Is Anybody Really Pro-Abortion?

[porphyrian]

I mean, really, does anyone think that everyone should go out and get as many as they can, as soon as they can? What a stupid concept. Isn't everyone against abortion, but some are forced to choose it as their best option, given the circumstances?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. That's why it's called "pro-choice"

[porphyrian]

2. ...by most of us, yes...

...but not necessarily by anti-abortionists.

[rkc3]

5. Aren't terrorists pro-abortionists?

Or is it that individuals promoting pro-choice are terrorists? I get confused sometimes.

[Blue_Roses]

22. that's why they are "anti-abortionist"

they like to play the "pro-abortion" card 'cause it looks flippant and irresponsible, but it's PRO-CHOICE, PRO-CHOICE, PRO-CHOICE!

No one is "pro-abortion" and the right just can't accept that anyone should have a choice with their own uterus.

[SharonAnn]

47. They are "Anti-Choice" if they're against "Pro-Choice"

Remember that, "Anti-Choice". Women should not make decisions over their body. Ruling men should make those decisions.

[Warpy]

71. Er, is anybody Pro-Cholecystectomy?

Pro-colectomy? Of course not. Nobody wants either of them. However, they can be livesavers. JUST LIKE ABORTION.

I was around before abortion was safe and legal. Antiabortion laws killed a lot of women. We should never go back to that.

[MyUncle]

3. That is a perfect answer

[apnu]

7. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[papau]

14. I agree - no one is "pro-abortion" but choice and control of ones own body

is a concept the RW does not understand.

[lectrobyte]

4. yes, we carry coat-hangers at all times. Seriously though, I'm

for people having the right to choose. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest abortion as the birth-control method of choice.

[rkc3]

12. Since I don't have a vagina - it's not my place ...

to tell a woman what she can do with her body. I know I don't want anyone telling me what I can do with my balls.

[Bunny]

44. Yes, I carry a coat hanger myself.

And I've been known to run up to pregnant women, brandishing my coat hanger, and screaming at them: ABORT NOW, ABORT NOW!!!

The really weird thing is that all of them chose to continue their pregnancies, despite my desire to control their bodies!!

Pro-choicers are just wrong!!!


:evilgrin:

[BlueJazz]

6. The right-wing folks are experts at using simplistic slogans...

..that are, like them, deceptive as hell.
I'm pro-life.....so anybody who doesn't agree with me is "Pro-Death".
Like you, I've never met anybody that is Pro-abortion...only
"Pro-laws that permit abortion"

[Right Makes Might]

8. Abortion on demand. Period.

Anything less is a subtle attack on women's right and an attempt to keep them oppressed and chained to their biology.

The thing is, the anti-abortionists know they're not going to win hearts and minds by saying all abortion should be illegal, so they sneak in with "Well, it's bad, but it's a necessary evil."

Well, it's not. It's women controlling their own bodies, which includes fetuses. Until that fetus has been born, it's not a person. It's a part of her body.

So if a woman chooses to abort several times over, it's not a moral question. It's a political one.

[jukes]

31. !de aquerdo, RMM!

& welcome to DU!


:hi:

[drthais]

9. we were talking about this just the other day

my husband and I are SICK of hearing from Republicans
that will vote for Bush BECAUSE HE"S AGAINST ABORTION
period. end of thought-process.

My husband said that what we need
is a national conversation about abortion
and what can be done to make sure
that abortion as a choice
is rarely where the decision comes down
because of education, birth-control, social supports etc.

NOT to say that choice shold be removed

we were almost bickering about it
then the phone rang

[AnnInLa]

10. abortion as birth control

Even in countries with total access to abortion, women don't choose abortion as birth control....your question implies women would do this.

[porphyrian]

18. I meant to show that it was ridiculous, some people use that term. - n/t

[redqueen]

37. Would you please name one of those countries?

I'm trying to do some research on the subject.

Thanks.

[Djinn]

171. are there any countries that have that?

In Australia it's relatively easy to get one but it's technically still a crime - a doctor needs to agree that it will damage the woman's emotional, financial or physical health (I could have that slightly wrong but that's the upshot) basically like I said they're readilly available but no-one makes you get the word of a doctor to say you SHOULD have a kid.

Every now and then something pops into the limelight here illustrating why it should be taken off the criminal statutes but I think people just think if it aint broke...also we don't have much of an active right to life bunch - thank god!

[redqueen]

178. I was wondering which is why I asked for details.

I would be surprised, but nothing's impossible.

[Kid_A]

11. Most pro-lifers aren't truly "pro-life" anyway...

I know a lot of them that call themselves pro-life, but they also support capital punishment and war.:wtf:

But you're absolutely right. I myself don't like the practice of abortion. I think adoption is a much better choice, but for me to use the courts to force my opinion on every woman in this country would be obscene.

[rkc3]

19. I ended an argument with my in-laws with that thought.

I told them if they were truly pro-life, they would pursue adopting a child who would have been aborted. Told them to visit a clinic and find a woman who cannot support (emotionally or financially) a child. Make friends with her and find a way to adopt her child.

They looked at me like I was nuts. The argument ended and they've never brought it up again.

[atreides1]

21. More Like Pro-Fetus

Once that fetus becomes a viable human being with needs, the Pro-Fetus groups are the first ones to call for cuts in the programs that
these children and their parents need.

And some Pro-Fetus groups would rather watch a woman die carrying a child, then allow an abortion that might save the life of the mother.

I don't believe in abortion as a form of birth control either.

[MyUncle]

28. Did anyone else see this weird and disturbing article in WSJ?

I was looking for discussion on this yesterday and I am wondering if this is just too sick or hot for DU? I know it is the Wall Street Journal but I am not sure if the author is using extreme satire or he is serious.

THE ROE EFFECT

The Empty Cradle Will Rock
How abortion is costing the Democrats voters--literally.

BY LARRY L. EASTLAND
Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

JUST SOME OF THE OUTRAGOUS STUFF>>>

• Republicans have fewer abortions than their proportion of the population, Democrats have more than their proportion of the population. Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).

• The more ideologically Democratic the voters are (self-identified liberals), the more abortions they have. The more ideologically Republican the voters are (self-identified conservatives), the fewer abortions they have.

This isn't particularly surprising given the core constituencies of both political parties. But translating percentages into numbers for the purpose of evaluating their impact on politics makes the importance of these numbers real. It's one thing to quote percentages and statistics, it's quite another to look at actual human beings. For example:

• There are 19,748,000 Democrats who are not with us today. (49.37 percent of 40 million).

• There are 13,900,000 Republican who are not with us today. (34.75 percent of 40 million).

• By comparison, then, the Democrats have lost 5,848,000 more voters than the Republicans have.

[meg]

White supremists are wr to babies of color <eom>

[livinginphotographs]

13. I look at it as a medical procedure...

If women wanted to start dictating what I do with my prostate, I'd have an issue with that too.

I think this is a purely medical issue between a woman, her conscience, and her doctor. As a man, I don't think I have any right whatsoever to say that a woman cannot get an abortion performed. Unfortunately, the right wing has turned it into a political issue, and the left has been forced to respond to protect it.

In a perfect world, every child would be planned for and have two loving parents. But we don't live in a perfect world, so sometimes people need a Plan B.

[outinforce]

38. Exactly!

"In a perfect world, every child would be planned for and have two loving parents. But we don't live in a perfect world, so sometimes people need a Plan B."

I could not have said it better myself.

The problem, though, is that under current law, there really is no "Plan B" available for two adults after the fetus leaves the womb.

As you say, in a perfect world, every child would have two loving parents anmd all would be just great.

But sometimes, parents' hopes and expectations are shattered when a fetus comes into this world with special needs.

Or perhaps the parents, once confronted with a fetus that has left the womb, understand for the first time the financial drag supporting a new mouth will have on their own ability to enjoy life and be truly happy.

In cases like this, the law gives the parents no recourse -- no choice.

Why?

Because the law says that once a fetus is born, it becomes a person -- entitled to the same legal protection as any adult.

It would be far better, in my view, if the law were to allow parents the right to choose, after a fetus leaves the womb, whether they truly want to be parents or not. THAT would really be supporting the right to choose.

[livinginphotographs]

66. Maybe I'm just being dense....

But I agree with your argument to some extent, but I won't go past making adoption a viable option.

My brother used to joke about "retroactive abortion" up until the age of 30. That, I DEFINITELY don't agree with! ;)

[outinforce]

90. I Think I May Not Have Been Clear

I do support adoption.

But that is really not what I was talking about.

The "Plan B" that I was talking about had more to do with abortions after a fetus leaves the womb.

The thing that really gets in the way is the current law. Because the current law says that "personhood" occurs at birth.

But the law is just silly.

Why should a fetus become a person simply because it leaves the womb?

[livinginphotographs]

98. Once again, maybe being dense....

But are you suggesting that we "abort" a premature baby, or a child that's born with disabilities?

I'm not trying to flame you, I promise, I'm just trying to understand your point.

Once a child is born (maybe that's not what you're talking about), I do believe it has all the basic rights afforded all human beings. Maybe an alternative to adoption would be something similar to Dean's Success by Six programs in Vermont?

[outinforce]

102. Hell, Flame Away.

I'm used to it.

You identify what I see as the problem confronting an expansion of reproductive rights to parents -- the legal fact that "Once a child is born (maybe that's not what you're talking about), I do believe it has all the basic rights afforded all human beings"

I understand that, too -- but only that the law considers a "born child" as having all the rights afforded to all human beings".

I just think the law is wrong.

Why is it, exactly, that a newborn -- unable to feed itself, clothe itself, care for itself in any meaningful manner, and unable to express itself except by crying -- why is it, exactly, that anyone should consider such a newborn to be a "person" with all the same rights you or I have?

My own expectation is that as our society becomes more and more progressive, we will come to understand that enduing newborns with "personhood" really does restrict the rights of adults to choose whether or not they really do want to bring another life into this world.

[livinginphotographs]

107. What's an alternative?

Like I said, I'm seriously trying to understand your point.

I can't advocate parents sticking a child in a shoebox and leaving them at a bus stop because they did not want to bring another life into this world. Maybe that's a little more extreme than you're suggesting, but that's what I get from your statement.

I think we can agree that abortion should be readily available to these parents so that it would never come to that. But expanding reproductive rights, to me, means giving women ready access to their doctors to have abortions as they choose and not have to wear a scarlet A for it; not the ability to carry a child to term then suddenly decide that they don't want to care for it. (this goes for both the mother and father).

Women should have 100% say in whether or not they have an abortion; women and men both share responsibility, though, once that child has been carried to term.

I don't want to try to address the question of "when life begins." I don't know enough about the biology of a embryo/fetus/child, etc. to make an informed point about it. But I definitely think that once the child is birthed, the two parents have equal responsibility to watch out for that child's welfare, that welfare being the "basic human rights" that I was referring to (food, shelter, safety, etc.)

Congratulations, by the way. You're the first person on DU to get into a long discussion with me about anything.

[outinforce]

111. Why?

"But I definitely think that once the child is birthed, the two parents have equal responsibility to watch out for that child's welfare, that welfare being the "basic human rights" that I was referring to (food, shelter, safety, etc.)"

Why should the parents have that responsiblity immediately following birth (or, until, let's say, the newborn is able to form a simple sentence in a language in order to communicate a simple thought)?

What is really so special about "just being born"?

If a fetus is not a person one minute before birth, then why is it a person -- with all the rights and protection the law gives to person -- two seconds after it leaves the womb?

Wouldn't it make far more sense to have a point after birth when we all can agree that a newborn possesses some skill that truly makes it a person and a part of the human family?

[livinginphotographs]

119. I can agree with your rationale....

But at what point is child abandonment illegal, with your argument?

It's like the legal drinking age. There's probably some 16-year-olds who are mature enough to drink, and DEFINITELY many 21+'s that are not (myself included, perhaps), but the law cannot decide on a case by case basis who is mature and who is not. So they have an arbitrary age (21) that says when you are suddenly mature enough to drink, at least in the eyes of the law.

In the eyes of the law, I am in favor of considering a fetus/child a "person" once it is birthed. I welcome other alternatives, but that arbitrary standard is the best I can think of.

[outinforce]

122. Difficult Question

"In the eyes of the law, I am in favor of considering a fetus/child a "person" once it is birthed. I welcome other alternatives, but that arbitrary standard is the best I can think of."

Good question. Difficult to answer.

Some have suggested, of course, that a person comes into existence at the point of conception.

Others, including the current laws, say that a person comes into existence at birth.

Others feel that a person comes into existence when the fetus starts to kick.

Others feel that there is a person when there is something called "sentience".

And still others say that "viability" means that there is a person.

The question, I suppose, that everyonme is really grappling with is "what does it mean to be a human?"

How one answers this question forms, in most cases, one's own feelings about abortion.

I am suggesting that what it really means to be human is not simply being born. I suggest that something else -- like the ability to communicate this thought using language -- "Mother, I am thirsty, and I want some cold water" -- is a condition for moving from a pre-person condition to a "person"-condition.

Just as now, we end the life process of fetuses and do not call it murder, so I am suggesting that if we were to define personhood as the ability to express at least the idea I mention above using language (with grammar), then parents would be able to end the life processes of their newborns without guilt, legal ramifications, and remorse -- much as the life processes of fetuses are allowed to be ended now.

[livinginphotographs]

124. From a purely objective standpoint...

I agree to some extent. But....

My main problem with your point is that there's no way to enforce it fairly. Who gets to decide if a child is using language that is adequate to consider it a person? The parents? The government? What about those children who are born without the ability to use language (mutes, autistic children, etc).

My thoughts on abortion are not related to what I view as what it takes to be a human being. I'm sure we agree on the point that abortion is basically a woman's choice, and should not be infringed upon my government. But you're getting into the much deeper issue of "when does life begin?" My personal opinion is that this is irrelevant to the abortion argument, since the child (at any stage) is technically a parasite, and the woman should have complete control over whether to continue the parasitic relationship with the child.

Once the child is born, however, it no longer fits the definition of a parasite. This is where I consider it a human. That's how I see the difference between being in utero and being a human that is simply dependent upon another human for things like food and shelter.

So I guess I have to fall-back onto my original argument about laws sometimes being arbitrary in order to define something that's not black-and-white. You and me are looking at the situation in totally different ways: it seems that you're looking at the more philosophical aspects, and I'm trying to think of a way that we can actually take our current state of society and move them towards a different way of thinking about "personhood."

It's late and I've had a few (too many, as usual), so I hope that makes sense. ;)

[outinforce]

128. Interesting

But very much beside the point.

On the issue of who gets to decide if a fetus, after having left the womb, has developed to the point that it is able to articular simple thoughts using language, and thus becomes a "person", why couildn't we just leave that up to the parents and qualified linguists.

The parents could engage the services of linguists to assit them in determining whether on not the "child" (and I really shy away from that term, inasmuch as that word implies, for most, a sense of "personhood") meets the criteria for being a person.

I'm pretty sure we could work out something.

I don't think that I have been discussing in any way of "when does life begin?" Nor do I share your view that once a child is born, it then becomes "human". It is fully human (I think) while it is in the womb (if is, as far as I know, a "human" zygote/embryo/fetus during the entire pregnancy.

What I have been discussing is "personhood".

You yourself correctly point out that the child is a parasite (and I think you mean that the zygote/embryo/fetus -- not "child" -- is a parasite.

But perhaps you do feel, as I do, that the "child", once born, continues as a parasite -- totally and completely dependent upon others -- "hosts" in a very real sense -- for its food, water, shelter.

That being the case, shouldn't the "hosts" of this parasitic thing have the same opportunities to end the life processes of the parastie after birth?

[Pithlet]

136. He's trying to equate

the pro-choice position with a position that would allow parents to kill their children. He's inferring that there is no difference.

[outinforce]

140. Infer/Imply

I do wish people would learn the difference between these two words.

As to your statement, pithlet, that I am trying to equate something with something else, you are, I assue you, quite incorrect.

You've drawn the incorrect inference, I'm afraid.

[Pithlet]

163. Then what are you saying?

Really? Why the posts about parent's rights to kill their children? What point could you POSSIBLY be making? I've seen that sneaky tactic used so many times by pro-lifers that I just assume a person doesn't REALLY mean that they think parents should really be able to kill their children. But, I guess I shouldn't just assume. Maybe you really are all gung ho about infanticide. :shrug:

Regarding your nit picking: I do wish people would say what they REALLY mean. That irritates me far more than incorrect language usage.

[sangh0]

166. Here's where outinforce drops out

He won't explain how the issue would be judged, except to say that the parents and/or a linguist would decide. If it's just the parents who decide, they could decide that their 40-year old son who still lives with them is incapable of communication, and kill him. They'd get away with it.

If it's a linguist who decides, how would the linguist know if the child could communicate? Is the linguist going to move in with the child and observe it, because for some people, communication is not a steady state. Some people drift in and out of lucidity and coherence due to their medical condition.

Furthermore, the legal definition of a person is someone who has been born. Even if you pass a law saying that someone is a "fetus" until they can communicate doesn't change the fact that they become a person the moment they are born. Under such a law, once born, they would be both a fetus and a person, and since they were a person they would have rights, and the law would not allow their parents to murder/kill them.

outinforce seems to be under the misimpression that there is a law which says it's OK to kill fetuses, but there isn't any such law. There is merely an absence of laws prohibiting the killing of fetuses, and that which is not prohibited, is allowed. In the case of the already born, there are laws which prohibit the killing of a person, and regardless of how you define "fetus", someone who has been born is a person, and therefore it is illegal to murder them.

And the only way to change the legal definition of a person is through a Constitutional amendment.


Regarding your nit picking: I do wish people would say what they REALLY mean. That irritates me far more than incorrect language usage

The nit-picking is a replacement for saying what one means.

[ronabop]

175. There is a viable post-birth plan-B.

At least in some US states.

In AZ, for example, an unwanted baby can be dropped off at any hospital ER, no questions asked, no fear of charges being filed. Laws that are similar in nature are usually enacted after one-too-many dumpster babies are found.

The child gains a right to personhood, and the parents keep the right to not have a child.

Note, however, that in some states, the "Right to Forced Pregnancy" folks are using such laws as arguments against allowing abortion.

-Bop
edit: adding stalking horse issue.

[Tosca]

15. Well, you see...

The right-wingers have had their day with this issue. It's been going on for 35 fucking years. They make it sound like women opt for abortion like opting to go get their teeth cleaned. It's insulting to women who agonize about the choice. It's been a political football and rallying cry for them. It's one those social issues they use to get votes, that's all.

[chiburb]

16. I don't know if you're male or female, but...

Either way, it's none of your business why anyone would choose to have an abortion. YOUR abortion (if female) is YOUR business. If someone else CHOOSES to use abortion as birth control, or to select gender, or because they've got a thing for their ob/gyn, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
You have no place in moralizing with:

Isn't everyone against abortion, but some are forced to choose it as their best option, given the circumstances?

[porphyrian]

25. I wasn't attempting to moralize...

...I was merely stating that, from what information I've gathered, no one goes and gets pregnant so that they can have an abortion. My intended point was that, regardless of how you feel about abortion, the only people who do so do not make that decision lightly.

[chiburb]

36. Bullshit.

"regardless of how you feel about abortion, the only people who do so do not make that decision lightly."

You DO NOT know that. It is NONE of your business. What do you mean you aren't moralizing with statements like that? Implying that a woman MUST feel guilt or agony of HER decision to abort...

And this:

"from what information I've gathered, no one goes and gets pregnant so that they can have an abortion."

What a stupid statement. And what if a woman DID do just that? Will you deny her the CHOICE to abort? It is none of your business.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[chiburb]

55. Or perhaps your business is to post

flame-bait topics? Perhaps to pick the juiciest repilies for sharing elsewhere?
Btw, are you female or male?

[outinforce]

61. What Possible Difference Does It Make To YOU?

"Btw, are you female or male?"

Why do you ask this question?

What possible difference does it make to you?

If, as you suggest, it is nobody's business whether a woman has an abortion or not, then it is no one's business -- not the business of a woman or of a man.

[chiburb]

63. It IS none of my business...

I was curious because I question the poster's motives in this whole thread. I wasn't asking because of his/her views on abortion.

[outinforce]

70. Then Why Don't You

ask the person about her/his motives in this whole thread?

Instead, you chose to ask whether s/he was male or female.

I do not see how knowing a poster's gender provides any insight into motive.

[chiburb]

123. I did in post #55. n/t

.

[agingdem]

84. Listen...

instead of arguing both sides why don't you ask if someone involved in this "discussion" has, indeed, had an abortion (I know...none of my business!)and, if so, are they brave enough to share their thoughts.

[Nikia]

17. A few cruel people are

Anti-Choice people like to point them out to paint most Pro Choice people as evil.
I don't feel like looking up references right now but they tend to be extreme "reduce the population now to save the Earth by any means" or people who believe that "inferior" people should be prevented from reproducing.
I think that these people make up a small minority of Pro Choice people. There are a lot more people in the Anti Choice group that don't care about the fetus but want to outlaw abortion so "the sinful woman will be punished by having to have the baby."
Although I am Pro Choice, I respect the opinions of good intentioned people on both sides. I would never support laws preventing abortion but I would not give money or join a Pro Choice campaign that was based upon bad pro abortion intentions.

[JDPriestly]

35. I personally find the idea of abortion repugnant.

But, I don't think it should be criminalized.

First personal abortion story: After the birth of my second child, I was told that neither I nor the baby would survive if I tried to carry another child to term. I wanted more children, but could not have them for medical reasons. It was very sad for me. Had I become pregnant again, my doctor would have insisted that I have an abortion. It would have been a difficult decision because I love children very much.

Second personal abortion story: While in a European hospital for a reason not related to abortion, I met a woman who was having an abortion. She said to me, "I am 52 years old. I have raised my three children and worked all my life." She and her husband were preparing for retirement. At 70 years of age, she would have had an 18 year old. The stereotypes about women who have abortions being irresponsible, promiscuous and cruel are simply wrong. There are many very good reasons for having an abortion.

Abortion should remain a private matter between a woman and her doctor. I respect each woman's right to decide what is right for her.

[agingdem]

110. Here goes....

In 1977 I became pregnant with my third child. My oldest child (6 years old at the time) had a serious chronic illness. Because my parents were Holocaust survivors, I understood the value of life, yet, because my children, particularly my oldest, required a 24-7 care, I knew that I had to terminate the pregnancy. In 1977 very few doctors performed abortions before the end of the first month so the wait was absolute hell! On December 27 I drove to a clinic not far from my home (my husband had to stay home and take care of the kids). As I pulled into the parking lot, I was "greeted" by sign-carrying "pro-lifers" who would not allow me to get out of my car. I backed my car up, and drove to a shopping center, about a half mile away, parked my car, and walked to the clinic. The office was dark but there were two other "women" sitting in the reception area. I say "women" because one girl was 14 and the other was 16. I filled out the necessary papers and took a seat. Twenty minutes passed before all three of us were ushered into an office. There we received "counseling". The two girls started crying...they were terrified. I was then taken to an examining room where I was prepped by a nurse. A few minutes later the doctor came in and started the procedure...no anesthetic. The pain was excruciating. I grabbed the nurse's hand but was told I could not move because of a possible perforated uterus. The nurse suggested I focus on an object in the room...I turned my head and I caught sight of a shiny object attached to a jar. I noticed that the jar was slowly filling with a fluid and then it hit me..that jar contained my terminated pregnancy and I started to sob. Moments later, the whirring noise stopped and I was told I could sit up...Twenty-seven years later, I think of what could have been and I cry, and, twenty-seven years later I still know I made the right CHOICE.

[Cheswick2.0]

131. {{{{sandra}}}}}}

Thank you for sharing your story. I am sorry it was so hard. Conditions and treatment have gotten much better since then.

[GR]

20. Of Course Not...That's Ridiculous...nfm

nfm

[outinforce]

23. I Have Seen Posts Here On DU

That have suggested that poor children should have been aborted.

I mahy not have the argument exactly correct, but it goes somethjing like this:

A woman who is unable to provide support for children she already has is just being irresponsible by burdening society if she give s birth to another child instead of aborting it.

[Tosca]

32. Yes.

Much better to bring an unwanted child into the world so he can experience the wonder of poverty and all it entails. So many opportunities! Christ, it's such a level playing field, after all.

[outinforce]

45. Choice, Anyone?

why would you assume that if a poor woman with five kids carries a fetus for nine months and then gives birth, she is bringing an "unwanted" child into the world?

It is her choice -- NOT YOURS!

You may think that, had you been in her place, you might have made a different decision.
]
But it truly is not your decision to make.

And by suggesting that a poor woman is bringing someone "into the world so he can experience the wonder of poverty and all it entails", you are, I think, making it seem as though a poor woman who gives birth (instead of aborting) has done a really terrible thing.

How about letting all women -- including poor women -- make thier own choices?

[Tosca]

112. Back at ya...

/why would you assume that if a poor woman with five kids carries
/a fetus for nine months and then gives birth, she is
/bringing an "unwanted" child into the world?

Why would you assume she's NOT?

Especially if she can't afford to pay for an abortion?

[outinforce]

117. If She Can't Afford An Abortion,

then she really has not choice, does she?

And if she has no choice, no one should make her feel guilty -- in any way at all -- for having a child.

Doing so would just be cruel.

[sandnsea]

56. Poor does not mean unwanted

Some people don't see money as the defining factor in having a family. If a woman chooses to not bring a child into a poverty situation, it's her choice. If a woman doesn't see poverty, especially US defined poverty, as the end of the world, that's her choice. Lots of great kids come out of the projects, reservations, trailer parks and other poor areas. Money is no guarantee of a decent human being.

[Tosca]

109. Ha!

/Some people don't see money as the defining factor in having
/a family.

That's for sure!

[Kool Kitty]

53. I can't remember seeing

anyone post the suggestion that the poor should have been aborted. Maybe I'm having a senior moment here...

On edit: ALL WOMEN should have freedom of choice. All women, no exceptions.

[noiretextatique]

155. you are a liar

and if you aren't, copy and paste will prove it.

[whistle]

24. I'm pro-choice, it is none of my business what a woman chooses....

...regarding her pregnancy. That is between herself, her doctor and her God. The rest of us need to keep our noses out of it and that goes especially for the Christian Right Wing, freepers, fundees, the courts, the government and other control freaks with a political agenda that only furthers their interests. Same thing applies to sexual preferences, gay marriage and who wants to eat pork and who wishes to read what they wish.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Kinda like war...

...has to be the ABSOLUTE LAST resort.

But sometimes you DO end up having to use the last resort.

[jukes]

27. YES

being able to procreate does not make one fit to be a parent. there are many abused, neglected, and tortured children who wd not suffer if easy access to abortion had been available to the parents.

i was locked in closets for 8 hrs @ a time, beaten, fed entire strings of chilis, forced to drink cups of dish detergent, dressed in rags, by a magdalene alumni w/her own demons. i still fight suicidal thoughts.

i am firmly in support of abortion as a necessary prevention of some limited amount of child-abuse.

any1 that can not see this reality is blinding themselves w/their ideals and not thinking w/their humanity.

[porphyrian]

40. That's just fucked up! You have my respect...

...for making it through that! Most people wouldn't have, not that anyone should. I'm really sorry. I hope that you are in a better place today, yes?

However, I don't think supporting abortion in this instance makes you pro-abortion (you aren't saying everyone should always have one), you are just naming circumstances under which you would decide abortion would be the best option.

[jukes]

78. thanks, porph, appreciate the prop.

i'm pretty much a grown-up now, & try to leave it back there. hope i didn't sound like a pity-plea; it just was what it was. "some are born to endless night." just trying to bring enough drama to the dialogue to make people think.

quit hating her, but not till years after she died.

she was as much a victim as me, really, & i think she suffered w/remorse for not being able to control her hatred.




nice thread, induces thought on the subject, rather than mere partisan loyalty.

[porphyrian]

125. ...and thank you...

You've certainly got a story! Thanks for sharing it.

[Tosca]

114. Ah, another wonderful story about motherhood and...

and the miracle of true-blue Amerikan families.

Thank you for sharing. People think this is a rare occurence. It's NOT, and stories like this should be told to counter the starry-eyed myth of motherhood in this country.

[redqueen]

145. My childhood was no bed of roses either

but I'm would not say that I wish I had never been born.

[stewert]

29. Nobody I Know.......

Everyone I know is pro-choice, not pro abortion. I am 100% pro-choice, but I would not like to see any woman get an abortion. I think it is up to her to decide what to do with her body. I don't care if she gets an abortion or not, either way is fine by me. I feel I have no right to tell any wwoman to get an abortion or not to get an abortion.

I believe it's called freedom of choice in a free society, something the anti-abortion republiscum Nazis can not comprehend.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

30. I don't believe in abortion in all cases. Besides, Pro-Choice....

means that you have the option to have one, it does NOT mean that you are for getting multiple abortions.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. I agree... pro-choice should definately be when you or I decide it is okay

for someone else to have an abortion.

[3 Cents and Change]

62. You already decide..

...that it's not okay for me to masturbate in public, pay my employees less than minimum wage, or possess heroin.

What's the difference?

There are plenty of pro choice arguments that hold water. The idea that government doesn't tell people what they can and cannot do is not one of them.

[Cheswick2.0]

67. Oh I agree , that is what choice is all about

when I get to chose what someone else does with her body. It's my judgement that is most important, not the judgement of the pregnant woman or her doctor.
I'll chose, I will decide because my morals are better than other people's.

[porphyrian]

126. Hmm...interesting point. - n/t

[Djinn]

172. toss in public all you like

I wont mind :evilgrin:

but seriously I agree people use some stupid arguments on BOTH sides of this debate. For me it comes down to a simple case of fact. Long before abortion was made safe and legal for the majority of the population (in western countries anyway) women had them. They died, horrible painful deaths. If they were illegal this would still happen.

ergo keep them legal, affordable and available.

[redqueen]

33. I don't think so, but the reason people say this

is because of the downright RABID nature of some of Roe's defenders. I'm talking about people who say that any fetus not yet born is no more than tissue, a lump of cells... some over-the-top defenders of choice say this about babies in the 3rd trimester!

I know too many Catholics and even just Hispanics who aren't all that religious who won't vote for Democratic candidates because of *this issue alone*. Hearing that kind of talk only cements their stand and makes my job of getting their support all that much harder.

[Cheswick2.0]

34. well, what about all those women who refuse to use birth control

I mean they won't use condoms or pills or anything and they just keep having sex and an abortion every couple of months. They must like abortion.

Or what about those women who just DEMAND abortions? They don't have any compulsion to even be ashamed of wanting the abortion or willing to wait or look at pictues of aborted fetuses or anything. I think they must like abortion or they wouldn't be just, you know, demanding them.

But I think the women who really really love abortions are those who wait until they are 35 to 38 weeks and then decide to get an abortion because they were invited to a party or weekend in the country and being pregnant just would be convient. Yeah, those late term abortions of convenience women must really love abortion.

I am for abortion being legal...I'm just saying.........

[Mandate My Ass]

42. Do I hear you saying

that a woman who has an abortion just to prevent the stretch marks is immoral?

I think that's what I hear you saying. :D

[Cheswick2.0]

51. Something like that

:hi:

[Nikia]

58. A girl in my hometown wanted to look good in a bikini for summer

She would be showing by then so she wanted to have an abortion. That is what she told her step mother and her step mother's friends who were there. It sounds bad, but I think the issue was more that she was only 16 and did not feel ready for even the responsibility of being pregnant let alone a mother.
Unfortunately/fortunately, a few of her step mother's friends had health problems that made it difficult for them to have children. One woman had several miscarriages even. They were sure to tell her and how much it would mean to them if they were able to have children and couldn't understand how she could throw that away. Even if she wasn't ready to be a mother, there were many women like them. They all personally offered to adopt the baby. She ended up having the baby which was adopted.
I don't think that all women, especially very young women are ready to go through the responsibility of being pregnant. Although many times I think that they are wrong, I cannot really judge them because I don't know how they really feel and what their health is like and certainly wouldn't want the law to judge them.

[Cheswick2.0]

79. I hear that next year bikinis are going to be out of style

and one pieces with low cut V-necks are going to be all the rage.

[Susang]

94. Did I hear someone mention bikinis?

:evilgrin:

[Cheswick2.0]

97. Hi

Did you get your bikini for this summer? Make sure you get your abortion so you can fit into it. :7

[Susang]

106. Yes, but of course!

After all, we do what we can! :party:

[Cheswick2.0]

135. Hey, what is a bikini post without a bearfart to piss off?

It's time like these you wish you could bring some banned posters back just for a few hours.

[Susang]

141. Next you'll be telling me you miss BlueChill

Of course, he banned himself if I remember correctly. Ah, memories........;-)

[outinforce]

103. Damn!

And I look so fetching in my bikinis.

I guess I'll just have to pick up something else up in P-Town this coming week-end.

I do hope BodyBody has the latest in non-bikini swimwear.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

59. wait wait, here is one that will convince you

I am pro-choice I want you to remember that. But I knew a woman once who got pregnant to research and acting part and then right before she went into rehearsals (she was about 30 weeks) she had a partial birth abortion...she just DEMANDED IT. I just don't think that is right that so many women do that kind of thing.

[chiburb]

60. Why do you use the term "partial birth"?

You know that term was made up by the fundies...

And how many women do it? How do you know it's "so many"?

[Cheswick2.0]

68. tons and tons of women do it

I just know.

[redqueen]

69. I thought your post above was sarcastic

You're serious?

[outinforce]

74. Let Me Hasten To Assure You That cheswick

is being quite serious here.

[redqueen]

77. No I don't think she is

I think you've been a bad influence on her!

[Cheswick2.0]

82. I've become convinced that women are basically weak in the morals

department. I think that we should definately have to look at pictures of fetuses before we can have an abortion. It might change everything.

[redqueen]

87. lol

Gotta give you credit for trying. I'm not biting, though. :)

[outinforce]

91. It Must Have Been My Response

When I asked her about her psychoanalytic credentials.

I'm sure she has been carrying that burden these many months.

Poor cheswick.

I'm such a bad influence.

It's good, though, that you are able to resist my diabolical influences.

Just wait, though.

[Pathwalker]

89. Uh-huh.

I'm with Redqueen on this.

[outinforce]

92. Careful

Or YOU might be the next to fall under TBIOo *

The Bad Influence Of outinforce.

Symptoms include:

Obsession with certain DU posters.

Inability to form one's own thoughts.

And others too horrible to mention!

There is NO known cure for TBIOo.

[Pathwalker]

115. Don't hold your breath OIF.

I've been able to form my own thoughts for over five decades, and I have no obsessions with any DU posters. Plus, as of this minute, I am on vacation! See Ya!

[Tosca]

99. I don't believe you.

It's my understanding that partial birth abortions are performed ONLY if the woman's life is in danger and not on a fucking whim.

[Cheswick2.0]

101. oh yeah smarty pants?

Then why do we need new laws to stop women from having those partial birth abortions? If there is no problem then why do so many people think we need new laws?

[redqueen]

104. Because they're stupid. n/t

[bossfish]

41. Yes, especially the partial birth ones....

It's a joke, y'know.

I like the Clinton quote:

"Abortions should be safe, legal and rare"

[Vogon_Glory]

43. I'm Not Pro-Abortion

I've been donating to TARAL and Planned Parenthood for years, but I really don't like abortion as a means of birth control. I believe that if men and women chose abstinence instead of unprotected copulation, or used condoms, the pill or "onanism," abortion rates here in the US would drop like a rock. Unfortunately, with Religious Right ideologues and wanna-be theocrats dictating public policy concerning sex education and public health, all too many women are going to be put in the position of having to decide whether they think abortion is right or wrong in their own circumstance.

I do not believe public morality should be formed by deception, ignorance, or fear, like all too many of our right-wing "friends" seem to believe and/or practice. It is my hope that abortion remains legal, safe, widely available, yet rare, and generally only used when there are very serious fetal defects or when the life and/or the health of the woman carrying the fetus is at risk.

[Cheswick2.0]

65. abortion as birth control is bad bad bad

abortion as a way of getting a day off from work is at least understandable. We all need a day off once in awhile.

[redqueen]

73. You and outinforce are a perfect pair!

I should ask the mods if we can have separate threads - one for the $hit stirrers and one for those interested in serious discussion.

:(

[outinforce]

76. And If You Do,

you'll find me in the threads for those interested in serious discussion.

How much have YOU stirred recently?

[redqueen]

80. I never

would post about how pre-verbal babies should be allowed to be murdered because I have a different personal definition of when a fetus becomes a person.

That's what you did in a recent thread. I said in that thread you should just make your point without making up such silly stances so that you can make your point in a fancy oblique way.

Now I sense she's doing that as well... I just don't know what's to be gained by all the game playing. I seriously am trying to get votes for Kerry in a conservative town.

Hell why bother. I should just give up. It's Texas after all, right?

:(

[Cheswick2.0]

88. Well I can't blame you

It is more important for Kerry to win over the pro-lifers than to be loyal to immoral abortion demanding women who make up his base. If he can get another hundred votes in your town, what does it matter if he looses tens of thousands of votes from partial birth abortion loving women in swing states?

[redqueen]

93. Not pro-lifers

I don't think these people really realize what 'pro-life' means. I have come to realize a lot of them have views similar to people here. I think if we could get a better dialogue started, we could find common ground. But the divisiveness seems to be more 'fun' to some people.

[noiretextatique]

158. sister, you haven't seen anything

guess you weren't here for the DU abortion WAR of 2003.
there is no dialogue possible with some people. and the one who is claiming to be interested in serious discussion is one of the worst offenders in terms of nonsense. no one takes him seriously anymore....stick around and you'll see what i mean.

[outinforce]

96. And Just Who Here Has Posted Such An Awful Thing

"I never would post about how babies should be murdered because I have a different personal definition of when a fetus becomes a person."

Let me at the person who has posted this terrible thing.

I'll rip the sob from limb to limb.

I'll see to it that s/he gets banned from DU.

Anyone who would post that babies -- babies! -- should be murdered is just beneath contempt.

And here's a suggestion, redqueen: Do not -- DO NOT -- put words into my mouth.

I have NEVER -- NEVER -- said that babies should be killed.

I defy you to find where I have ever made such an awful suggestion.

You owe me an apology.

big time.

[redqueen]

100. In this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1854556#1858304

You use the term 'feby' to describe a baby which has been born but cannot yet speak. You posit that since this baby can't yet speak, it should not be considered a person and therefore not have rights granted to it. In some posts you assert that to deny parents the right to abort such babies is unfair.

Have I misconstrued your posts from that thread? If so please do correct me.

[outinforce]

108. You Owe An Apology

You: "I never would post about how babies should be murdered because I have a different personal definition of when a fetus becomes a person."

I never said -- in the thread you pointed to or anywhere else -- that babies "should be murdered.

Why are you confusing my advocating for an expansion of choices availabkle to adults with something I have never mentioned and would never mention -- that babies should be murdered???

You'll excuse me for saying this, but you sound very much like some anti-choice zealots I know who believe quite strongly that aborting a fetus is murder.

And it's OK with me if those anti-choice zealots consider aborting fetuses as being murder.

What I cannot stand, though, is someone accusing pro-choice folks of advocating murder or baby-killing.

Stop doing that!

[redqueen]

116. You're right I chose my words poorly and apologize for that

I went back and edited the post to reflect more accurately what you had said. Care to put into words what you WERE trying to say / advocate by inventing the term 'feby'?

I'm so tired of the game playing about this issue. Reading these silly, sarcastic, unserious 'arguments', one gets the impression that people care more about scoring points off each other than having a serious discussion of the issue.

[outinforce]

121. Do You Want To DIscuss Or Not?

I have no desire to tire you out here.

I honestly do not know why you would include in a post to me comments about your fatigue.

I am not sure who it is, exactly, that you think is playing games with this issue, or who you think it is, exactly, that is being silly, sarcastic, or unserious.

I strongly suspect, though, based upon your comments on this and other threads about "$hitstirrers" and other things that you have said specifically about me, that you would include me as one of the people whom you consider to be playing games and posting silly, unserious messages.

I confess that I do tend to respond to sarcasm with sarcasm, and that some of my posts today have been in that vein.

Sorry if that has caused you great fatigue.

And I do appreciate you taking the time to go back and re-read what I posted the other day, and I am very grateful that you edited your earlier post in this thread to reflect an ubnderstanding that is more in line with what I actually said and intended.

Still, I think you have not completely understood what I was saying. You continue to say that my position is that "pre-verbal babies should be allowed to be murdered".

Murder implies that a person is being killed. We do not speak (unless one is an anti-choice zealot) of fetuses being "murdered".

You distort my position when you suggest that I advocate in anyway the murder of anyone. Because only "persons" can be murdered. What I adovcate is changing the definitionm of persons. I most assuredly do not advocate murdering any person.

[noiretextatique]

159. if you want a serious discussion...choose another poster eom

[sangh0]

167. I agree

Some people prefer to fight over one unfortunate word, then seriously discuss the issue.

outinforce never said babies SHOULD be killed. He said parents should be allowed to kill their babies.

And if he were honestly interested in a serious discussion, he would have explained that, and not just attacked redqueen because one word of her post was inaccurate.

[Burma Jones]

46. It ain't like having your teeth cleaned

In other words, it's a serious medical procedure. For that reason alone, you probably wouldn't want to make a habit of it.

Do I have any moral queasiness about it? No, I am incapable of having an abortion and I don't think a fetus is a person, so I don't judge and do not abide others judging.

[yellowcanine]

49. No of course not. That is the strawman cartoon version put out by the

fundies. They know they won't "win" on the merits, so they distort the prochoice position.

[sandnsea]

52. I really don't care

90% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks, 99% by 20 weeks. I'm not against anybody getting an abortion in the first trimester for whatever reason. It's their business, I simply don't care. Late trimester abortions are done for medical reasons, either a seriously deformed fetus or the woman's health. It's assinine to think women are just waiting around until 9 months to have an abortion. Nobody is doing that. This has gotten to be an ignorant debate totally distorted by the right.

[redqueen]

75. Where can one find those statistics

Those numbers would do a lot to help me convince some people to possibly vote for Kerry in Nov. Unfortunately most seem to believe that you just can't get any reliable statistics about abortion... :(

[Cheswick2.0]

95. Oh I don't think you can get those statistics

It doesn't matter how often women tell you that those are the facts. Immoral abortion demanding women lie and make shit up so they can researve their right to have late term partial birth abortions on demand.

[Scout]

120. and without apology, no less!

"Immoral abortion demanding women lie and make shit up so they can researve their right to have late term partial birth abortions on demand ... " and without apology!

[Cheswick2.0]

130. yes the least they could do is apologize

Maybe we could pass some legislation that demands a woman apologize so that people who don't like abortion could feel better about voting for pro-choice politicians.

[luaneryder]

54. I doubt many women just

go out and get as many as they can. That's absurd. It's not as if abortion is without pain or complications. I'm not against abortion, I'm not for abortion; I'm for the availablity of safe, medically supervised abortion if a woman so desires. It's none of my business, none of the government's business, none of any religion's business.

[3 Cents and Change]

57. Yes, No.

It's just the political hyperbole labeling that goes on with both sides. Nobody can have a rational conversation any longer so they have to call each other names.

Everyone is either a right wing zealot or a left wing hippie.

Everyone is either anti-choice or pro-abortion.

Everyone is either a commi or a nazi.

[Cheswick2.0]

72. everyone is either moral or immoral

I am pro-choice I just wish women weren't so immorally demanding partial birth abortions for convenience and, you know, birth control.

[Right Makes Might]

83. That doesn't change the fact that someone is right

and someone is wrong.

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News and George W. Bush call progressives trators who hate America. Many progressives feel this administration has frightening similarities to other extreme right wing groups (ie. the Nazi's). The thing is, one side really is speaking the truth while the other is slinging mud in order to discredit their opponents when their own position is indefensible (which it generally is.)

There's a dangerous current spreading from the right that's filtered all the way into progressive circles that says, in effect, both "extremes" are wrong. This is the same current that, in an effort to be "fair," says that Michael Moore may be right about some things, but he's a biased "media whore." It's also the one that says that abortion is a "necessary evil." Let's be civil. Let's keep this friendly and orderly. Let's compromise.

The people who want to take away women's right to decide what happens to their bodies want to keep their enemies (us) nice and quiet. Well, I'm not going to be quiet.

And for the record... they are Nazi's.

[jukes]

86. i agree, 3C

and you're a poopiehead.


:+

[porphyrian]

127. What, you don't like binary labelling...?

But binary arguments simplify everything! Sure, they're inherently false, sure they define the options dishonestly, it's just so much easier predicting the behavior of the masses with only two possible outcomes. Really, do you want the people out doing and thinking whatever they want all willy nilly?

[redqueen]

129. Well put

This kind of behavior isn't helping anything, and IMO it's this kind of impasse that has allowed the two parties to become completely corrupt. If they know that their 'base' will vote a certain way no matter *what* they do on some issues, simply because of their stance on the emotional ones, what's their motive to improve? They know they've got the job locked up (with the help of gerrymandering - it's bipartisan, too), so why worry?

[Warren DeMontague]

64. My Take

I think most people on the pro-choice side say that in an ideal world, every pregnancy would be planned or intended, birth control would be safe, effective, widely available, and covered by all health insurance plans.. This is why I tell people who are "pro-life" that they should get out there and support research into better and more effective birth control. They never like to hear that, or when I point out that most major "pro-life" organizations in the USA are also anti-birth control. There haven't been any major strides in birth control medicine in over 40 years, partially because of pressure from religious and so-called "pro-life" groups.

But the debate, as I see it, isn't about that; it's about whether or not abortion should be criminalized. Want to reduce surgical abortions? Great. Work to raise the Cheney-ing Minimum Wage, because who in their right mind would be crazy enough to try to raise a kid on $5.15 an hour..... Support single payer health care.. Support other social safety net programs that might make it easier to be an unwed mother. Again, support easy access to safer and more effective birth control choices. If you can, Support RU-486 and Plan B Contraception, unless your ideology tells you that a micron sized fertilized egg is a sentient being.. But don't try to legislate the decisions made by women who aren't you. And for the person who groused about women "deliberately not using birth control" and "waiting until the 35th week, on purpose, to get an abortion..." Who are these women? Do they live in the same housing project as the proverbial bon-bon eating welfare queens who laugh maniacally as they take gov't checks cut from the paychecks of hard-working angry white AM Radio listeners down to the liquor store to buy vodka? In short, I don't think that really happens all that much, except in the fevered imagination of Limbaugh and Hannity clones... and I do find it psychologically interesting that debates about abortion seem to bring out men with strange levels of repressed anger about what women are "getting away with" sexually..

[redqueen]

85. Good ideas

I've been having some very contentious discussions about this subject with people who identified themselves as pro-life, but after I pressed them they said they would support choice if not late term and also in cases of rape, incest, severe deformity, etc. After we got that sorted I told them that third trimester is ALREADY unavailable unless for health reasons, and that supporting other, Democratic policies (such as the ones you mentioned) would go a long way towards REDUCING the necessity for abortions.

I even pointed out how other countries have more restrictive laws, and asked them why they thought the pro-life groups didn't just try to go that route, instead of making all abortions illegal, if they really wanted to reduce the number of abortions. That along with the knowledge that pro-life groups were against birth control pills (they didn't know?!) had them about ready to commit, but the closest I got was 'I'll think about it'.

:(

[patricia92243]

81. Pro LEGAL abortion is not the same as being for abortion - it just admits

that people will have them - no matter what - so they should be safeand clean so people will no die.

[leftofthedial]

105. I am rabidly pro-abortion

every time I see George Bush on TV.

[RebelOne]

113. I am pro-abortion, but I do not believe that

it should be used as a substitute for birth control.

[djg21]

118. Only if they are members of the Bush Family!

Then abortions should be mandatory, and perhaps retroactive.

[mvd]

132. Pro-abortion is used by the right wing to make us look bad

I don't like abortions (who would?,) and am very morally against them late in the term unless the mother's health is in danger, but feel that in many cases abortions have been done for good reasons. There should always be a choice up to birth. Even minors should be free from parental control. Or else we could be criminalizing abortion, which is never a good thing.

[Cheswick2.0]

134. since you are very morally opposed to late term abortions except in the

case of the womens health or life...you will be pleased to know that that is the only time women have late term abortions.

[mvd]

138. I knew that

:hi:

[outinforce]

137. What's Not To Like?

"I don't like abortions (who would?,)"

Why?

Why don't you like abortions?

Abortions are mere medical procdures that remove parasitic tissue.

Why in the world would you not like that?

[mvd]

139. I don't see it as tissue

I see it as a life developing, therefore any prevention I wouldn't like. Even when there's a good reason, I wish the conception wouldn't have occurred.

[outinforce]

142. Well, It Did Occur

so too bad, eh?

And what's this nonsense about developing life?

Surely you are not one of those fundies who believe that life begins at conception, are you?

Or is it that you think that it is a real tragedy whenever a tenage boy masturbates and spills all of that "developing life"?

Abortion is no different than removing an impacted tooth -- in fact, it is more beneficial that removing an impacted tooth, is it not?

And impacted tooth is not parasitic.

A fetus is.

[mvd]

146. No I'm not, but..

It will always turn into a life. The only reason I can think of for liking abortion is population control, and I'm not to that point yet. Abortion is not a happy process unless you are rich maybe and you just do what you want. But that's selfishness.

[outinforce]

148. Yeah, But

It will "turn into" a life.

Get it?

It's not a life yet.

Just like sperm.

Fetuses are no different from sperm.

If you want to ban abortions, you must, in order to be consistent, also want to legally ban male masturbation.

[mvd]

151. Never said I wanted to ban abortions

In fact, I think it's a choice. I just don't think it's something to be happy about.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[mvd]

160. Good day to you, too

But we disagree. Sometimes abortion is a relief (when the woman doesn't want the baby,) but I can't see it as a cause for celebration. I don't see your examples as the same thing. When the woman's health is in danger, it is having something harmful removed. But a parasite? I don't see it that way if it was conceived.

[mvd]

147. BTW, with masturbation

No life will develop anyway.

[Nikia]

156. Most sperm die anyway

When a male ejaculates, there are millions of sperm in his ejaculate. Even if a particuliar man caused a pregnancy everytime he ejaculated, if such a man existed, only one of the 1,000,000 plus sperm would become life. That is how we were evolved/created, for almost all but a lucky sperm to create life. That is because a woman's reproductive area is extremely hostile to sperm and other foreign invaders. This is necessary for her health.
Sperm (and eggs) aren't even proper human cells. They only have half the chromosomes that normal human cells have. Sperm and egg must join together to create a proper human cell.

[outinforce]

162. Don't Tell Me

Don't you dare tell me that my sperm are not "proper" human cells.

Each one of them is a perfect little gentleman.

And how dare you suggest that sperm are not "normal" human cells.

(OK, my sperm are gay sperm, and I guess that is not "normal", if you mean by that that the "norm" or average sperm are straight.

[Seabiscuit]

133. This has got to be...

... the stupidest question I've ever seen posed on DU.

[mvd]

149. It's a medical decision

I don't understand, either - what's there to get upset about OR like?

[porphyrian]

169. Really?!

I win!!!

[Dob Bole]

143. Yes. China.

They force women to have abortions.

[Gruenemann]

144. I am VERY pro abortion...

...in the case of Barbara Bush, who should've aborted all those monster fetuses!

[Seabiscuit]

170. If her mother

had suffered a miscarriage with her, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. :think:

[historian]

150. abortion is a private decision

but i will agree that unless there is an acute medical reason for it, taxpayers shouldnt have to fund someones idiocy or carelessness.

[Cheswick2.0]

153. they don't

[sampsonblk]

154. Yes

Only abortion doctors. If abortions stopped tomorrow, they'd go broke.

[outinforce]

157. Stop It!

Stop that right now!

Abortion providers are no more pro-abortion that dentists are pro-tooth decay.

Or than oncologists are pro-cancer.

Or than cardiologists are pro-heart disease.

What a terrible thing for you to say......all those wonderful abortion providers out there care for women really out of the goodness of their hearts. If there were no money to be made, abortion providers would still do abortions.

That is how much they truly care about women.

[noiretextatique]

161. show me one doctor who only does abortions

if you can. i think most doctors who provide abortion services also provide other ob/gyn services also. another of the IDIOTIC myths the rabid misogynists who call themselves "pro-life" take as gospel.

[sampsonblk]

168. C'mon friend...

You lambast what was said as a "IDIOTIC myth," and your evidence is "I think." Not very compelling.

I have no idea whether some doctors do only abortions or not. If there are people whose income is solely due to abortions, then IMHO they are the only ones who are honestly pro-abortion. Others may disagree.

[noiretextatique]

176. "IF"...ahhh yes, friend..."IF" is far superior

as evidence than I think :eyes:
"If there are people whose income is solely due to abortions, then IMHO they are the only ones who are honestly pro-abortion."

Let's use Planned Parenthood as an example, shall we? In addition to providing abortions, they also provide birth control, testing for STDS and AIDS, gynecological exams, and here in california, primary health care services. Hence my suspicion that the "abortion for dollars" myth is just that...PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I wonder if you've ever had a GYN exam...I know OIF hasn't. Perhaps if you had, you wouldn't have this fantasy.

[sampsonblk]

177. Whoa...

How'd we get from the doctor to the agency? Agencies (like Planned Parenthood) may provide several lot of different services, but that does not mean that each doctor performs several procedures. There are specialists in every field and every procedure. Not one single doctor does abortions exclusively? I find that hard to believe.

[noiretextatique]

181. OB-GYNS, aka

gynecologists. who do you think performs abortions at AGENCIES? that would be doctors...OB-GYNS. they are actually trained to do more than provide abortions. why don't you know that?

[Djinn]

174. no they wouldn't

they are ob/gyn's they'd move into another area of a very lucrative sector of the medical industry. It's not like there are doctors out there only qualified to carry out abortions.

[Jose Diablo]

164. I am for pro-choice

Women should have a choice on if to bring to term a child. I am not for abortion, I just think the woman should have the right to decide.

It is her body.

[Roaming]

165. I don't think anybody is really pro-abortion unless they're into

eugenics or something. However, I do object to the argument that women shouldn't be presented with facts at the abortion clinic and given a chance to change their minds. I am in favor of waiting periods and definitely would like to see every woman view an ultrasound picture of her baby before she decides to abort (although you cannot make that mandatory, of course).

[SoCalDem]

173. If one peruses the right wing media , the "libruls" plan is this...

Monthly D&C for every female between 13 and 50..(just in case there's a "resident")...

For "underclasses"..TWICE a month..:) (can never be too careful)

[truth is difficult]

179. No one is pro-abortion

That is just something silly conservatives made up.

[Democracy Died 2004]

180. after So many Bushes

were born i think all woman should have as many as they want. please.