I'd be more than happy to look it over. I have to emphasize the word "credible," however; there are any number of websites out there devoted to some woman's crying over the damage her lawyer told her she suffered from her big fake boobs.

[noiretextatique]

216. Mahlum v. Dow Chemical (10/95)

http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/verdicts/mahlum.html

i don't dispute your knowledge of implants, however here is a case of of a woman who sued Dow Chemcial and won. whether or not her health issues were in fact related to the implants, apparently the jury decided they were.

another site with information on implants and silicone.
http://www.siliconesurvivors.net/facts.html

i do believe the issue of women's health, and using women as guinea pigs is indeed related to reproductive issues, in general, though perhaps not specifically to abortion.
you may recall the problems with the Dalkon shield, for example.
http://www.fact-index.com/d/da/dalkon_shield.html

[Cheswick2.0]

151. you have no idea what you are talking about

I worked in a women's clinic where one of the services we provided was abortion. Every woman who comes in for an abortion at any reputable clinic has already been counseled and will be counseled again before the procedure. That's the way it is.

[skygazer]

43. Waiting periods are ridiculous

I will weigh in on just this one issue - there's a myth out there that the majority of women use abortion as a sort of birth control method - that no thought goes into it at all - "whoops! got knocked up! better run in and grab an abortion and a loaf of bread!"

I've known many women who had abortions - myself included - all of them went through an agonizing decision that haunts them to this day even though virtually every one I know (including myself) still feels it was the right decision.

Let's get a waiting period going for plastic surgery if you think people are so stupid that they can't make up their own minds.

[Mandate My Ass]

51. Amen

Informed consent is enough for all other unisex medical procedures. But the single one that is women only is supposed to be subject to waiting periods, which are nothing more than coercion to change their mind.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. :hug: I'm sure it was agonizing, but that's probably just you, not all those naive babes-in the-woods Nederland is trying to protect from asserting their choice. Some menfolk here don't cotton to that.

[skygazer]

53. Thanks for the hugs

Waiting periods are a subject that simply inflame me!

[Cheswick2.0]

157. waiting periods force poor women into giving birth

just what we need, to force poor women to have MORE children they can't take care of.
In many area women have to travel great distances to get an abortion. Waiting periods force her to pay for a hotel room and miss even more work than necessary.

[Cheswick2.0]

150. what is the point of the waiting period?

[smirkymonkey]

38. deleted message by poster

[Cheswick2.0]

149. Nice side lateral arabesque

you dance well.

[Nobody]

127. Especially since you can't be a woman in this country

and not heard about the abortion issue again and again. Unless you've been living under a rock, you've given it some thought.

OK, can I have my one day waiting period now?

[Cheswick2.0]

158. good point!

I have 40 years of waiting periods all saved up.

[noiretextatique]

18. "partial-birth" is a creation of the pro-control movement

late-term abortions are rare, and usually done to save the life of the mother. the "ban" is pure politics...of the worse kind, btw.
as to parental notification laws: what's the purpose of them? to facilitate communication between a young woman and her parents?!?! frankly, i don't think that can be legislated.
what's dangerous is conceding anyone's basic human rights to politicians and religionists.

[Nederland]

23. Question

So would you be in favor of European style laws that ban abortion after some point in the pregnancy and contain exceptions for the life and health of the mother?

[noiretextatique]

45. no...it's not necessary

late-term abortions are already rare. it's absurd to legislate for a problem that doesn't exist...except because of our lousy healthcare system, and decreasing number of abortions providers. if we had univeral health care coverage, this issue of later term abortions would not be an issue...as karenina mentioned, that's why the european laws work fine.
and, as ant explained, what is termed "partial birth abortion" is an attempt to ban a particular procedure.

[ant]

54. what's more

That's already the law in the US, too.

People always seem to forget that RvW gives states the right to legislate late term abortions so long as they allow exceptions for the health/life of the mother. And many states do, in fact, do this.

Those claiming that these European style laws "should" be the law in the US could probably benefit from actually learning the law in the US.

[noiretextatique]

55. this person knows the law

or a least one would think so, given the title of this thread. those advocating european-style laws might also advocate european-style healthcare, if they want their so-called "middle ground" arguments to be taken seriously.

[Cheswick2.0]

159. again with the side lateral arabesque

what does Europe have to do with this question? I don't vote in Europe, if the women there can't defend their rights I am afraid there is little I can do for them.

[frankly_fedup2]

106. There is no such thing as a partial birth abortion. Never has been . . .

no fetus has been removed from a woman unless the fetus is no longer functioning. This is a procedure call a D&E (not to be confused with a D&C). A D&E is abbreviation for dilatation and evacuation. This is done when there is a missed spontaneous abortion (done in every hospital in every county in every state so don't be fooled). If a fetus no longer is considered viable, and it may have had only 2 weeks until birth, the physician must remove it ASAP because the tissue starts to rot and can cause infection in the mother. There is no such thing as a tube stuck in back of the fetuses head and the brains sucked out so the skull will collapse. Think about it, what would be the point once the fetus is already dead. The so called anti-partial birth abortion law that was signed was moot. It was all politics, and it served its purpose politically.

You do realize that your government will lie to you, right? If you do not think that your government would not lie, just look at the war in Iraq, and look how everything that was suppose to be in place to protect us on 9/11 failed. What are the odds??

[Cheswick2.0]

160. If I remmember correctly Nederland also supports the War in Iraq

So your iraq war argument is probably lost on him.

[IdaBriggs]

199. Umm, not totally correct.

Friends of mine found out their baby had a heart problem -- only going to live for an hour after birth unless on machines, etc. They were 21 weeks along, and made the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Only two hospitals in a two hundred mile radius were willing to perform the procedure, and the number of hoops they were forced to jump through was horrendous. It was a D&E procedure, but I don't remember all the details. She was a basket case for a while. :(

[lastliberalintexas]

28. Actually, the bill that Clinton vetoed

only contained an exception for the life of the woman. In legal terms, life and health carry distinct and different meanings.

And please refer to the pregnant woman as a WOMAN- she's not an incubator for God's sake. You don't have to simply call her the "mother."

[Nederland]

31. Thanks

I was unsure of the specifics of the Clinton bill. Clearly, however, what we have today is far worse.

[lastliberalintexas]

94. You're welcome

Know also that Clinton had said he would sign such a bill if it contained exceptions for the life and health of the woman. The repubs/conservatives refused to include such a provision because they *wanted* him to have to veto it so that they could get political mileage from it.

[Cheswick2.0]

163. Yes but Nederland would rather blame NARAL

I think.

[ant]

33. a few points

I support parental notification laws.

I support laws that have the best interest of the young girl at heart. Depending on individual circumstances, parental notification laws can be a great danger. While it would be great if all young girls faced with an unplanned pregnancy could go to their parents for support and help, that's simply not always possible. I think the goal of abortion laws for the underage crowd should be to ensure they receive the best counseling and support and guidance possible so they can decide what is best for their individual lives, whether it comes from their parents or elsewhere.

I support waiting periods.

I have a real problem with waiting periods simply because I find them condescending and sexist. I'm pretty sure society/government would NEVER tell a man, "why don't you go home and think it over for a while, just to make sure." I support counseling and full disclosure at the time of a pregnancy test, but once a woman has decided to have an abortion, she has decided, and it is offensive to think she could then be told that her judgment is in question and we'd all feel better if she maybe slept on it some more.

I would support a partial-birth abortion ban that made an exception for the life and health of the mother.

Late term abortions are already outlawed in many states except for life/health of the mother. This is what RvW did - it gave states the power to legislate abortion post-viability, and many of them do exactly that. What you support is, in fact, already law.

If, however, you are talking about a specific procedure of some sort, I think it's a dangerous game to be saying doctors can only treat patients in specific ways. The cranial decompression that so many find visually offensive was not developed simply because doctors' have some sick need to crush baby skulls. It was developed because there are cases where it is needed. For instance, in women with small cervical openings, it may be necessary to collapse the skull in order to remove the fetus. Furthermore, for certain women this procedure is safer than dismembering the fetus in utero and then removing it in pieces. (Yes, that is the alternative procedure - just as "gruesome" but for some reason not the focus of pro-life efforts.) And finally, in cases where the pregnancy was a wanted one, parents often find it helps them grieve if they are given an intact fetus to mourn rather than a jar of body parts.

Again, this procedure wasn't developed for the fun of it. There is sometimes a medical and/or emotional need for it.

All of these are laws that NARAL opposed.

And for good reason, many of them related to what I've mentioned above. For instance, you can read their position on parental notification laws here:
http://www.naral.org/facts/parental_consent_laws.cfm

If there's something there that you take issue with, feel free to bring it up.

For example, I'm pretty sure they pressured Clinton into vetoing a bill that banned partial birth abortions that contained a health exception clause.

I don't know whether that bill contained such an exception, but again, the bill was bad because it tried to ban a procedure that many women had needed, and it is not the government's place to restrict the medical options available to a doctor and her patient.

You can read the testimonies of those types of women here:
http://home.epix.net/~jlferri/abortpba.html

The net result is that the Republicans were able to use the issue as a wedge and eventually pass a ban that contained no exception clause. In other words, we are worse off than we would have been if Clinton had simply signed the original law.

The Supreme Court has already struck down those laws that do not make exceptions for life/health issues. And, as I've said, late term abortions can already be outlawed by individual states so long as those exceptions are allowed. If instead of late-term abortions you are talking about a specific procedure, however, please see my comments above regarding medical necessity.

What's the point of banning a specific procedure, anyway? All that does is force the doctor to use a difference proceudre, even if it means increased risk for the woman. Either way, a fetus will be killed, so what's the point?

[TankLV]

35. It's correctly termed "late term" abortions - but thanks for repeating

the radical right's terms for this discussion.

Only the anti-abortion zealots use such terms.

Very telling.

And, by the way, the whole PURPOSE and very EXISTENCE of the LATE TERM aborttions is that IT IS ONLY USED WHERE THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS AT STAKE! That has never been an issue!

This procedure has NEVER been used as an elective option. Period.

But thanks for spouting all the repuke anti-choice, anti-aborttion rhetoric here.

[ant]

40. actually, it isn't

First of all, there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion," so there's really no "correct" term for it.

The medical procedure most closely resembling the so-called "pba" - the D&X that involves cranial decompression - isn't really late term at all. The doctor who developed it has said himself that it's for patients between 20-26 weeks of pregnancy. You can read his article on it here:
http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Haskell_Desc.html

It's important to remember that the pro-life crowd is not talking about the TIMING of abortion - as I've said elsewhere, late term abortions can already be regulated by the states. They are targeting an alleged PROCEDURE used in various stages of pregnancy with the hopes of describing it vaguely enough that the law will apply to all procedures.

Of course, they're not really talking about the D&X, because if they were they could just write a law saying "the D&X is outlawed." Instead, it's something "like" the D&X, but not quite. Well, what is it then?

I have yet to see anyone who is opposed to this mysterious PBA procedure provide a medical description of it like the one I've provided above for D&X. The reason? The procedure doesn't exist. It's all nothing but a big, fat lie.

[Nederland]

41. Thanks

...for demonstrating my assertion that the radicals on both sides of this debate will consistently try to paint the issue as black and white and demonize any one who doesn't follow the party line. Anyone who fails to do this is immediately branded as being a part of the enemy camp, their sincerity questioned, and subject to personal attacks. Thanks for proving my point. You're a real gem.

[ant]

52. well

The term *is* incorrect, so you really shouldn't be using it.

Whatever side you're on, I would hope you are able to stick to facts and discuss this with honesty, and the fact is there is no medical procedure known as partial birth abortion. It simply does not exist. There is a procedure known as D&X that involves cranial decompression, but that's a second term procedure, not a late term procedure, and pro-lifers have made it clear that they're talking about a late-term procedure. Well, what is this procedure then? Surely there's a doctor out there who developed it and can talk about it, right?

Wrong. There isn't such a doctor, because there isn't such a procedure.

If you didn't know this before, now you do, and I hope that in the future you will avoid using the language invented by one side of the issue. If you don't, it will be dishonest, in which case I think it's perfectly legitimate to call you on it. It's not "demonizing" someone when it's true.

[Nederland]

60. Fair enough

From now on I'll try to refer to it as a late term abortion.

[ant]

111. no!

If you're talking about late-term abortions, then say "late term abortions."

If you're talking about the mid-term abortion procedure known as D&X, which involves cranial decompression, then say D&X.

If you're talking about whatever it is the pro-lifers are trying to outlaw when they refer to partial birth abortion, though...tough one. Since there is no such procedure the term is empty and meaningless, and that makes it hard to say anything of value about it.

You're better off making note of this fact with something like "so-called pba" or simply putting the phrase in quotes each time. And yes, I'm being serious. There is no such procedure, so it is simply a lie to make any statement that assumes there is.

Those who do not recognize the fundamental lie behind the debate over "pba" throw their own credibility into question. It is fair game for the rest of us to point that out.

[Cheswick2.0]

164. the fact that I defend my right against men who want to negotiate them

with other men makes me a radical in your book. Ask me if I am concerned with that? Nope

[bread_and_roses]

49. In other words you support

obstacles to women exercising the rights they now have under the law. Who are YOU (or anyone else) to tell a woman that she must have a mandatory, non-medically necessary "waiting period" for a legal medical procedure? And are YOU going to guarantee the physical (much less emotional) safety of a teenager forced to notify her parents that she is pregnant and seeking an abortion? And btw, "partial-birth" is not a medical term and thus not useful in any discussion of abortion.

[kiahzero]

83. Why do you support parental notification laws?

As soon as a minor becomes pregnant, they are given the power to make decisions regarding the medical care for themselves and the fetus. Carving out an exception to this rule for abortions and abortions alone is not only ridiculous, it should be unconstitutional.

As to who is the the "REAL" problem, I would disagree. The pro-choice crowd can be just as dangerous. For example, I'm pretty sure they pressured Clinton into vetoing a bill that banned partial birth abortions that contained a health exception clause. The net result is that the Republicans were able to use the issue as a wedge and eventually pass a ban that contained no exception clause. In other words, we are worse off than we would have been if Clinton had simply signed the original law.

No, we're not - nothing changed, because the without a health exception clause, the law is unenforcable.

[Cheswick2.0]

148. "WE" are worse off?

[bleedingheart]

9. Don't pay attention to No Healthcare, No Jobs, and Record Deficits

nope...just pay attention to an issue that many will never agree upon.

Abortions have occurred since the beginning of civilization, repealing the law will only shove it underground where it will kill the women and the feti.

[Cleita]

12. Yep.

I think most of us have buried the other wedge issues like entitlement programs, social security, medicare etc., so this is the one still up there in divisiveness.

[SemperEadem]

19. exactly

those rethugs who make the most noise will send their daughters and mistresses to a Carribean island to have the proceedure, out of the site of the US media and other nosybodies. Abortion has always been with us and will always be with us.

[mopinko]

10. like the big dog said

they need a divided country, we do not. so why are we driving wedges at du? can we just drop this crap. really.

[radwriter0555]

14. abortion is a perfectly safe and legal form of birth control. Any other

position sentimentalizes the issue and puts a moralistic base on it that is utterly irrelevent.

[Nederland]

17. Yes

And we all know that the law should have nothing to do with morality.

</sarcasm>

[Cheswick2.0]

165. my body my morality........... your body your morality

I personally think all men should be sterilized so they don't get women pregnant but I am willing to compromise with you on that one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Absolutely right.

The pro-preggers envision cute little white babies straght from the Gerber's labels, well fed, well parented, with happy mommies dressed in frilly aprons.

They totally ignore poverty, lack of health care, forced pregnancies, and uncaring, possibly abusive, parents.

They also fight against safe contraception and sex education, which has prevented far more pregnancies and thus abortions than they could ever have hoped to do with repressive laws.

[Hamlette]

16. but....but....we have the middle ground now, what are you predicting?

that they move the date of choice down to first trimester?

I am SO sick of the abortion issue. I support abortion but the crazy wacko religious nuts have divided the country over it. At one time there were over 150 different bills introduced in Congress each year about abortion. Shit. Is that the ONLY issue? Are we not being distracted from things like Osama and our country moving to a two tier system, and our destruction of the planet? Some days I think abortion is a distraction used by the corporate bosses to keep us from following the ball.

What will never happen is outlawing all abortions. Only 9% of Americans support that. Won't happen. (Yeah, yeah, Handmaid's Tale, but we won't go there.)

[Nederland]

20. I'm predicting

...that eventually we will see a European type body of law. Abortion will be availible on demand for some term, and illegal (with exception to protect the life and health of the mother) after that. Where specifically we end up is debateable. France bans abortion after the 10th week. Sweden bans it after the 24th week. Most of the rest of Europe bans it somewhere around the 12th week.

My point is that this type of law expresses a position that enjoys majority support but is not embraced by either political party. I believe there is a political opportunity here.

[Karenina]

30. A very IMPORTANT factor

you have failed to include in your "shade of grey" is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. A woman in Europe can SEE her doctor and determine a pregnancy early. Then, in the PRIVATE confines of his office a HEALTH decision is made. It is NOT one open to public discourse. (There was a brief dust-up some years back with Catholic "permission slips.") Indeed, I've NEVER been privy to a discussion about it in all my years abroad, save the tangential issue of how unseemly, unsavory, provincial and absurd the Americans are about anything sex-related.

[noiretextatique]

46. thanks for adding the reality of healthcare

and the fact that too many women in america don't have access to it.

[Cheswick2.0]

166. I'm predicting

that one day all males will be sterilized at Puberty and we will no long have to worry about them irresponsibly leaving their sperm around getting women pregnant.

[olddem43]

25. This is the best commentary I've ever read on this issue.

And I have seen a lot over the last 35 years. You are exactly right.
However, as long as a politician can get some traction on the issue, it will never be completely settled.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

135. Has anyone wondered....

Why abortion is such a hot issue to the right? They control the white house AND the house yet abortion is still legal. Gee... ya think maybe because if they outlawed it they would loose the ONE issue they can still harp on?

[lastliberalintexas]

26. Actually, there really are only 2 positions

The 2 positions are (1)that the developing fetus is only a *potential* life and that terminating the pregnancy should therefore be permissible, or (2) that the developing fetus IS a life and therefore terminating the pregnancy is murder.

This is why those in the "mushy middle" on either side of this issue are wrong. If you think abortion is wrong and it's murder, it shouldn't matter to you if the woman was raped. It's still murder. Yet if you think that abortion should be legal, then it shouldn't matter whether the pregnancy is terminated at 6 weeks or 36 weeks. Because it's not murder. Two positions, plain and simple.


The problem is that the line between those 2 positions depends on when you think "life" begins, and thus begets what you believe are many, many positions on the issue. But in reality, they are merely many, many variations of the 2. Scientists, physicians, theologians, philosophers and individuals have debated and will continue to debate when life begins, and thus far no particular point in the process has been definitively proven to be the beginning of life. There are probably as many definitions of "life" as there are people.

Until there is a definitive resolution to that issue, everyone should live as they see fit, as they believe is right/correct/whatever. And leave everyone else the hell alone.

[Mandate My Ass]

27. Agreed, this thread is based on fallacy argumentum ad populum

and nothing more.

[Vladimir]

34. I almost agree with you

but just to be picky, one could advocate the position that the foetus makes a transition at X weeks from potential to actual life. In this way one could hold a middle ground position rationally and in good faith.

PS for the record I'm a pro-choice fundamentalist myself

[ant]

37. I disagree

Well, I agree that the positions you've given are the two that dominate the moral discussion of abortion, but I think the legal discussion is quite different.

The positions I see in the political debate are, or should be:

1. Outlawing abortion would have a devastating effect on women's health issues overall. Consider, for instance, the consequences of having the government shadow a doctor in the operating room or trying to actually enforce such a ban. (Will women's medical records be made publicly available? Will we all be forced to undergo monthly pregnancy tests? What if I have two doctors disagreeing over whether or not my health/life is at risk - will a government panel of non-doctors make the final call?)

2. The consequences of outlawing abortion are worth making the symobolic statement that this society - or some group within it - is opposed to abortion. (I say symbolic because it will not have any practical effect. Those who can have abortions now will probably always be able to get them, either by traveling somewhere or paying the right doctor enough money. As usual, it's the poor women who get screwed.)

You can be morally opposed to abortion and still understand that the policy issue is a different matter. (And yes, I know women - it's almost always women - who understand the distinction.) After all, I'm morally opposed to adultery, but I don't think we should be throwing adulterers in jail or anything. What's funny is I would guess the overwhelming number of people in this country would say that adultery is immoral but should not be banned. Abortion, however, which we have less agreement on in terms of morality, is still somehow an issue for debate in terms of public policy.

In any case, my point is that just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal, and just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. I think the pro-choice side would be wise to shift the debate from one of morality to one of public health policy.

[lastliberalintexas]

75. Actually, I'm not talking about morality

In the law, it is only murder/homicide to take a LIFE without legal justification. And in the law, a fetus is not considered a life, and is instead considered property (but I'll stay away from that flamefest). So until the legal system is discredited by *definitive proof* of when life begins, the law has no place in regulating the termination of a pregnancy, other than to ensure that it is carried out as any other medical procedure would be (ie, by a licensed medical provider in a sanitary environment). There is no other reason for the law to be involved in such a matter (except for the property considerations, which again I will stay away from).

Our law is not based on morality, protestations from certain posters to the contrary notwithstanding. English common law is more contractual in nature, and does not seek to legally impose moral obligations. Equitable matters will sometimes be given consideration by the courts, but that's not morality based either. And I wholeheartedly agree that the law should stay away from issues of morality.

[ant]

107. interesting....

In the law, it is only murder/homicide to take a LIFE without legal justification. And in the law, a fetus is not considered a life, and is instead considered property (but I'll stay away from that flamefest).

I've never heard this argument of the fetus as property, but I'm not familiar with the legal details of abortion, so...is this part of the right to privacy argument or something else?

Anyway, what's interesting to me here is that people choose the "life" part of that equation rather than the "justification" part. If I shoot a burglar, the question is not whether or not he's a "life," but whether or not he posed sufficient danger to me that I was justified in shooting him.

Similarly, the question with abortion shouldn't be whether or not the fetus is "a life" - I think it very clearly *is* a life (it's growing and living, after all) - but whether or not the woman is justified in choosing to abort. And of course, whether or not she's legally justified will be different than whether or not she's morally justified. The law rightly recognizes that she's justified to abort for whatever reason she pleases up until a certain point.

Again, though, I still think the pro-choice crowd would be better off redefining the debate in terms of good public policy rather than getting into the hazy line between moral/legal justification, what is life, etc. The latter are essentially philosophical questions that will never be answered. However, I do think it's dishonest of people to claim the fetus is not "a life." It is a living thing - it is growing and cell dividing and doing all those things that make life life. To deny that is to deny basic biology. However, just because it is a life doesn't mean it is a human being, and just because it is a life doesn't mean preserving it should outweigh all other considerations (like the concerns of the woman). We accept that killing life is often justified - self-defense, meat diets, etc. - and abortion to me falls in that category. Even if god himself came down and told me that the fetus is a full human being that still wouldn't deal with the practical consequences of outlawing abortion. I would still support free choice because the alternative would be far worse.

[lastliberalintexas]

114. Well, I'm not a scientist or medical

person, so maybe life in medical terms is different than in legal terms. Yes, even my Biology 101 class taught me that a one celled amoeba is a "life", but I was talking in terms of human life as protected in the law. Sorry that I was ambiguous.

The burglar example isn't a good comparison, since s/he was presumably born alive well before committing the B & E, so of course killing her/him is the taking of a life. That actually is the first step, but it's usually one that is obvious. However, most states do not allow for criminal charges to be filed for harming a fetus- the charge is usually actually assault/battery/etc. against the *woman*. Some states have tried to amend the common law by statute, and I think a couple have been struck down.

The California statute is the one under which the Peterson trial is proceeding, if I understand correctly. I believe that is how they have charged him with *double* murder, despite the fact that there was only one born alive person. But traditionally, our legal system has never conferred rights upon the unborn or the stillborn- one must have been born alive in order to obtain legal rights in our system. It is only recently with the Unborn Protection Act and its progeny that we have seen this change- and those laws are suspect because most of the people who draft/support them will tell you that they view them as merely one step towards criminalizing abortion.


In the law, a fetus is usually considered property or simply part of the woman's body. As I posted elsewhere, a woman who miscarries as a result of a car wreck can sue for damages to her and her body, but not for the "wrongful death" of the fetus. But she could sue for the wrongful death of her 2 year old born alive daughter who was killed in the wreck.

[Nederland]

56. Disagree

First of all, the issue is not when life or potential life "begins", but when a fetus acquires rights and what those rights are. Roe vs. Wade makes this distinction very clear, and outlines what those right are and how they increase over time. When you take this into account, it becomes clear that your argument is overly simplistic. Consider this statement:

If you think abortion is wrong and it's murder, it shouldn't matter to you if the woman was raped.

This statement is fallacious because it assumes that all abortions are the same. It assumes that there is no difference between an abortion performed at 4 weeks and an abortion performed at 36 weeks. It enforces a black and white view of the abortion debate that the vast majority of Americans do not share. I understand that you may not see any difference between an abortion at 4 weeks and an abortions at 36 weeks, but the fact is that most people see these two things very, very differently.

To say that a person who believes that abortion is always wrong and a person who believes that 3rd trimester abortions are wrong hold the same position on abortion is ridiculously simplistic. Not only would both sides in this example disagree with the categorization, but in all likelihood they would vote for completely different candidates. Its like equating a die hard pacifist with a person who opposed the Iraq war--its only true from the viewpoint of a RW hawk.

[noiretextatique]

57. question: how do you know what most people think on this issue?

are you using polls or what? if so, would you mind providing some links?
thanks.

[Nederland]

62. Sure

Here just one example from a New York Times/ CBS Poll of 1998:

Favor legal abortion during:
1st trimester 61%
2nd trimester 15%
3rd trimester 7%

This type of progression is typical in almost all polls that bother to ask the question in a more nuanced manner. The site below has dozens of different polls on abortion and does a good job outline the difficulty of polling on abortion. For example, more than most issues, how the question is phrased makes a huge difference in outcome.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll3.htm

[noiretextatique]

65. thank you for the pollls

do you think some of the confusion about procedures and terms, as evidenced here, means the public is well-informed on this issue?
do you think it's a good idea to base public health policy on a (possibly) ill-informed public's opinion?

[Nederland]

71. A good point

So many of the polls show completely contradictory results. This is one I love from the Los Angeles Times:

57% Believe that abortion is murder.
67% Believe that a woman and her physician should be able to decide to have an early abortion.

Evidently there is a significant number of people out there that believe murder is ok with a physicians permission :eyes:

Perhaps the people responding were making certain assumptions about the question--or perhaps their brains process things very differently from mine. Who knows. Millions of people pulled the lever for Bush in 2000 so I've given up trying to understand how people think.

Regardless, I don't really see this as a medical issue, so popular ignorance isn't really a factor for me. It is a moral issue, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what is moral and what is not--regardless of how ignorant they are. Contrary to what I've seen some people here post, the law should reflect the morals of the majority. To say otherwise is to assert that we should have no laws at all and simply leave all moral questions up to the individual. Rambling a bit here I know, but I hope that answers your question.

[noiretextatique]

73. actually...i think you've touched on the crux of the big debate

i see abortion as soley a medical issue and a public health issue. the morality question for me, at least in terms of the public debate is that safe, legal abortion saves women's lives, and there is ample evidence to support that position. women who do not want to be pregnant will go to extraordinary lengths to abort, including endangering their own lives.


as to personal moral concerns, the current law doesn't force anyone to have an abortion.
i can't understand why that isn't enough for those who have moral objections: don't like abortion, don't have one. it couldn't be any simpler.

[lastliberalintexas]

82. Legally, the issue IS when life begins

In the law, *only* a person, born alive, acquires legal rights. A fetus never acquires rights in our legal system. Consequently, THE ONLY relevant issue in abortion discussions is when life begins. THAT is the point at which legally recognized rights attach. Everything else is just a personal, moral, and/or religious issue.

Unless I am remebering this incorrectly, Roe v. Wade did not confer legal rights upon a fetus. IIRC, Roe v. Wade declared that at some point in a pregnancy, the *state* has a compelling interest sufficient to justify regulating that pregnancy. It's been years since I read the opinion, but I don't remember Roe holding that the fetus had rights, just the government. Other than the latest fad legislation (the Laci Peterson law and its ilk), the American legal system has not conferred rights upon the unborn OR the stillborn.

Personally, I don't believe that the government ever has such a compelling interest in what is legally a potential life as to justify withholding rights from the living. You allow for that, and you really do lay the groundwork for Griswold to be overturned.


"To say that a person who believes that abortion is always wrong and a person who believes that 3rd trimester abortions are wrong hold the same position on abortion is ridiculously simplistic."

That isn't what I said. I said that the *reason* each believe that abortion should then be illegal is the same- because they then believe it is a life. They just apply their arbitrary standard at different points in the pregnancy based on their personal beliefs.


"This statement is fallacious because it assumes that all abortions are the same."

All abortions *ARE* the same. Don't let the right wing convince you otherwise. They are medical procedures by which a pregnancy is ended. Different procedures may be used at different points, but the end result is the same. Anything else is sentimentalizing the issue just because the fetus looks better on the ultrasound at 28 weeks that it did at 6.

[kiahzero]

84. False dichotomy

This is why those in the "mushy middle" on either side of this issue are wrong. If you think abortion is wrong and it's murder, it shouldn't matter to you if the woman was raped. It's still murder. Yet if you think that abortion should be legal, then it shouldn't matter whether the pregnancy is terminated at 6 weeks or 36 weeks. Because it's not murder. Two positions, plain and simple.

Nope - if you believe that it goes from potential life to life inbetween 6 weeks and 36 weeks, it is logical to be concerned about abortions at 36 weeks but not at 6 weeks.

[lastliberalintexas]

91. Did you read the rest of my post?

Next 2 sentences: "The problem is that the line between those 2 positions depends on when you think "life" begins, and thus begets what you believe are many, many positions on the issue. But in reality, they are merely many, many variations of the 2."

As I said, the only relevant issue here is when one believes life begins. And as there is not any agreement on that, medically, theologically or otherwise, the legal system treats only a person born alive as a life.

Some say life begins pre-conception, others say implantation; some say fertilization, others say quickening; some say viability, others say post-first trimester; some say live birth. Some agreement there, huh?

[kiahzero]

99. Yes; you contradicted yourself

You said that anyone who didn't hold one of the two most extreme positions was wrong, because ...if you think that abortion should be legal, then it shouldn't matter whether the pregnancy is terminated at 6 weeks or 36 weeks.

I simply pointed out that you had committed the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy by giving an example of a valid position that does not fit into either of the two categories you listed.

[lastliberalintexas]

103. No I didn't

I simply pointed out that the REASON behind the belief means that there really are only 2 positions, with numerous variations of those 2 positions. Where one draws the line depends on where one believes life begins.


Furthermore, it isn't inconsistent to hold that an abortion at 6 weeks is the same as an abortion at 36 weeks. ALL ABORTIONS ARE THE SAME. They are medical procedures by which a pregnancy is terminated. There are various procedures by which this can be accomplished, but the end result is the same- the woman is no longer pregnant. So pray tell, what makes them different?

[kiahzero]

109. Then there are more than two positions, and the dichotomy disappears

Furthermore, it isn't inconsistent to hold that an abortion at 6 weeks is the same as an abortion at 36 weeks. ALL ABORTIONS ARE THE SAME. They are medical procedures by which a pregnancy is terminated. There are various procedures by which this can be accomplished, but the end result is the same- the woman is no longer pregnant. So pray tell, what makes them different?

Now, to answer your question: to the person that defines personhood (a better word than "life" for discussing what we are discussing, since the fetus is biologically alive) somewhere between 6 weeks and 36 weeks, one is ending a pregnancy before it reaches the point that the fetus becomes a person, and the other is infanticide. Yes, the procedure is the same, but the result of that procedure may not be, depending on the outlook of the person in question.

[Cheswick2.0]

168. you can think what ever you want about when life begins

you don't get to think for women however.

[shimmergal]

209. Wrong.

I've had it with all the abortion-debate assertions in terms of "life." And of "when life begins."

LIFE is all around us. Puppies have life. The cockroach scurrying across the floor has life. Even those bacteria we try to knock out with antibiotics have life.

Tadpoles have life, and if nothing happens to disrupt the process, they'll turn into frogs, which also have life. But no one makes the mistake of calling a frog a tadpole.

At least, we need to refer to the debate as one about when "human life" begins.

Why don't we? IMO, it's because then it would be too obvious, from the prenatal developmental curve, that becoming a real, live human being is an incremental process. I think Roe v Wade implicitly recognized this. but the point is too often lost in today's simplified discourse.

[K-W]

212. Umm, that is what the debate is about.

Some people just use life to mean human life, for brevity. For some people become a real live human is not an incremental process. Thats the issue.

[Qutzupalotl]

36. I agreed with everything up to this point:

Like the NRA tells us that any gun law is a slippery slope leading to the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, these people argue that any law that restricts abortion will eventually lead to its complete ban. Like the NRA argument, it is complete bullshit.

Not in this case. The stated agenda of the far right is to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion. Now that the courts are being packed with ideologues, they can make it happen, step-by-step. They're a hell of a lot more organized than we are.

I haven't been to the "gun dungeon" much...but do gun control types really want to repeal the 2nd Amendment? I thought they just wanted a few restrictions, but to keep the 2nd Amendment in place. If that is the case, the comparison is misleading, since the agendas are different.

[Nederland]

44. I guess time will tell

I maintain that there is no way in hell the American people will allow abortion to be banned entirely. Only 18% of the population believe abortion should always be illegal, and that percentage hasn't changed in 30 years. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I believe that if the US adopted European style abortion laws, the so called pro-life movement would be left with as much political clout as the alcohol prohibitionist movement.

[Bunny]

63. Are you a male or a female?

Your profile doesn't indicate which you are.

[noiretextatique]

66. c'mon...who else would start an abortion thread at DU?

:hi:

[Bunny]

68. Yeah, I know.

I just wanted him to admit it. :hi: back at ya!

[Nederland]

69. It doesn't matter

Contrary to the assertion of many DUers, polls show that gender makes virtually no diffence in a person's opinion on this issue.

[Bunny]

70. On the contrary.

It makes a big difference to me. Because if you are a man, you need to STFU and MYOB. If you are a woman, you still need to STFU and MYOB. But men who presume to tell women what they can do with their bodies and their health are stepping way outside their bounds.

When you have a uterus, and miss your first period, get back to me. Then we'll talk.

[Nederland]

72. Then it looks like

...I should STFU and MYOB regardless :)

[Bunny]

74. Well, that's right.

There are already laws on the books that support your position, as many other posters have pointed out. Wanting to restrict it any further is more indicative of your apparent control issues.

Some men just cannot abide a woman exercising her right to sovereignty over her own body.

[Nederland]

81. Response

Why must abortion debates always devolve to this? Why is it that pro-life people will always end up calling people that disagree with them baby-killers? Why is it that pro-choice people will always end up calling people that disagree with them woman haters? Your behavior typifies what I was talking about in the original post.

Let me be clear. Our disagreement is NOT about whether or not you have a right to control your own body. It is NOT about control. Our disagreement is about whether or not we are in fact talking about YOUR body and ONLY your body. You may look at a woman that is seven months pregnant and see only one person and one body. If that is the case, it is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

However, I don't see one person. I see two. I see one with complete and utter control over the fate of the other. If I chose to stand up for the one that has no voice and no power I don't believe that makes me any more or less open minded, liberal or enlightened than you. I don't believe it make me a woman hater and I don't believe it makes you a baby killer. I believe it simply means we disagree on the issue of what rights a fetus has. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not telling you you have to agree with me. Its clear that we disagree on this issue. What I am asking is that you represent my opinion on this matter fairly and accurately. I don't believe that is too much to ask.

[Bunny]

86. If only it were that easy.

It's not simply a question of "let's agree to disagree." You see, if you and I could shake hands and walk away, that'd be fine. But it's folks, who think like you do, that want to take away my right to control my body. You say you only want to be entitled to your own opinion, when in fact you want to increase restrictions on abortion. So it's not just being entitled to your opinion, it's taking away my rights. I think I've represented your position honestly enough.

[noiretextatique]

92. yes, you have represented this position

the issue will always illicit righetous indignation because: it really isn't anyone's business whether you or i have an abortion....end of story.
like the hysteria about gay marriage, which has absolutely no affect on homophobes or moralists, if i have an abortion, my choice will not affect any of the people with moral concerns about abortion or those who are totally opposed to it....or those who seek to control women. truly: it's none of their business.

[Nederland]

116. Question

In the days when slavery was legal in this country, why did the abolitionists feel they had an obligation to help slaves? After all, one could argue it was "none of their business". One could argue that the "choice" of southerns to own slaves would not "affect any of the people with moral concerns" about slavery.

In other words, what is the difference between these two statements:

1) I believe that a slave is not property but has rights of his/her own.

2) I believe that a third term fetus is not part of the woman's body but has rights of his/her own.


From a logical standpoint, the statements are identical. The only difference lies in how an individual feels about the morality of abortion and slavery.

[noiretextatique]

167. easy...slaves were not fetuses

slaves were not a collection of cells...they were actual PEOPLE!!!!!!

1) I believe that a slave is not property but has rights of his/her own.
substitute PERSON or HUMAN for SLAVE...and WALA!!! mnagically...you have your answer.
a 1st trimester fetus is not a person.

2) I believe that a third term fetus is not part of the woman's body but has rights of his/her own.

well...amazingly enough, the current law acknowledges the development of the fetus...so :wtf: is your problem with the current law?

Do the rights of the 3rd term fetus supercede the rights of its host, i.e., the woman who is carrying it, ak, its mother. If continuing the pregnancy to term would endanger the life of the mother...whose "rights" should be condidered to be primary? Should the fetus' right to life supercede the mother's right to life...or vice versa?
Therein lies the problem with the slippery slope some on the pro-life side want by changing the law to limit the rights of women to help, and the limit the medical care available. Should a woman DIE because of "concern" for a fetus who is endangering her life?
I assume you are more reasonable than some of the pro-control fanatics.

[Cheswick2.0]

173. Whoes body were those slaves living at the time?

[noiretextatique]

87. what gives you or anyone the right to "disagree" about her body?

especially since you have no claim to the fetus that resides inside her body?

[Nederland]

110. Roe vs. Wade

Roe vs. Wade makes it clear that in the later stages of pregnancy a fetus has some rights and the state has both the authority and the obligation to protect those rights.

I have to point out that your statement fails to frame the issue correctly. When you ask what gives you or anyone the right to "disagree" about her body? you are assuming that we are talking about "her" body and only "her" body. Thus you are assuming an answer to the very matter that is being debated. The proper way to phrase the question is tho ask what gives me the right to question whether or not a fetus has rights.

The answer is simple: I have the "right" to assert rights for anything I like, and people have the "right" to disagree with me. Perhaps a non-abortion example would help. PETA asserts that animals have certain rights that are being denied them. If the law were to be changed to comply with PETA's assertions, the current owners of animals like cattle would be severely impacted. They would claim that their "right" to do whatever they want with cattle would be infringed by laws that PETA supports. They are absolutely correct--economically they would be severely hurt. Despite this, I don't here anybody claiming that PETA doesn't have the "right" to their express their opinion. People may think their opinions are loony, but I've never heard anyone claim they don't have a "right" to express their opinion on the matter.

[noiretextatique]

113. my question is about ownership

and it's a basic question. if it's not your fetus or your body...why does it concern YOU? i ask this question because i think the authoritarian undertones of this debate aren't aired enough, and i think they are relevant.
as to the human treatment of living beings, i think the prohibitions on third trimester abortions are humane...in the same sense that the ethical treament of animals is humane. i can see why the prohibitions are in place...they relate to viability. which is not an issue in first trimester abortions.
back to atuhoritarianism...what is it about THIS ISSUE that makes people feel they should have some say in what someone else does with her body, and her fetus? i can see why the father might have some concerns, but frankly i don't get why some woman's first trimester abortion in chicago or the phillipines or france or uganda or atlanta...would be any of YOUR business.
sure...you can go on about the morality or lack thereof of her choice (one you will never have to make, btw), but REALLY:
HOW DOES HER CHOICE AFFECT YOUR LIFE? answer: it doesn't.
just as gay marriage will not affect the lives or the marriages of those "opposed" to it.
just as affirmative action probably won't have the slightest impact on all those opposed to it.
and so on...
it seems to me the chief function of wedge issues is to get people all riled up about things that have absolutely nothing to do with them or their lives.

[Nederland]

117. Response

Slave owners of the south might ask the same question. If it's not your slave or your property...why does it concern YOU?

The answer is simple. It concerns me because I chose to care.

[noiretextatique]

120. unless the slave was inside the slaveowners' body

your comparison doesn't make much sense. unless of course you are referring to the unborn as slaves.
if you want to play that card, please tell me why jim crow existed after slavery, and why even some who opposed slavery supported racism? actually the same theme of authoritarianism and privilege explains their moral objection to the thing itself, (slavery) while supporting the general idea of segregation (jim crow). effectively...the same thing was accomplished in that blacks were limited by the system in their ability to function as full citizens.

no one will ever convince me that concern for the unborn is the underlying motivation for this debate, just as concern for slaves was not the underlying motivation for ending slavery (contrary to popular opinion).

the issue again...if it's not your fetus, why is it your concern?

[Nederland]

129. I already answered the question

the issue again...if it's not your fetus, why is it your concern?

I already answered this question. It concerns me because I care about the fetus. Apparently you don't believe me, which is your right. However, the fact that you have admitted to a closed mind on this subject and have stated that "no one will ever convince me that concern for the unborn is the underlying motivation for this debate" means that further words on my part are a waste of my time.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

137. I have an idea.....

The people who "care" should all camp out at the abortion clinics, with legal binding adoption papers in hand and stop all the abortions and raise all those babies. That would solve the whole issue don't you think?

[IdaBriggs]

203. I Wish!

Right now there are THIRTY COUPLES for every infant put up for adoption. If all it took to get a baby was standing at an abortion clinic, the places would be swamped. You are forgetting the hormones that begin smacking the women as birth approaches. The number of potential birth mothers who change their mind (without having to return any of the financial "donations" they receive) is pretty darn high. Sigh. :(

[Nobody]

217. Better yet....

Any woman who wants to adopt an infant can start right away. With implanting the embryo or fetus into her uterus.

That way, everyone is happy. The egg donor would no longer be pregnant and have no risk to her life and the adoptive mommy would have all the experience of being the birth mother also.

[IdaBriggs]

231. Its a little more complicated than that.

Its possible, but challenging. (Infertility Expert Here!)

Cost for an embryo transfer runs between $4-12K (depending where you go). That doesn't include retrieval and/or donor fees. Assuming healthy uterine lining and appropriate hormone levels, frozen transfers have (on average) a 30% success rate. Fresh can go as high as 60-65%. Also, they can't "collect" an embryo from another woman's uterus, but they can collect eggs, mix them with sperm and transfer the embryos (just wanted to clarify). The expense and emotional challenges add up pretty quickly. Did I mention the shots I was taking twice a day, and being on twelve times my normal hormones, and oh by the way, one in five pregnancies in general miscarries, and -- sorry; three miscarriages and six years of trying later.....:( And that assumes you have a healthy, functioning uterus, no undiagnosed thyroid problems, no weird anti-body issues, etc. Shall I discuss the ultrasounds to measure your lining that get done every few days? Or how about the romantic moment when a catheter is inserted through your cervix -- ah, the memories! One in five couples has infertility problems now. Damn you Ronald Reagan! I have NOT forgotten! Bless you, Clinton! Thanks to your kindness, costs dropped from $50K twelve years ago to $18K five years ago to $7K this year! End Rant.

[Nobody]

239. I know the feasibility factor is low

As an avid sci-fi reader, I meant this as a "what if" scenario. But thanks for the facts and figures.

[noiretextatique]

162. why do you care about a fetus that isn't yours? 1st question

2nd question, if it's not your fetus, why should your concern be of more importance than the person who has it in her body?
as to being open-minded: anyone who thinks women can't make their on decisions is someone whose opinion i am neither obligated to respect or entertain. just as i wouldn't respect or entertain the musings of a member of the taliban about why women should wear the burqua.
you started this thread, so if you are too thin-skinned to have your purported concern for fetuses that aren't yours challenged...perhaps you should have thought about that before posting.

[Cheswick2.0]

177. I care about the women you are having sex with...your sperm is a health

hazzard. Sex with unsterilized men is a danger to a woman's life and freedom. One sperm cell gets through and the woman is now risking her life, health and financial future. In fact one could say she is now enslaved. Unless society agrees she must carry that child and either give it up (making her and incubator for rich people) or she must spend the rest of her life taking care of it.

When can we expect you to get that vasectomy?

[Cheswick2.0]

174. Have you had a vasectomy yet?

I am very concerned about the women you might be impregnating because I care.

[lastliberalintexas]

90. But, in post 56

you said that the issue was not about when life begins. :shrug:


"I believe it simply means we disagree on the issue of what rights a fetus has. Nothing more, nothing less."

And again, a fetus typically does not have rights in the American legal system. A woman who miscarries as a result of a car wreck can sue for damages to her own body for the miscarriage, but can not sue for the wrongful "death" of the fetus. What you are really saying (at least legally) is that you disagree on when life begins.

[Nederland]

112. No

First of all, the fetus does have rights in the American legal system. Roe vs. Wade grants it rights and grants the state the authority to protect those rights.

My insistence that the question should focus on rights is a practical one. The question of when life begins is a quasi-religious one and one that many would say cannot be resolved by the state. The issue of when a fetus acquires rights however, is by definition a state issue. People can argue all day about whether or the government should define when life begins, but nobody can deny that the state should define who has rights and what those rights are. Certainly it is the opinion of many people that the fetus acquires rights at the same moment it becomes "alive", but the real legal issue surrounds rights. For example, the debate about slavery didn't revolve around whether or not slaves were alive, it was a debate over whether or not they had rights. Likewise, debates between PETA and cattle owners do not revolve around whether or not cattle are alive, but what rights they have.

[lastliberalintexas]

115. What rights does a fetus have in our system?

English common law only recognized rights of those persons who were born alive- not the unborn or the stillborn. Only recently have the right to lifers tried to change this by amending penal codes, etc. That is why an individual could not traditionally be charged with 2 murders for the slaying of a pregnant woman, but why Peterson could be (CA had adopted some Unborn Protection Act or whatever it was called).

[Nederland]

119. Text of Roe vs. Wade

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149 , that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.


http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=!28!7C!29/doc/{@54602}/hit_headings/words=4?

[lastliberalintexas]

122. Nope

Nothing in the passage you quoted purports to grant legal rights to a fetus or holds that those rights already existed pre-Roe. In fact, everything you've quoted backs up my claim (from my hazy memory unfortunately) that the Court merely held that pregnancies could be regulated because of compelling interests of the STATE.

It was made very clear in my first year tort class that the unborn and/or stillborn do not have rights at common law. And nothing you've presented makes me believe otherwise.

[Nederland]

128. Read the ruling

I think you'll see that the court considered a large body of pre-Roe law, some of which distinguished fetal rights based upon whether or not the fetus was "quick".

[Nederland]

130. Here you go

Roe vs. Wade, Section VI, Part 4

England's first criminal abortion statute, Lord Ellenborough's Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, came in 1803. It made abortion of a quick fetus, 1, a capital crime, but in 2 it provided lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening, and thus preserved the "quickening" distinction. This contrast was continued in the general revision of 1828, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, 13. It disappeared, however, together with the death penalty, in 1837, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85. 6, and did not reappear in the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, 59, that formed the core of English anti-abortion law until the liberalizing reforms of 1967. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 34, came into being. Its emphasis was upon the destruction of "the life of a child capable of being born alive." It made a willful act performed with the necessary intent a felony. It contained a proviso that one was not to be <410 U.S. 113, 137> found guilty of the offense "unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."


Hope that helps.

[lastliberalintexas]

133. No, it doesn't help

Your posts have been disengenuous at best. You've provided no cite whatsoever to prove that the Court in Roe held that the *fetus* has legally recognizable rights, as you've claimed.

[Nederland]

176. I guess you read it differently

To me, when the court says that the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, that means the fetus has rights. In any case, what is completely clear is that the court ruled that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy diminishes over time. Whether you believe that the reason for this is because the fetus acquires rights or the state acquires an interest in protecting the fetus is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court recognizes that a woman's right to privacy is not absolute and abortion can be prohibited in the third term.

[lastliberalintexas]

191. No, you read it *incorrectly*, not differently

That is NOT the correct way to read a court ruling. What the court said is that the state has a compelling interest to interfere with my personal life. I disagree with that holding, but I can concede that's what was ruled. The state having a compelling interest does not mean that the fetus has rights or that Mount Zion Baptist Church has the right to prevent me from having an abortion. It means, very plainly, that the STATE has that interest. You can't extrapolate and carry that interest to anyone else. But I think you probably already know that, and know that you can't provide anything to back up your assertion that a fetus has rights in our legal system. Because it doesn't.

What you believe is that a fetus becomes a life at some point. Fine, don't have an abortion after that point. You personally. But quit acting like you're a God who can make that decision for anyone else.

[Nederland]

192. I think your missing the point

I am not claiming the right to personally prevent you from having an abortion. I am suggesting that it be a good idea for the state to pass a law that would restrict your right to abortion in the third term of pregnancy. As you have already conceded, such a law would be completely Constitutional and consistent with Roe vs. Wade.

[lastliberalintexas]

194. Bullshit- I conceded no such thing

I said that the Roe opinion holds that a state has an interest in the REGULATION of pregnancies once the 2d and 3d trimesters are reached. The Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals have ruled in numerous cases that those regulations must serve a compelling interest of the state, should be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, and generally can not be so burdensome as to outlaw abortion.

In fact, I can't think of a single court case which upheld a statute which attempted to actually criminlaize the abortion procedure, even at points in the 3d trimester. Please correct me if I am wrong here (with citations, of course).


"I am suggesting that it be a good idea for the state to pass a law that would restrict your right to abortion in the third term of pregnancy."

I am suggesting that it be a good idea for the state to pass a law that would force you to undergo a risky surgical procedure and then adopt a newborn and be forced to raise it.

Same concept, it's just the closest that I can come to creating a law to force a man to face the risks inherent in even a healthy pregnancy (the surgical procedure) and then face the daunting task of raising a born alive child (the adoption). When you support such a law to be imposed on men, get back to me.

[Nederland]

200. Then you are wrong

Roe vs. Wade explicitedly states that the government may prohibit abortion in the third trimester.


a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.


http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

[Cheswick2.0]

172. Why can't you understand the MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF ALL

What some woman does with her body is none of your business. Why do you need to control the issue?

[IdaBriggs]

204. Perhaps from this angle ...

(assuming you want a serious answer):

Do you believe pregnant women have the 'right' to abuse alcohol or cocaine in excessive amounts while pregnant, even if they 'know' the children they will give birth to will be damaged as a result?

Technically, its no one's business but hers (until the child is born and the state has to help take care of it because of the birth defects), but one could make an argument that she is intentionally inflicting harm on another. Of course, if she terminates the pregnancy before giving birth, that would end that discussion, wouldn't it? :)

You said earlier "your rights stop where mine begin." I guess the question is "where do the fetus's rights begin?" Personally, I think when the baby can survive outside of the mother's womb may be a reasonable cut-off...?

[Mandate My Ass]

208. Yes she does have that right

It's not a moral or responsible position to take but yes, she does have that right.

Since cocaine is illegal, she faces arrest if caught and she will suffer legal repercussions.

You can make all the arguments you want about whether it's intentional infliction of harm on another to abuse alcohol while pregnant, but that doesn't change the fact that it is her right.

[IdaBriggs]

235. Upon consideration...

...I am willing to give her that right, as long as we can take the baby away from her at birth if she has intentionally caused problems with illegal drugs and/or alcohol abuse. That way when she continues to exercise poor parental judgment, she is not damaging an innocent child any further. Oh, and we get to charge her "child support" so the taxpayers aren't funding the consequences of her "on purpose." Is that a reasonable compromise? :)

[Cheswick2.0]

170. He is male

I love it when men negotiate the rights of women because they are concerned with being unable to elect more men who don't want to have to stick up for womens rights during an election.

[Qutzupalotl]

76. I agree they couldn't keep it illegal for long.

But they could make it illegal for a few years until the people can revolt. That could be devastating to women who get into "trouble."

And who knows, with the media under their belt, the right could sway public opinion their way.

I realize I sound paranoid, but I think these people give me good reason to be wary.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Qutzupalotl]

142. It matters if they are able to do it.

They're only one Supreme Court Justice away from a major assault.

It's not meant to be an argument, but a warning.

[rowire]

48. Good Analysis But .......

Your analysis of this combustible topic was good, but many of my friends are in the unbending "pro-life" camp and explain their position as thus:

1) We don't know when life begins.

2) If you weren't sure someone was dead, would you risk burying them.

3) Why then should we risk aborting a fetus if we don't know for sure it is not a living being.

That being said, I agree with you that their position will ultimately fail under continued scientific advances. There will be a time that the scientific community can, utilizing certain ascertainable factors, make a definite determination of when a fetus is "living" and thus when life begins. At that time, those who oppose a woman's right to choose due to these uncertainties will have no basis for opposing the woman's right to choose termination of the pregancy. There will be proof that the fetus is not living. To be consistent, they would have to oppose any operation that removes any portion of a person's body whether it be a tumor or a tooth.

This is not so different from the "viability" test applied in Roe except that Roe equates "life" with viability and says that there is no compelling governmental interest in prohibiting abortion prior to viability. In fact, the test should actually be that the government has no compelling interest in limiting abortions prior to a definite determination that the fetus is actually a living human being.

Okay, flame away.

[knitter4democracy]

79. Scientists still use viability and most likely always will

The implanted zygote has the potential to develop into a viable human being, given the right circumstances. I really doubt scientists will try to figure out when a fetus is alive because they already say that it's alive from implantation (at least, that's what my husband was taught in med school and what all his medical literature says that I've read). There's a big difference between a tumor (something growing where it's not supposed to in ways its not supposed to that, if left to grow, will ultimately kill the person it's in) and a fetus (a separate person, DNA-wise, growing where it's supposed to in ways it's supposed to that, if left to grow, will ultimately leave the person it's in).

Viability is the best test we have now, and it's getting earlier all the time. If someone has a late term abortion and kills a viable infant, it's infanticide, which in some societies is not considered the crime it is here. If it's not viable (no brain, no heart, stuff like that), then it would've been a stillbirth, which is too much to ask any woman to go through just to prove viability.

The best thing, imho, is to get the government out of it and leave it to the woman to decide, since it's her personal space. Once the baby's viable, I would hope she would make the decision not to kill but to put the baby up for adoption, but I cannot force her to do anything.

That would be the grey area . . .

[Zero Division]

85. That's odd

So for your pro-life friends, the fact that we don't know when life begins (or at least we can't come to an easy consensus on the issue) results in their belief that we shouldn't risk aborting a fetus.

Part of the reason I became pro-choice after being raised as a rabid pro-lifer (anti-choicer) is that I came to believe that no one could make such a decision for a woman if we can't even agree on when or if a fetus should be considered and granted full individual rights.

The comparison to not burying someone that's hasn't been confirmed as dead is not a good analogy, because we know that that person was alive as a conscious individual at one point. That which we know about the dead person is what we cannot agree upon about the fetus.

[Nobody]

218. No flame, but a smartass idea

Send your prolife friends a card nine months before their birthday congratulating them for being another year older.

Welcome to DU. I'm just curious to know if anyone does celebrate "Conception Day". If they do, I'm sure Hallmark has a card for just that occasion.

[K-W]

78. I'm tired of arrogant abortion posts.

"They are both wrong" Oh gee, thanks for telling everyone what right or wrong is. You are just giving what you see as the truth, as if it were some objective fact, which it can never be.

The issue is, when does human life begin. Or, when does a human life earn all the rights of a born child.

You can place the location in any number of places, none of them are right or wrong by any objective standpoint. And America can't compromise because we cant agree on this one basic fact.

It seems you, like everyone in this debate thinks your common sense has given you the truth, that is just as arrogant as the ardent pro-lifer or pro-choiser that thinks thier common sense has given them the truth.

[Cheswick2.0]

187. What is it with you and "arrogant abortion posts"?

What is the real problem for you in this debate. You accuse both sides of being arrogant and seem incapable of stating your own position. Why are you so emotionally tied up in HOW someone discusses this issue and yet you can't seem to commit to a postition of your own?
What stake to you have in this debate?

[K-W]

198. arrogant abortion posts are irritating, you dont agree?

Each of these posts is the same. Somebody who thinks they have the right answer explaining how obvious it is that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

All this in a topic that has no right or wrong answers. It is arrogant, and it is irritating.

This particular post bothered me because it pretended it was some kind of middle of the road, between the extremes opinion, when it was just another personal opinion on where exactly life begins.

I am non-spiritual. I am not concerned myself with where life begins, I dont really believe, in a sense, that life ever begins. I think Human Rights are a construct of society, a good construct, but a construct just the same, and thus we can apply them to whomever we want. For me, birth or viability seem like good places, because the overall best interests of society are served by allowing women domain over thier bodies.

[kiahzero]

80. The pictures aren't important

Far more important is the research which seems to demonstrate that a fetus at 32 weeks is significantly indistinguishable from an infant at the time of birth.

You are correct on the "slippery slope" business. "Slippery slopes" ARE, and ALWAYS WILL BE logical fallacies. They are a misuse of the -> operator, and a misuse of inductive logic.

[noiretextatique]

89. the issue is, has been and will always be: woman

because if men could get pregnant...we would not be having this debate.
the issue is: are woman to be trusted to make THIS moral decision, or do they need the stern hand of the state to guide and protect them because of the possible life they carry? and...does that possible life have "rights" (which are granted by the state) that supercede the rights of its host.
the answer is: women are capable of making complex moral decisions...we make them everyday, just like men do. so, thank you politicians, religionists, and moralists...we don't need your advice or input for this decision...or any other decision. the answer is: woman has control over her body, and its contents, just like men...what a f'ng concept :wow:

[K-W]

93. Sorry, that isnt the issue.

While you may be right that if men could bear children this wouldnt be an issue, that isnt why people today think what they think.

The issue of when life begins and when the right to protection by law begins is an issue with no logical or objecitive answer.

Sure, maybe no one would believe it began before birth if men could bear children, but they cant and people do believe that.

It isnt about women making the moral decision. If choosing to abort a fetus is in fact the killing of a human being with full rights, it would in fact be murder. We dont let anyone choose whether murder is morally right for them. Your argument isnt good.

[noiretextatique]

96. of course that's what the entire debate is about

and it's foolish to assume otherwise.
no one knows when life begins...and i can assure you the religionists aligned on this issue aren't insterested in scientific input on the subject, unless of course it coincides with their otherwise magical views.
the issue here is plain: are the lives of actual women less valuable than those of a collection of cells with the potential to form into a human being? we know for a fact that safe, legal abortion saves viable, adult female lives, but none of us can know if any fetus will actually develop into a viable baby.
your argument isn't an argument...it's your version of morality.

[K-W]

125. Did you read my post?

I am not moralizing at all. You are very mistaken, I made no moral claim at all, I was simply pointing out the flaws in the previous post.

Your problem is that science cant answer this question. For you viability is a line in the sand. Which is fine, but science cant define when life begins. It can define viability, but it cant claim metaphysically when life begins and that is the issue.

This is a discussion of metaphysics. What is the exact moment that the potential human being becomes a human being with all the natural/civil/human rights therein.

For you this appears to be viability. For some it is conception. Science doesnt make any claims about the answer to this question, science has no input for the religious person.

You just have to deal with the fact that there is no 'right' answer to the question of when life begins. I suppose the only right answer is that these are all destinctions we impose on the natural world. And where we impose them is in some sense arbitrary.

[noiretextatique]

169. i don't have to deal with anything...except

the movements that attempts to limit a woman's ability to control her own body claim to do so because of:

metaphysics
morality
religion
politics
ethics
science
etc...

i agree with you that a meta phenomenon underlies this entire debate...we just disagree as to which one.
for you, it is apparently metphysics. i believe it's more related to beliefs about women in general.
but i can understand why people don't like the suggestion.

[K-W]

201. I still dont think you understand what im saying.

Yes, if it werent solely a womans issue, it would most certainly be treated differently. Of course. This is because men would have changed the ideologies so that we did not have any belief structures that would suggest society should have domain over fetuses.

Also, the issue of pro-life is used in a culture war against women. It is part of an overall philosophy that women should be baby machines and domestic servents.

Those are both true, but you are extending it to something that is utterly false. You are suggesting that people who say they believe that life begins at conception are lying. Are these people being manipulated by politicians and spiritual leaders, you bet ya. Are thier beliefs based on somewhat arbitrary readings of holy books, yep. Do thier beliefs have any basis in science, nope.

But regardless of those things, they believe, in earnest, that abortion is murder. No different than an adult killing an adult. And any argument about abortion that doesnt aknowledge that they in fact believe that, and you cant disprove it, is arrogant and wrong.

Certainly there are people that are using those people politically to accomplish other things, and certainly those people wouldnt think that way if they werent fed certain ideologies, but that doesnt change the fact that they do in earnest believe it.

It makes intuitive sense to them that even the one fertilized cell is going to grow into a person, just as a child grows into an adult. And therefore it is a person, just like a child is a person. And thus killing that person is murder.

Their argument is logically sound. And I am sick of pro-choice people pretending it isnt. I dont agree with them, you dont agree with them, but show them some respect. For them, an abortion is the same as shooting an Iraqi. It is the loss of a human life. Just because you dont agree does not give you the right to pretend that thier opinion isnt just as valid as yours.

[Mandate My Ass]

206. It may be logically sound

to believe life begins at conception, but people think holding that belief should allow them to make painful, personal and permanently life-altering decisions for others without any responsibility whatsoever even if the outcome is extraordinarily negative.

That is not evidence of respect for life. It is exalting the unborn over the born.

[noiretextatique]

214. logically sound: FOR THEM

please tell me why anyone's "beliefs" should determine options for other people regarding THEIR HEALTHCARE, THEIR BODIES AND THEIR LIVES, especially if those other people don't share those "beliefs."
believing that your deeply held feelings about when life begins SHOULD have some bearing on whether or not *I* have an abortion is not a postion i need to respect or entertain. while i certainly understand why those deeply held beliefs govern YOUR behavior, i do not understand why you think those beliefs SHOULD govern MY behavior, choices, and option regarding my body and my healthcare. that's what i call ARROGANCE.
so...to all those who believe life begins as soon as the sperm meets the egg: please don't have abortions. end of story...end of "debate."
the problem, of course, is the authoritarism inherent in these beliefs on the so-called pro-life side, which___for the most___are not grounded in science, but in religious beliefs. and of course, the more authoritarian the religious beliefs, *coincidentally* the more misogynistic those belief systems tend to be...those that seek control and dominance over women. again...this is probably purely coincidental.
i continue to state: this kind of religious arrogance and authoritarism is at the root of the pro-life movement.
that is not to say that all those who seek to control abortion are motivated by misogyny, as you mentioned, a few aren't. there are some people here at DU who've expressed pro-life position that aren't inherently misogynisitic. however...i stand by my assertion that the movement, and its motivations are essentially:
authoritarian and misogynisitic, no matter how fancy the words are dressed up in science, etc.
so, no...i am not misunderstanding you at all.
your argument is tantamount to asking black people to accept the deeply held beliefs of white supremacists about their essential lack of humanity as understandable and reasonable. there is probably some science white supremacists can drag out to support their beliefs, and no doubt some religion as well. still, as a black person, i would never "accept" their beliefs are worthy of discussion, or even particularly rational, because to do so would not be "debate"...it would be acquiesence. and so it goes with this debate. who is the final arbiter of woman...and her body? from my view, it can only be woman...not science, not politics, and not religion.

[K-W]

219. I guess it makes it easier for you to demonize your opponants.

But you have no idea what you are talking about.

Logic is logic. It isnt sound for some people and not others, it is either sound, or it is not.

IF you believe that at conception a unique human being, given natural rights by god comes into exsitance. Then it is perfectly rational and logical to view the terminating of a pregnancy as murder. And if it is murder, it is NOT an issue of a woman's rights.

Your entire argument hinges on an assumption you make, that a fetus doesnt have rights. Which is fine, I agree, but if I didnt agree I would rightly laught at your argument. If a fetus has rights your entire argument is moot.

You dont get to choose when other humans live or die. You just dont. Whether they are in your house or in your womb, you dont get to choose that under any interpretation of the law or of morality.

Meanwhile you bring up science, science has NOTHING to do with this discussion. Science cant tell us when something earns rights. That is a question completely seperate from science.

You need to accept the fact that while they participate in a mysogonistic tradition, the specific logic behind pro-life is not particularly mysoginistic. You are creating a straw man and being horribly unfair to people who differ from you in fundemental matters of faith. You dont think a fetus has rights, some people do, and you cant argue with that, you simply cant. There is nothing to argue.

If there are two people involved in your equation, your argument makes no sense.

[noiretextatique]

243. as i mentioned, i don't need to "accept" anything

and again...it's pure arrogance to continue to insist that i do. abortion is legal...which means it's not "murder"...no matter which magical entity or metafantasy tells you that it is. which brings us back to this simple point: your "beliefs" govern your behavior, my "beliefs" govern my behavior...i know that's difficult for you to comprehend, but that's the reality. as long as i am acting with the exiting legal consensus...which is that abortion is not murder, regardless of your "beliefs," i would not be comitting "murder" by having an abortion...regardless of how YOU feel about it. i suggest you refrain from having an abortion so as not to upset your moral/metaphysical balance...frankly, i could care less what you think of my choices.
again...yours and others "beliefs" on this issue would not be of importance to me...why should they be? you have nothing to do with MY life, and would have nothing to do with any child i did or did not decide to bring into this world. again...to insist that you do is pure arrogance, or the auhoritarian variety exhibited by many who don't seem to know where their bodies end and women's begin. I don't know what you call that, but feminist scholars call it misogyny, and of course, it's at the root of the "debate". in fact, it's self-evident in every thread here, including this one.
if there were "two people" involved in the equation, my argument wouldn't make any sense, but since a fetus is not a PERSON...well, i hope you can grasp the logical conclusion.
and didn't YOU bring up "science" in the first place? that was before metaphysics...now you're back to moralizing.
for one who detests arrogant abortion posts, you sure seem to post a lot of them. for example, your use of the term "murder"...is that "demonizing," or do you exempt yourself from your judgements? hint: neither you or the person who started this thread are as "neutral" and "moderate" as you cast yourself, and neither of you are fooling anyone by pretending that you are.

[Cheswick2.0]

179. It is amazing how you know what all people think........lol

After a child is born it is alive and if you kill it then you have commited murder. Until then MYOB

[K-W]

221. That is YOUR opinion.

Some people have different opinions.

What part of this are you having trouble understanding. There is no scientific right or wrong here. So it is completely and totally an issue of opinion.

Apparently you think that you have some special magical ability to have the 'right' opinion. Good for you, I call that arrogance. You dont think a fetus has rights, some people do, and they are no more objectively right than you are.

[Cheswick2.0]

222. You are totally confused

What part of YOU DON'T HAVE A SAY ABOUT MY LIFE AND MY BODY AND IF YOU THINK YOU DO I WILL STOP YOU, don't you understand?
Don't you get it yet, women are NOT going to go back to a time where they were slaves of the state forced to carry unwanted pregnancies. Women who do not control their reproductive live can not control the rest of their life or their finacial future. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks except the woman involved and anyone who disagrees is a fascist.

[K-W]

224. What exactly am I confused about?

You are making an assumption. That assumption is that a fetus has no rights. Yes, if a fetus has no rights, than nobody has any right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

But if a fetus has rights, then you are completely and totally wrong. If a fetus has rights than this is the same as any interaction between two people with rights. And the state has every right in the world to be involved.

So you can throw around the word facist all you want, you are either intentionally, or emotionally ignorant of your opposition, and that is never a very smart tactic.

The issue of importance in this debate is where we apply human rights. There is nothing facist about thinking people shouldnt be allowed to kill other people.

[Jax]

105. thanks noiretblu

as usual you are spot on.

Jax

[sendero]

95. Well said...

.... and I agree completely.

[Cheswick2.0]

180. lovely.... another person with a penis who wants to renegotiate my

right to control my life.

[liontamer]

97. I'm pro-abortion

I don't think unwanted children should ever have to be born. Nor do I think a lot of people who think they want children should be encouraged to do so. Given the option, I would encourage a pregnant homeless drug using teenager to have an abortion, even if she "wants a baby to have someone to love".

[Worthless Teen]

98. I've been raised in a really conservative family...

...so I'm sort of against abortion, but for somewhat different reasons. In today's society, I think it is too often used as a means to facilitate irresponsible sex, but in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life, then I think it should certainly be a option.

[lastliberalintexas]

101. Why do you consider yourself against abortion?

What is your reason or are your reasons? I'm not trying to flame you here, I'm just asking.

The reason I'm curious, is that people say this kind of thing all the time, but have never really put much thought into that position. After all, if the fetus is a life, isn't it a life regardless of whether the woman was raped? Does the rape/incest trump the fact that otherwise you would believe it's murder (if you are against abortion because it's a life)?


Welcome to DU Teen. :hi:

[Worthless Teen]

104. I think it's a way to protect sexual irresponsibility...

...but if a woman is raped then that certainly isn't by her choice and I think we as a society would do that woman a great disservice to make her go through with having a child if that is against her wish.

[lastliberalintexas]

108. So someone who has behaved

"irresponsibly" should then be forced to become a parent? Since your nick is Teen, I assume you are very young and have no idea just how hard it is to be a parent. It isn't something that should be forced upon anyone who is the slightest bit unwilling, because once you give birth, you are committed 24/7/365 to that child. It's the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, and I can't imagine having to do it alone, with no support from the father/sperm donor, and/or at a young age.

I'll also try to give you some slack, since you are apparently young, but your posts are very thick with mysogonistic and Puritanical overtones- the whore/pure woman dichotomy is very telling.

And better sex education and making birth control more affordable and available would prevent many unwanted and unintended pregnancies. Are you also against contraception?

[Worthless Teen]

118. So,

One person should be denied the right to life just because of someone else's irresponsibility? I'm not against birth control- as a matter of fact, I'm all for it. Same with sex ed. But once you conceive a child, I don't think it's your right to destroy it. If you don't want to raise a child, then you can always put them up for adoption.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to look up "mysogonistic" in the dictionary. :)

[lastliberalintexas]

124. I guess that's where I get confused

"One person should be denied the right to life just because of someone else's irresponsibility?"

If you believe the fetus is a life or a person, then why isn't it *always* a life or a person? Since you apparently believe it is a life/person, why is it ok to murder the fetus if it is the result of a rape, but not the result of consensual sex?

One person should be denied the right to life just because of someone else's criminal behavior?


I think you'll like it here. :-)

[Worthless Teen]

136. Grrrrr...

I hate people that make me think!

Well, I think for the most part that life begins at conception, and thus abortion is wrong. However, I think that as a society we are doing a woman a great injustice if we punish her for getting raped by making her carry out a 9 month pregnancy...if that is against her wish. I think she should be encouraged and rewarded if she decides to have the child, keep it, or put it up for adoption, but I think she should have the option of abortion in such an extreme case.

[Cheswick2.0]

183. so you are saying that a life should be murdered because it's father is

a criminal? How about after birth? Wouldn't it be unfair to force a woman to raise a child of someone who after the birth beat the crap out of her on a daily basis?

[U4ikLefty]

126. While you're at it look up "judgemental" in the dictionary

:)

[lastliberalintexas]

134. Well then let me add fuel to that fire

by also showing that, in addition to being judgmental, I am also the original Grammar and Spelling Nazi. Judgmental only has one e. :)

[Cheswick2.0]

184. you just lost

spelling corrections are a sign that you concede defeat.

[lastliberalintexas]

189. wrong place

[Cheswick2.0]

193. .

[LeftyLou]

175. pro choice adoptee says.......

It just isn't that simple. Any decision made concerning an unplanned pregnancy has long term ramifications. Adoptees don't just go away. Putting a child up for adoption can have as many effects as that of having an abortion.

Here are a couple of links, educate yourself.

http://www.bastards.org/

http://forums.adoption.com/f29.html

[Cheswick2.0]

182. so women should be punished for the rest of their life for irresponsible

sex? Isn't that a little harsh?

[Cheswick2.0]

181. think again

All women who have abortions have reasons just as valid as any other woman. What you are doing is moralizing.

Do you know that pro-life women have abortions too? Yup, but they think their reasons are responsible ones so surely God will forgive them. They know that they are not like all those other women in the waiting room who were simply screwing around irresponsibly and got caught.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrispyQ]

123. Self deleted . . .

Probably not the right place for this rant.

[Zomby Woof]

138. I bet you're a guy

And after we just flushed out a couple of abortion threads last week, so we REALLY need this kind of disruption?

My position is outside of your lame rubric. I believe abortions should be retroactive, starting with people who stir up shit on DU with the phony abortion debates.

[Djinn]

140. he he he

every time I see a sprog wearing an "I'm glad my mummy didn't have an abortion" t-shirt (not that often but occasionally the fairly marginalised pro-lifers in Oz stage a pathetic rally) I can't help but think - yeah but I wish HER mother did! :evilgrin:

I don't know when life starts, I don't know if anyone can define what we mean by "life" and frankly I don't care - all I know is that women in the position of considering abortion are most definetly alive. If we restrict their ability to have an abortion many will have one anyway.

Abortion might be off putting to some people, I wonder how they'd feel about watching a woman bleed to death or die of an infection from an illegal abortion.

Outlawing or restricting abortion will not stop them happening it'll just stop them happening safely. Personally I'll defend the lives of those who I can be sure are actually living.

[Cheswick2.0]

185. to be really honest I don't give a damn when life begins

because I care more about grown women and teen age girls than I do about the unborn.

[Worthless Teen]

171. Way to continue in the theme of intelligent debate...

...by advocating killing me.

[slinkerwink]

202. c'mon....

Late term abortion is already banned, and abortion is only allowed in the first trimester which means that a woman can get an abortion within three months. It isn't simple to peg women as being "sexually irresponsible" with mitigating factors taken into equation.

For instance we have a college student who takes every precaution not to get pregnant, by using a condom, but the condom breaks during sex and she gets pregnant. Would you condemn her to a nine month pregnancy?

Most women do not use abortion as a form of birth control. They use abortion as a last resort when their birth control fails or when they are victims of rape. That is why abortion in the first trimester cannot be outlawed.

[IdaBriggs]

207. Is it really a disruption?

I think its an interesting discussion, and I bet if we could figure out a reasonable answer the pro-lifers could live with, we'd knock 30% of Bush's base away from him, easy. :)

[Cleita]

211. Not true.

There are no pro-lifers, only anti-abortionists. Pro-lifers would honor all life, not just a little mass of cells in a woman's womb. It goes back to the Middle Ages when male doctors, who were also clergy back then, condemned the mid-wives who performed abortions and prepared contraceptive herbs, as witches and thereby took over their area of expertise. Forcing women to complete every pregnancy made more Christians for the church. This is the reason, birth control and abortion became forbidden. Since the male clergy didn't have to endure pregnancy and childbirth, there was no thought as to what they were doing to the health of the women.

[knitter4democracy]

229. Not really

I seriously question that argument. In the Middle Ages, the male doctors weren't clergy, as priests and other male clergy members weren't allowed to draw blood and then couldn't be blood-letters or surgeons.

The issue wasn't making more Christians for the Church (not in anything I've read or studied anyway), it was what Jesus said: Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:14). It wasn't about numbers as much as it was an issue of faith.

In the Western Church, as in the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day, clergy could be married up until about the 1300's or so and often witnessed their loved ones die in childbirth, so your argument about not caring for the health of the women doesn't make sense to me. Not only that, but it is the priest's job to be concerned for the spiritual well-being of his flock, not to mention the reverence for Mary, the Mother of God, would make a good priest very concerned about pregnancy and childbirth.

And I am sick of people asserting that pro-lifers are not pro-life. All the ones I know are against assisted suicide, work in pregnancy centers for free to help counsel women in need, donate regularly to women's shelters and mother's shelters (for women who don't feel safe at home during pregnancy or were kicked out of their homes for getting pregnant), and yes, some even go out of their way to adopt or set up adoption networks. I only knew one person who actually picketed an abortion clinic in college, and everyone I knew was embarrassed about even knowing him. Many also work hard for human rights for people of all backgrounds and needs. Just because that doesn't fit your pre-conceived idea doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Note: Yes, I'm pro-choice legally. I believe that it is not the government's (or my) business to tell a woman what to do in such a difficult time in her life. However, I am pro-life personally. If a friend or family member came to me in need, hell yeah, I would adopt the baby if she would consent to carrying it to term. I still grieve for the 14 y.o. I knew who was forced to get an abortion by her mother (yes, our school notified the authorities about the abuse) against her will, and there were several teachers who would've helped that girl out and adopted her and/or her child if only we'd known before it was too late.

[Mandate My Ass]

230. Do you have any idea of the dangers of a 14-yr-old

carrying a pregnancy to term? ANY?

Can you even contemplate that the girl's mother was protecting her child from carrying such a high-risk pregnancy to term?

Good grief. The fetus evidently must be exalted above the living being who must be forced to bear it despite the risks to her own fragile health.

[IdaBriggs]

234. It probably depends on the development of the person.

Physically and emotionally. A good friend of mine was "forced" to get an abortion against her will at age 15; she has NEVER forgiven her mother for it. And not all women would put their own health above that of their children. Some do, of course. Some don't. Another friend (who just gave birth a few months ago) nearly died while in labor; she kept telling the doctors not to worry about her, just save her baby. I'd like to believe I would act the same. Exalt away. :)

[Cleita]

238. Really!

How terrible that mommie dearest "forced" her to get an abortion. Of course you haven't mentioned the number of teenage preggos who were "forced" to marry the boy who got them pregnant, sometimes one who was even a rapist, condemning both of them to a life of poverty on often her to the life of a batttered woman. Or, the number of teenage preggos, who were sent to unwed mother's homes and forced to give up their babies for adoption, not even allowing them to see the baby when it was born? Oh, it was for their own good, they said.

You see, it really is a matter of choice, isn't It?

[knitter4democracy]

240. I didn't tell the whole story

The girl wanted to give the baby up for adoption. Yes, I know the dangers to a 14 y.o. (I helped my husband study through med school and residency and read all his journals, so I have a bit of an idea of the dangers, not to mention both of my pregnancies); however, that said, she was in good shape and health and had a decent chance.

Her mother wouldn't allow the doctor to use any painkillers or anesthetic, so it took four people to hold her down. When she started sobbing afterwards, the doctor took one look at her and ran out of the room. The nurses asked her what the problem was (gee, I think four of them holding her down would've been a clue), and she told them that she hadn't wanted to do it. What did they do? Walked out too.

Her mother saw that the doctor wanted to put her on the pill (to help her body transition out of the pregnancy), and she threw the prescription away because she didn't want her daughter on birth control--it would only encourage her to keep having sex with her boyfriend, whom the mother had prohibited her from seeing! After they got home, the mother had a friend with a newborn move into her house, and the two women made the 14 y.o. care for the baby day and night and do all the cooking and cleaning for the household to "teach her a lesson" about keeping the baby (something she hadn't wanted to do anyway) for months. It was from this friend that the girl learned that she had been an unwanted child that her mother had decided not to abort when she was a teenager, and that supposedly explained her mother's behavior.

To force a child to get an abortion is just as bad as forcing her to carry the child. Even at 14, it's her body and her choice. Her mother threatened to kick her out on the street, and at 14, she didn't think she had any other option. When she finally confided in her English teacher after breaking down in class a month afterward, what could she do but report it as abuse? That teacher was across the hall from me and told me the whole story that day to ask me what I would do if she were my student. I told her to report it to the administration and let them decide how best to help the girl and then to make sure that she was available to help the girl whenever she needed to talk.

Yes, women have been forced to carry babies they didn't want, sent to "mother's homes" and then forced to give the baby up for closed adoptions, and all sorts of horrors. Women have also been forced to get abortions they don't want, and isn't that just as bad? Or are you so tied to your beliefs that you can justify any abortion, even an unwanted one? Sometimes it isn't the mother's choice these days, and we need to acknowledge that too.

[IdaBriggs]

236. Well said! n/t

[Cleita]

237. Here's some websites you and Ida Briggs might want to read.

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0856467.html

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/13_2%20Birth%20Control%20in%20Antiquity.htm

http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/body/religion_and_abortion_3.html

Other than this, I refuse to be part of this bullshit attempt to introduce wedge issues before an election. Oh, also by clerics, I meant, and you know, that there are various orders to entering the priesthood hence the phrase Holy Orders. To attend a medieval university one had to take orders up to the level of cleric. It didn't mean you were a priest, but you were very much involved with the Church.

I hope that you remain pro-choice because women were not meant to be enslaved by childbearing. This is why the divinity in it's female person (The Holy Spirit or Wisdom) provided women the means to control her fertility.

[knitter4democracy]

241. Thank you for those links

They were pretty much what I've found in my research, so I must not be too far off base. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we do allow abortion in certain cases, especially the health (spiritual and physical) of the mother and in cases of rape. We are encouraged to talk it over with our spiritual father or mother (a member of the clergy, priest, monk, nun), not to get permission so much as to make sure it is the right decision for us. Then we can get an abortion if it's considered the right thing to do. It's never been entirely outlawed in Eastern Orthodox countries to the best of my knowledge.

When the Turks invaded Greece in the early 1900s, priests and bishops made sure that women who'd been raped by the invading army knew they could get abortions freely. They knew it was best for the mothers and the communities.

All of this absolute prohibition came long after the Great Schism and actually around the time of Vatican I in the late 1800s.

[Cheswick2.0]

223. We already have a reasonable answer and the pro-lifer can vote for bush

you are negotiating my rights to increase Kerry's poll numbers. What a bizarre idea. The democratic party is pro-choice and if you are unhappy about that there are other parties you might like better.

[IdaBriggs]

232. Actually, we don't.

Have you noticed how 40% of the country isn't happy with the status quo? Have you noticed how scared everyone is that Roe v Wade is going to get overturned? I *AM* pro-choice, and as a rational human being I can see that the "my rights" folks occasionally sound like spoiled teenagers who whine about rights without understanding responsibilities. You are panicking for a reason -- a lot of people thing extremist views on either side -- never OR whenever -- are irresponsible.

If either side was completely right, we wouldn't be having these discussions because it would be obvious to everyone. And telling people to "like it or leave it" is just bizarre. This is a REAL issue that inspires passion on both sides; wishing people would drop the subject isn't going to help.

Sex is a lot of fun; raising kids is a lot of work. If you get pregnant by a guy who isn't worth breeding, or before you have achieved economic security, or just because the damn condom broke and the timing is really bad, or whatever the heck the reason dejour is, some women make the CHOICE to abort the pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't a punishment meted down by some vengeful God; its how the human race replenishes itself. Its a special time in a woman's life that also includes nausea, heartburn, mood swings, physical discomfort, permanent bodily changes, a host of long term side affects (not including the child!), and just a ducky fun time called "labor" that I'm told is kind of on the painful side, AND its the rare woman indeed who is thinking of all of these things when a hormonally induced moment is making her think how wonderful it feels to have his arms around you....sigh...we are PROGRAMMED to like it.

And its about defining what makes a human; its why the soul thing is such a big deal, and why the "life" question comes into it, and why people struggle with these concepts. When is a "fetus" a baby? We can see pictures in the womb; we can fix problems in utero. What makes one woman's WANTED child more valuable than that of a woman who "made a mistake" one night? When does "abortion" cross over into "infanticide?" When the chord is cut? When the first breath occurs? When the child can survive on its own? Preemie's are living at twenty-four weeks nowadays, and it keeps getting "better" as the technology improves -- when is the magic deadline for When?

And I get that you are someone who has devoted her life to helping women who don't want to be pregnant. That's a tough thing to do, and I admire your courage in facing the misery you deal with regularly. Each woman you see must have her own story...I'm thinking you don't see women who are geeked about the procedure and just doing it for fun, but instead are dealing with women who have made difficult decisions for their own best interests. For me, I've spent the last six years dealing with women who would give nearly anything to hold a baby, and I've held onto my "pro-choice" stance with a stubbornness born out of respect for other people's pain. Don't mock or belittle the lessons I've learned, Cheswick. I've paid blood money for them.

I'll support your right to choose, Cheswick, but I will not give up MY RIGHT to question.

[knitter4democracy]

242. Wow.

That was a powerful post. Thank you.

[LearnedHand]

139. Carl Sagan and Ann Duryen (sp?) addressed...

...this middle ground in a PHENOMENAL essay, published in, of all places, Parade Magazine. In that essay, Sagan and Duryen proposed that since humanlike brain activity doesn't begin until around the beginning of the second trimester, a first-trimester abortion is NOT the same as "killing" a human being.

That thesis is amazingly like what you posted, Nederland: "The ruling clearly articulates the view that over the course of a woman’s pregnancy the rights of the woman decreases and the rights of the fetus increases."

BRAVO, for articulating the middle ground! And for articulating it beautifully!

[Cheswick2.0]

143. No Uterus right?

MYOB

[chopper]

178. seriously, Cheswick..

tell us how you really feel. i mean, the 25 or so posts all saying "if you're a man, then shut the hell up" don't quite hammer the point home. yeesh.

[Cheswick2.0]

186. apparently I have not made the point enough since people are still

posting their opinion about what I can do with my body. I'd ask you if you have a position on the issues but since you are male I don't really care unless you are willing to stick up for my rights.

[chopper]

213. okay...

I'd ask you if you have a position on the issues but since you are male I don't really care unless you are willing to stick up for my rights.

i'm female, dumbass.

on edit: my profile sez i'm male. i never set it up right (hence why its otherwise blank). so i guess i can have an opinion now? can i? is it ok with you?

[Mandate My Ass]

215. LOL

You can't even state your gender correctly (or so you would have us believe, yet somehow I'm really feeling skeptical) and you are calling somebody else a dumbass?

[Cheswick2.0]

225. LOL....oooops

Forgot about your profile huh? Ha ha ha

[Cheswick2.0]

188. Do I know you by some other name on another board?

because I am finding is funny as hell that your only thought on this whole thread is that I have posted my opinion too much.

Do you have an opinion on the topic?

[wadestock]

161. It is another proverbial "no win" type of debate....

One that the neocons would love to get us wrapped up in endlessly.
Yes, of course the middle ground is the only ground where logic resides.

I agree primarily with what you say but have tried to make the point that it really is a NON ISSUE....ie ....not worth arguing about....exactly because the extreme sides make no sense.

Extreme right - makes no sense for obvious reasons....government involvement solves nothing and quickly results in a can of worms...

Extreme left - to say that abortion is "right" is not the answer....or to try and get out of the issue by downplaying the loss of life....that doesn't help in the debate either.......I would much prefer we say "we don't believe in abortion"...but that each individual must take their own stand in this matter. The point is very simple....government involvement would be a disaster.

It comes down to each case being remarkably personal and requiring as much commitment by family or whoever is involved to attempt to make the decision that they can live with.

The neocons only use it as a trick question to come up with the notion that they have a higher moral code than liberals. The libs lose everytime they say anything which smells as if they "believe" in abortion.

[noonwitch]

190. In a legal sense, there are only two sides to the issue

Whether it's legal or not.

If it's legal, it is impossible to restrict access to the procedure by law. If a law is passed that abortion is only allowed in cases of rape and incest, who determines what is rape? A court? Well, that can take 6 months or longer. A doctor? What if he lies? Why should he get to decide when it's the mother's body.

In an individual sense, yes, there are a lot of sides to the issue, but the government shouldn't be concerned about them. That's a matter for the preachers and the people on both sides to talk about.

[Worthless Teen]

220. Why is it that

only women can participate in the abortion debate? Because they are the ones that bear children, and it's their body? By that same irrational logic, I don't think some inferior broad should be making decesions about aborting my fellow men who happen to be unborn.

Look, I don't think anyone "supports" abortion. It's not a pleasant thing, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. Personally, I think shirts like Planned Parenthood's "I had an abortion" are sickening. It's just a case of whether you think it should be an option or not. Some think it should be a woman's option under any circumstance, others disagree.

[Mandate My Ass]

226. Oh you're so precious

" I don't think some inferior broad should be making decesions about aborting my fellow men"

You just go on thinking whatever you like about us inferior broads and we will continue to ignore the rantings of the ignorant, penile-driven ravings of the "morally superior" testosterone-addled ignoramouses such as yourself. :eyes:

[Worthless Teen]

233. I thought that the

sarcastic tone of that statement was apparent. Apparently not.

[noiretextatique]

244. what exactly did you mean by the statement?

i don't get the sarcasm, so explain what you mean.
is it that "broads" are inferior? or that only some are, and those "inferior" ones shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves...but you, a teenaged boy (i assume) have more insight than say me
an "inferior broad" twice your age, regarding decisions that affect my body and my life? boy...that's SOME fantasy life you have there.

[Cheswick2.0]

227. aborting your fellow men................ ouch

I would hate to be the woman carrying a man in her uterus. Or are you talking about retro-active abortion?