Democrats for Abortion Policy Reform website...

[usregimechange]

I think Roe needs to be rexamined in light of medical technology that has pushed viability back to earlier stages of pregnancy. I also think brain development ought to be the controlling factor with viability important. I would cut off abortions by choice at some point in the second trimester rather than at the third. Keep the life and health exceptions of course. This is my web-site. Let me know what you think and if you agree help me build it with members, ideas, and respectful dialogue.

Democrats for Abortion Policy Reform
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Democrats4abortion_reform/

"This is a place for Democrats who are not 100% "pro-choice" to discuss where reform may be needed regarding abortion." I need to work on this description...

[Dookus]

1. sorry

No help here. Women cannot be compelled to give birth against their will.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Ditto.

No One will tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body. Sorry.

[usregimechange]

4. Except for the fact that there is another life in your body...

That at some point is not just a collection of cells.

[Dookus]

8. that is your opinion

I'm an absolutist on abortion. A woman should be able to have one at any time during her pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever.

[usregimechange]

12. In the 9th month because she wanted a girl not a boy? nt

[Dookus]

15. Yes

but that's a strawman. No woman has ever done that.

The fact is, NOBODY but the woman should be able to decide what's a good reason and what's a bad reason. What do you suggest? A Council of Elders who gets to choose what reasons are worthy and what ones aren't?

Sorry, as long as the fetus is living inside the woman, sucking life from her like a parasite, she and she alone gets to decide what to do with it.

[iamjoy]

24. Women In China Have

aborted girl fetus, wanting a boy.

[Dookus]

33. Yes

that is true. I'm talking about here in the US where there is some semblance of reproductive freedom.

[CaTeacher]

36. India too. n/t

[Dookus]

53. well

I don't see how the US abortion laws will affect that.

Clearly we're discussing US abortion law here.

[Cheswick2.0]

302. I doubt it, India has no limit on number of children

Chinese women do this because they are allowed only one child. There is no reason to assume that the women of India are doing the same.
Unless you show me some proof, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one.

[lukasahero]

350. Your proof

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3990133/

It's not about limits on the number of children, it's about valuing boys over girls. (BTW, it only costs 80 cents to get rid of a baby girl - one that has already been born.)

[cally]

360. Exactly the point

Infanticide happens. Unwanted children are killed after birth in many societies. Well, here too when you consider babies left in the trash cans soon after birth. I'm for safe and rare abortion.

[frankly_fedup2]

400. Yep, and China is the leader because they will not allow abortions . . .

How screwed up is that. Then they only let a couple have one child, or they are taxed unbelievably hard. If there only child is a girl, it is murdered or given to an orphanage. More often than not . . . murdered.

However, since China started this about 15-20 years ago, guess what?They now have a huge population of men; however, the women are few and far between. They may have almost made their own people extinct.

One thing I have learned in reading about cloning (another way to have children, basically), is women no longer need men to procreate. However, men will always need a woman. Even if they come up with some kind of man-made uterus that can carry a baby to term, they are still going to need a woman for one thing . . . an egg.

BAWHAWHAHAHAHAHAH.

Sorry (sounded creepy and scifi like . . . just seemed appropriate at the time).

[Cheswick2.0]

375. I have been a feminist for years, I know all about the devaluation

of women. One of the reasons society feels it can control reproduction is because we do not value women.
I am sure there are some people doing this in poor communities all over the globe, but it is not nearly the issue it is in China and the problem there is most deffinately number of children.

[TexasSissy]

319. I saw a documentary on this. They do this....and it is a sad

situation, as pointed out in the documentary. Even the mothers don't want to do that. But with the number of children allowed being capped at two, and with working farms, and with girl children needing dowries to get married which they can't afford, they sadly feel they have no choice.

It is not a situation that the U.S. wants to emulate, I'm sure.

[TexasSissy]

320. I saw a documentary on this. They do this....and it is a sad

situation, as pointed out in the documentary. Even the mothers don't want to do that. But with the number of children allowed being capped at two, and with working farms, and with girl children needing dowries to get married which they can't afford, they sadly feel they have no choice.

It is not a situation that the U.S. wants to emulate, I'm sure.

[usregimechange]

25. That already happens! Established in Roe.

A woman can not have an abortion in the last trimester unless a doctor finds that the woman's life/health is in danger. A doctor decides, not a woman!

[Dookus]

30. That is incorrect

Roe did not set such standards.

[athena]

200. You seem to have a problem with the woman making the decision.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it is no longer the 14th century.

[TexasSissy]

317. Your view of fetuses as a parasite sucking life from someone is

disturbing, to say the least.

I wonder if anyone has mentioned to you before that you seem to have a deep hostility toward fetuses?

[dorktv]

357. A parasite is a creature that takes nutrients from a host body, usually

killing the host. Most fetuses do not kill the woman.

[Dookus]

387. the definition of parasite

has nothing to do with killing the host organism.

However, this subthread once again confirms my belief that the only thing faster than light is the speed at which DU'ers will take offense where none was intended.

Parasite:

Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

[TexasSissy]

411. "Parasite" is a derogatory term when used in reference to people orfetuses

Like leech, sponge. All derogatory, disrespectful terms. Shows very clearly where you're coming from.

Most mothers do not feel this way. Abortion is an agonizing decision for them. They are not choosing to get rid of a parasite.

[athena]

419. I hate to say this,

but technically, a foetus is a parasite. Parasite is a scientific term, aside from its use as an insult.

For some women, it may be a difficult, agonizing decision to have an abortion, but for others, the foetus is a parasite that's taken over their body against their will. I belong to the second group: I may adopt a child at some point, but I do not want to give birth to a child, ever. I do not want to feel and be treated like a mere container. Chances are, I will never need an abortion, but if I did, and if the state didn't let me have one, I would commit suicide. No question about it.

I'm sure I'm not the only woman in the world who feels this way.

[knitter4democracy]

371. Wow.

I've been preggers three times, twice carrying to term and once having a very early miscarriage. I felt my son move at 10 weeks--when I still could have aborted him in my state. He was no parasite, killing me by feeding off my body's energy. That's not how it is. Women are made to carry children, some having an easier time of it than others. Our bodies were designed to keep a baby and ourselves alive at the same time. Are you opposed to breastfeeding, since that's a real baby feeding off the mother?

I don't want to go back to abortion being illegal, but I think it should be rare. After having my two, I can see why a woman shouldn't be forced, especially if having the baby is dangerous for her, but on the other hand, I don't like someone saying "it" is just a clump of cellular matter until all of a sudden magically becoming a baby at birth.

[AspenRose]

385. It's a more common view than you may imagine

My biology instructor this summer said that *EXACT* thing to me at least twice, knowing I was in my first trimester of pregnancy.

He made other rather hostile comments regarding married people as well....not quite sure where the anger was coming from and why he felt it right to direct it at a captive audience that did nothing to him except show up for class.

[frankly_fedup2]

398. Hey, if we are looking at it that way, then the movie . . .

Alien was right. (lol). Just a little humor (yeah, yeah, I know, very little).

[XanaDUer]

Who gets to decide?

Or decide what is or is not a good reason to have/not have an abortion?

Who gets to set the standards on what is acceptable (rape), or not (gender selection)?

Because it is still inside your body (if you are a pregnant woman).

[usregimechange]

29. The doctor decides in the last trimester....

"Blackmun argued that only at this final stage of pregnancy does the state have a strong enough responsibility to protect the life of the fetus to override the privacy concerns of the woman and to forbid an abortion."

"Roe v. Wade," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[FizzFuzz]

291. and aren't there plenty of instances of the right to an abortion STILL

denied to rape victims? I seem to remember plenty of horrific stories of legal decisions dragged out to third term, rapists escaping conviction, etc.

Safe legal abortion should be available to all women. The woman and only the woman should have the power to decide what is a crisis (and the decision to abort is treated by most women as a serious crisis undertaken for serious reasons), not some outside group deciding, "guilty of willful pregnancy until proven victimized".

I can't stand these anti choice people insisting that all women must suffer because they fear the few who decide poorly. In the real world, one must look at the good of the many over the good of the few, and balance "evils", and the "evil" of forcing women into the slavery of reproduction is more "evil" than the "evil" of letting the few poor deciders "get away with it". ONe must consider the real world consequences to the woman and her people of such a traumatic pregnancy. The anti-choice determination to ruthlessly see the issue as limited to the dominance of a fetus above a living woman is an abstraction (not to mention an insult to women that is so egregious as to make my head explode). It fits the male way of thinking (hierarchical, abstract, dependant on theoretical ideas of rights rather than on the consequences of those ideas applied affect actual people) as opposed to the female way of thinking (immediate, situational, realistic) as described by groundbreaking psychology theorist Carol Gilligan (see "In a Different Voice")

[frankly_fedup2]

129. That would never happen unless the child was already DEAD . . .

or would only live a couple hours. I'm tired of this BS about these full-term, healthy babies being "born" kicking and screaming, totally viable outside of the womb, and then the doctor tells the mother it's a girl, and then the mother telling the doctor, "Go ahead and "murder" it, we have plenty of girls. So the doc pushes a tracanter into the babies skull crushing it and sucking out the brains. That procedure is ONLY done when the baby has died in the womb. Due to the changes in hormones in the mother's body while pregnant and after pregnancy, the mother is usually given Pitocin to start immediate labor. If they do not do this, the dead baby's tissue would be rotting inside of the mother. As pushing the head of the baby out is the most trauma to the mother (physically labor sucks but the head is the biggest part that comes out), SOMETIMES physicians will do this to help things go a little easier on the mother. This is decided before the birth. Nine times out of 10, even though the child is dead, the mother wants to have her child and spend some time with it even though it is dead (which is understandable). That is a partial birth abortion. That is the only reason they do a partial birth abortion. Not the BS that the right tries to throw out there.

Puhlease don't fall for this BS. If a doctor EVER did that to a healthy, viable, screaming, crying infant, he would be brought up on charges of murder.

So you can listen to Sean Hannity and his lies about this (because I have heard this man set and lie about such things), you can look at pictures that have been edited by photo shop, (or were missed abortions and the mother had to have a D&E (dilatation and evacuation) to remove the remaining parts of conception, (which every hospital in the U.S. does at least a couple a week but you would never know that), or videos that are edited by Sonic or other video editing. Anything can be changed on film these days, so don't always believe what you see in a picture, believe what you see with your eyes.

Once a child is born and takes it's first breaths, that child is considered a live birth (this is man's law so do not go nuts over this). Therefore, the mother and father name the child, statistics are taking (I use to do the reports), a temporary birth certificate is given to the parents to go over and sign that all the information is correct, also if they are not married paternity and a lot of other possible things that can come up before sending it to the state capital.

HOWEVER (hold on to your boots), if a full-term baby is "BORN"; but the child never takes one breath, there is no legal record of this child ever even existing according to the state records. There is no death certificate because the child never died. The child never died because it never lived. Therefore, there is no birth or death certificate issued.

Now the parents can give the child a name, have funeral services, the whole nine yards; however, as far as the state is concerned (and the paperwork), that child never existed. It would be listed only on a quarterly report as baby boy Smith or baby girl Smith. Like I said, even if the parents give the child a name, that child will have no legal record of that name. The body always has an autopsy (if the parents want to have services) in pathology, and then the remains are released to a funeral home. However, if the family cannot afford to do this and/or do not want to have a service, the fetus is incinerated. That is the way the law is in Virginia.

I believe life begins when the baby is born and takes it's first breath just like I believe death begins when a person takes their last breath. Also, in Genesis, Adam was nothing until the "Lord breathed the breath of life into him." (don't feel like looking up verse but it is there).

Okay, now can you justify in-vitro fertilization to me? If you believe life begins at conception (sperm fertilizing the egg and then cells begin splitting) there are several eggs harvested and are fertilized in petri dishes but they do not use them all. Sometimes they do and that is when women have litters of 6 or more.

So if life begins at conception (fertilization of egg by sperm), then there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of souls in limbo . . . frozen . . . waiting! If the parents do not reclaim these "cells" that could be "babies" according to some because they are fertilized eggs, and the cells have divided, etc., they flush them down the toilet or sink. (Don't mean to be crude but that is what they do).

Why is it we do not hear anyone raising holy hell about this? Why aren't the pro-lifer's all over these places with protesters calling them baby killers as the women and or wife and husband go into these fertilization clinics or private practices so they can harvest eggs and sperm from them? Some women donate their eggs for money, just like men donate their sperm. Women can get a couple thousand dollars for a couple of her eggs; however, the men have an abundance of sperm so they wouldn't get as much (sorry). Are they not murdering babies if they do not use all the fertilized eggs? Think about it? Now intrauterine fertilization is a totally different thing, but in-vitro is fertilizing the egg with the sperm in the petri dish. They always do more than one but 9 times out of 10, they only place up to four fertilized eggs at a time in the uterus. Sometimes they do place more because a lot of them do not connect to the mother's uterine wall, causing spontaneous abortions almost immediately. Sometimes the doctors look at the different fertilized eggs and pick and choose what they think would be the most viable fertilized eggs. They say eventually we will be able to pick the sex of our child in the future. This would be a blessing in China considering what they do. Once one takes to the lining of the mother's uterine wall, the rest are put on hold and/or thrown away. This is where your stem-cell research comes in. Scientist want the frozen embryos (that are going to be thrown out anyway) to do research to try to cure diabetes, Alzheimer, Parkinson, spinal cord injuries, etc., but our current administration says no, but our scientist can work on ones that have already had researched those strains, which is only like 40 or something in this country. Around the World (Europe mostly), they are making unbelievable progress with these stem cells.

One always hears that we are not God, and where is the baby's choice in all of this. . . do they not count?" Obviously, with IVF, it could involve 10 fertilized eggs so would that not be mass abortion/murder (as far as a pro-lifers' beliefs)

I guess fertilized eggs (babies per pro-lifers) are lying in limbo, frozen, and if not claimed, are thrown away like trash everyday. Why are there no Christian preachers preaching about and against this.

I do not understand.

If life begins at conception, and a man and a woman cannot get pregnant to have a child in the "normal" way, then through the supposed death of many (unused eggs), this gives them a chance of having a baby, and that is okay . . . This does not make sense to me. . . does it make sense to any of you?

A good example is Celine Dion. She had her baby boy that way but says there is another egg frozen and she would never leave it forever because it is her son's twins; however, they will be born several years a part.

Now why is it okay to play God by doing this; however, women are murderers if they get an abortion? I know you don't have the answer anymore than I do. But it can make you think about the way things are so twisted in this world.

[question everything]

228. Never mind the IVF, what about miscarriage?

I think that there are some RWers who want to "adopt" the frozen fertilized eggs.

But we know that there are many pregnancies that never progress beyond the first few days. A woman never knows that she is pregnant, she just think that this is her regular period. So, what, will the pregnancy brigade go and collect all the used tampons and pads to check which contains fertilized eggs? And then, what, charge the women with neglect or murder?

Or even a later miscarriage, when the woman does know that she is pregnant and now grieves for her loss? Will the pregnancy brigade then go to investigate whether the miscarriage was purposefully induced?

[frankly_fedup2]

274. Did anybody else read somewhere where Bush was using the . . .

Patriot Act (you know, all our senators signed it but never read it), stating that he was going to have some agency obtain the records from abortion clinics to see who has had an abortion and how many? I read that somewhere (gonna have to do some research).

I know what you are saying. The morning after pill would take care of all of this. However, like giving condoms to teenagers or clean needles to junkies, the neocons want to stick their heads in the ground, and get on their soapbox to preach immorality to those who just need condoms, clean needles, and the morning after pill.

Even in Africa, with all the AIDs and the loss of a generation of people, they are against any kind of birth control, condoms, or the morning after pill.

The world they live in is a world that does not exist except for them. It would be a perfect world if teenagers did not have sex and get STD's or unwanted pregnancies; it would be a perfect world if people didn't do drugs; it would be a perfect world if AIDs and cancer were cured. However, we on the left live in reality. A real world where we recognize that we cannot ignore these issues and/or the people who are suffering. They can try to turn a blind eye to the ugliness in this world; however, we Democrats have our eyes wide open and these issues have to be addressed not ignored.

[FizzFuzz]

339. I remember reading about some hospitals denying morning-after pill to rape

victims (its standard policy to provide women who go through the rape-victim procedures to receive morning-after pill). ON religious grounds, I believe. :mad: Right, just the thing a loving Deity would do.

"Even in Africa, with all the AIDs and the loss of a generation of people, they are against any kind of birth control, condoms, or the morning after pill." -----Bush global gag rule enforces this, preventing the work of clinics there. Dooming thousands of women and children to death, suffering and disease. Bush and the RW Christians truly are the actualization of evil.

Bush admin. website twists scientific fact, calling condoms unsuccessful in AIDS prevention, attacks all forms of birth control and touts abstinence as the only option.

[frankly_fedup2]

401. He is a DAMN liar. He cannot tell me anything about AIDs. I have lost

two family members (one this past March), and then this SOB sits and says condoms do not help prevent AIDs. Puhlease. That man is so ignorant and opinionated. Maybe he ought to talk to Magic Johnson's wife. Does he think they no longer have sexual intercourse.

(I only mention a famous person because that would be the only person a politician would listen to . . . a celebrity. You know, like the ones that once they get a disease, they go testify in front of Congress about getting more money for research, etc.).

It's because of stupid comments like that, that my brother-in-law (his wife, my sister-in-law died 3 years ago) was treated like a leper by the funeral home. They picked him up at the hospital, sealed him in a coffin of THEIR choosing, and refused to embalm him. I told my mother-in-law that we should just have a graveside service (because if we had a viewing, and since they would not embalm him, he would be so blown up and distorted looking, that it would be intolerable for all of us. So that is what we did. There were 15 minutes spoken about his life and that was it.

I can understand them not wanting to endanger any of their employees since embalming is removing all of the blood and replacing it. One also has to massage the body for up to four hours to keep blood vessels from bruising just under the skin (yeah, I have an uncle who owns a funeral home).

Anyway, the first time I took my brother in law to the Infectious Disease Center for his care, they gave him all kinds of information, condoms, and so many other things to help him it was unbelievable. I figured the right-wing "compassionate Christians" had not got in there yet to deny specified care because of THEIR beliefs. Anyway, my brother in law also had Hepatitis A, B, and C. How you get all three, I don't know, I thought the lower the letter, the worse the case of Hepatitis one has, but my mother in law said they said that so I did not argue.

People need to stop, even for a second, and imagine what someone goes through, before they decide what is right or wrong for that person. Everyone is an individual and everyone deserves respect, even in death, even if they are diseased, and even if they are diseased with the so-called plaque of our time.

[FizzFuzz]

415. I am so sorry Frankly. What a cruel experience. You were strong though,

and wise and compassionate, helping guide your mother in law through. I think that qualifies for some good karma.

I think all of us fighting against the lies of the IMperial Throne and its minions, in whatever way we can, are creating good karma.

It is what we do from moment to moment, and whether we can act on the wisdom and compassion that exists already within us that determines who we are and what our surroundings reflect, and on a large scale, our collective future. Its human action that determines human lives. That's what I believe, anyway.

"Compassionate Christians" seem to think that compassion is beating other people up with the judgemental decrees of some Deity who exists outside of themselves to watch and pass judgement on us, meanwhile waiting for said Deity to appear in a burst of..flame or clouds or media fanfare ( ;) ) or something, and take them away.

But even behaving so ignorantly, they have that core of wisdom and compassion deep inside, its just so buried under human failings (as it is for everyone), its hard to believe its there (this is part of my belief system too, and I really do believe it, it makes sense the concept that we all have value and dignity, I just have to work at remembering this part, since liars and hypcrites and hurtful people make me soo angry).

Forgive me, I just typed my stream of thought, kind of putting my personal life philosophy out there, even though no-one asked for it. ( :sheepish grin: )

[frankly_fedup2]

416. Thanks FIZZFUZZ . . . it was a very trying time.

And since it happened, there has not been good Karma in the family, unfortunately (basically . . . for me). It had for my husband though. I feel used by his family. You see, we had to pay for EVERYTHING because my brother-in-law (who knew he was gonna die because when he moved back in with my mother-in-law said he had come home to die). He was home for four years and not a dime. My mother in law never did anything either. This happened with my husband's father as well when he died. We had to co-sign a note for my mother in law, paid for everything for the funeral; however, that time everyone paid us back because it wasn't thousands of dollars owed.

My two remaining brother in laws, my only sister in law, and my mother in law are avoiding my husband and I like the plaque. My mother in law lied to my husband and me concerning the money. It's a very, very, very long story. However, for them to put my brother in law in a casket of the funeral home's choosing (which was not the cheapest I might add) did not embalm him but did pick the body up, dug the grave, and set up a graveside service that lasted 15 minutes. All of this cost over $3000.00. My husband and I paid it all, because no one else EVER has the money for anything. This time, I just cannot let it go. I'm tired of being used. This has caused problems between my husband and me. I told him if he did not see anything wrong with this, go live with them, and I meant it. I gave him an ultimatum, so he left, went to Motel 6, immediately called me back, and said he was coming home. He saw this time, I was serious, and all I wanted him to do is on the 8th of every month to call them and ask for the money. Well, he had refused and that is when he left and went to motel 6. When he called me back, he said he would do that. Now on the 8th of every month, no one answers their phone. (which by the way is in our name because they could not afford to get one put in). ARRRRGGGGHHHHHH! I gotta go take a Xanax.

Thanks for your kind words FIZZFUZZ. Thanks for your sincerity.

One thing is true that my father always told me . . . if you never want to see someone again, particularly a relative, lend them money. And that is what has happened.

[FizzFuzz]

417. what a situation! all the more kudos to you for getting through it with

dignity. Being able to treat ugly people kindly is really hard. I'm not too good at it myself, yet.

One thing for sure, I really applaud you for laying down an ultimatum with your husband. Necessary for your sanity and probably the best thing for him too, frankly (ha, not to take your name in vain). But seriously, if he grew up with such dysfunction, he's probably in need of help to pull away from it, learn to set boundaries, learn to even recognize that its harmful and takes advantage of his own loved ones; all that good stuff. Gee, I forgot to say too, that stepping away from harmful people is the kindest thing you can do for them too. I always thought that I'm not doing them any good by letting them increase their load of crappy karma by standing around letting them misuse me. Sure they'll find someone else, but still, ending it with you, you've helped them lighten it by one. B-)

The good we do comes back and ripples out. Of course, it can be hard continuing to do good things when sometimes it seems the response is a slap in the face. (rolling eyes with experience, heh heh ) But who we are connected to is our karma too, so its our task to find the best way through it. And our best self is within, if we make the effort to act on it. The more we act on it, the brighter it grows. In fact, I have found that if I can actually appreciate the growth I'm trying to accomplish, and (gasp) see the jerk..ah I mean other person ;) ... as helping me grow, the Universe responds supportively.

I love your Dad's quote, that's hilarious, and so true!!!

:toast:

Fizz-O

[Bettie]

296. Actually, the "pro-life" brigade are the least sensitve....

...about loss.

My MIL who swears that life begins at conception. That its a baby as soon as fertilization occurs, was the one who told me that my 42 week daughter, who was born with her heart beating but unable to breathe was not a real loss.

My miscarriages were similarly dismissed by this woman who votes on this issue and touts her "pro-life" stance all the time.

Oh, she also told me that my child's soul was in hell because she was not baptized. And then she wonders why I am not all that interested in religion!

Every single one of my pro-choice friends honored my grief, none of the "pro-life" relatives I have thought that it was anything to grieve over, simply "god's plan" to accept.

[Cheswick2.0]

304. Good God, do you have a relationship with this harpy?

I hope you have told her exactly how her insensitiveness has hurt you.

[Bettie]

306. Actually, she's a nice woman in all other respects...

...and I am grateful to her for raising my wonderful husband for me.

We don't speak of this or religion. I did tell her how hurt I was by what she said, but she is 78 years old and believes what her church tells her.

She's a wonderful grandmother too.

I forgive her her blind spots due to her age and the times she grew up in. I do not give my sisters-in-law the same leeway though.

Family gatherings are um...interesting to say the least! :-)

[Bettie]

294. Very Good Argument, well stated.

Much better than I could say it.

[Cheswick2.0]

303. brilliant FF2

I am saving this thread just to hold onto your post. Thank you and let me know if you are interested in forming the Women's Party with me, should it ever be nessesary. When the fetal festisists take over the Democratic party I am outa here.

[knitter4democracy]

374. A couple of things

First of all, you are absolutely right about what the medical establishment is actually doing, and it's good that you shared all this.

Secondly, having actually been an evangelical Christian before finally seeing it for what it was, I can tell you that there are preachers railing against all those babies in petrie dishes around the world about to be destroyed. Most won't touch it because they have parishoners who are going through infertility (it's very hard to be infertile in one of those churches with "family" this and "family" that everywhere you look) and know the pain those women face. However, there are those saying that IVF is playing God and that creating any more embryos than are actually implanted is wrong, since it leads to murder down the road.

They just don't picket those clinics because they know some of their own go there too.

[Tansy_Gold]

288. If a woman wants a girl and would abort a boy or vice versa,

she sure as hell wouldn't wait until the ninth month to find out.

Sex can be determined very early in the pregnancy and a "choice" abortion performed then.

How stupid do you think women are, anyway? You think we'd just go through months and months and months of pregnancy, then suddenly a week or so before giving birth decide, "Oh, I don't want this one because it's not the right sex. I want to start ALL OVER."

Give me a fucking break. WOMEN DON'T DO THAT. Not here in the US and not in China or India or anywhere else. If they're going to ABORT on the basis of sex, they have to have the means to determine sex before delivery. If they have the means to determine sex before delivery, they do it EARLY, ABORT, and start over again.

The real tragedy is the deliberate KILLING of post-partum children who are of the wrong sex. They are starved or strangled or suffocated, because the people live in such poverty and without recourse to modern medical technology that women must bear one unwanted child after another, then kill them, all so that the fathers can get the son they want.

There is also evidence to support the accusation that in many poor countries, girl babies that are graciously allowed to live are then subjected to poorer nutrition, less health care, and -- as we all know -- less access to education.

I'm sick and tired of all this carrying on, this blathering and anti-woman hand-wringing over unborn babies who are threatened at almost the moment of birth with a horrible death.

IT FUCKING DOESN'T HAPPEN, and you are just playing another of the right wing's anti-woman trump cards. You just auotmatically assume that women are so callous, so cruel, so selfish that we would engage in these horrible things for no reason other than our convenience. Thanks a lot for the vote of confidence.


Tansy Gold, who will never give a CENTIMETER on this issue. NEVER.

[Cheswick2.0]

305. I am telling ya Tansy....these people get a foothold in the

Democratic party and we should form a Womans Party. We can vote for and work with any democratic politicians who are pro-choice, but refuse to vote for those who are not and put up our own candidates.

[Crowdance]

324. With ya' Cheswick

This thread and others like it make me want to form Democrats for Choice. We need to be fighting now, before they control the party.

[Cheswick2.0]

301. That is sick. Why do you hate women?

You must hate women to think that is what they are doing.

[cushla_machree]

65. the problem is

Who is going to set the standard?

Who gets to arbitrarily decide when it is no longer 'just a collection of cells'? Thats the issue here. My own personal cut off point would be within 2 months, but thats where i personally draw the line. what right do i have to impose my opinion on others?

So what, are you gonna get a panel together composed of doctors, women, etc..and they are are going to pick when its ok and when its not?

of course at some point its not just a collection of cells. Thats when the good old phrase, "against abortion, don't have one" comes in. What does it matter to you that some woman gets an abortion at a month or the 5th? It doesn't affect you. It never will. Thats my major problem with the pro-life movement in general. They cry and pray for those lost to Roe V Wade, but you know what, the mother isn't crying. Perhaps she relieved she's got one less mouth to feed. Perhaps now she has a brighter future and will be able to care for her future offspring. Perhaps she is lucky to be alive whereas otherwise she would have died during childbirth. Perhaps she feels badly, but she did what she thought she had to do. Perhaps she just doesn't care and its her 2nd abortion. Either way, all of these people have the right to a safe abortion at any time. Until the baby comes out of the uterus, no one has a right to tell the woman what to do.

Woman have come to far to go back.

[Yupster]

80. The stantard should be set

the same way other decisions are made in a republic.

Why is it that I can take money out of my IRA at age 59 1/2 ?

The number was agreed upon as a compromise. That's how representative democracy works. The two sides work up a compromise that most people can agree to. Then the fringes on each side get mad and call their representatives sellouts.

[Dookus]

85. You can take money out of your IRA

at any time. You pay a penalty, though.

But that hardly compares with imprisoning a woman who does not wish to give birth.

[Yupster]

96. Who said anything about

prison?

[Dookus]

100. Tell me

how you compel a woman to give birth who is intent on getting an abortion. Either you imprison her until she gives birth, or you imprison her after the abortion. Which do you propose?

[XanaDUer]

113. She would have to be under lock up all the time...

Also, not allowed to have anything sharp, pens, or anything that could be used as an abortofacient.

It would be interesting to see this enforced.

[Yupster]

123. When I did college debate, this

was called something like "argument al absurdium." or something like that. It's been 25 years.

[XanaDUer]

124. Huh?

:shrug:

[Yupster]

154. It's a debate tactic

You take your opponents argument, and take it to an absurd extreme.

For example, if your opponent argued that the federal government had the right to impose speed limits on highways throughout the nation, your response could be that you could see it now. A one mile per hour speed limit on Wyoming highways, and police on donkeys chasing down people going two miles an hour and hanging them from the lampposts.

Then the debator looks at his partner, and smirks, while the judges start subtracting points from his card.

The reason I thought of it was that the proposal to make some abortions illegal, sent a poster immediately into a talk about locking up women in prison until they deliver and other absurd ideas that were no where in my post inferred. No, making something illegal does not infer prison. That's just absurd which is why I thought of the silly debate tactic.

[question everything]

236. I think that there has been a case, quite recently

where a young woman was being held so she won't be able to travel to a different county where she could get an abortion - there was none in her.

I don't remember the details. I also think that there was a woman in prison and the prison would not provide her with abortion so she was forced to carry her pregnancy to term.

[Yupster]

241. I wouldn't support either of those

two restrictions, although if the first young lady was a minor, I would not allow her to leave the country without her parents' knowledge for any reason.

[FizzFuzz]

332. another recent case of a wingnut masquerading as a women's clinic

providing abortion referrals--then purposely delaying women's Dr appointments, etc, until it was past the legal time limit, thereby forcing the women to give birth.

[Cheswick2.0]

307. checked your bio...ho hum, another uterus free person

with control issues.

[TexasSissy]

322. What do you mean by "uterus free"?

You mean a guy? Or someone who's had a hysterectomy?

[Cheswick2.0]

331. what do you think?

and why bother asking?

[TexasSissy]

410. I have no idea. That's why I asked. Sorry if it offended you that

someone wanted to understand your post. I will know to avoid them in the future, Cheswick. Just a tip: You might want to consider taking a college course in communications skills, so that you can learn to communicate better. Have a nice day.:hi:

[frankly_fedup2]

275. We cannot even afford to keep REAL criminals in jail, and you want to see

women, who are pregnant, put into jail to make them give birth to a child they did not want?

The Republicans are in all actuality giving the "fetus" more rights than the woman.

You cannot solve all situations with the same solution.

Also, what gets me is the Republicans say it is okay to abort a fetus in the case of incest or abortion. Why is it okay then? It's not the fetus's fault. So they are picking and choosing which fetus has more rights than others to be born. Where do they get off making this decision?????

[Yupster]

121. What about the same way

the government keeps people from taking money out of their IRA's before age 59 1/2?

With a fine. Maybe even community service.

Why would someone automatically think prison if someone does something illegal? That seems odd to me. There are so many punishments aside from prison for other illegal things.

Last time I got a no seatbelt ticket, I didn't even think prison might be an option. Although the stupid judge did threaten me with contempt of court - seriously.

Are there really people out there who think prison must be the penalty for every offense?

[Dookus]

125. OK

now we're getting somewhere.

So you think a fine is appropriate.

How much of a fine? Are you concerned that this would be yet another way to ensure abortion rights for the wealthy while hurting the poor?

If you think getting a late-term abortion is the equivalent of not wearing a seatbelt, why on earth are you so adamant about changing the law? Either it's a serious issue or it isn't.

[XanaDUer]

134. Well, it's been 25 years since he debated

have patience...

[Yupster]

137. Maybe there can be judicial minds

more sturdy than mine.

My point is that making something illegal does not automatically mean jailtime. I don't understand why two different people automatically jumped to jail in their posts. That just seemed weird to me.

You might not want to punish the woman at all. Maybe just take the doctor's license away. Maybe community service for the woman, or a choice of a fine.

I'm a stock broker. Hopefully we have representatives and legal minds who can do a better job than I in coming up with penalties that would best fit the crime.

That shouldn't be a determinant in whether something should be legal or not though. I don't think a fine is a very effective punishment for a speeding ticket, but that doesn't mean I think speeding should be legal.

[Dookus]

148. well

I'm asking people who are quick to propose limiting abortion to stop and think about exactly HOW such laws will be enforced. It's not a trivial aspect.

We basically have two forms of punishment: imprisonment or fines. I think a fine only favors the rich at the expense of the poor.

The fact is, there was a long time when abortion was NOT legal in this country, but it didn't stop abortion. So any attempt to re-criminalize it will have to deal with the fact that women WILL continue to have abortions. Outlawing procedures will not eliminate them - it will only create a situation where punishment must be decided.

[Yupster]

165. I don't think anyone thinks

legally limitting abortion will stop it. No more than anyone thinks making speeding illegal will stop it.

Still that is not an argument for not having speeding laws.

Of course though enforcement would be a problem with illegal abortions as I'm sure it is now as there are currently abortion restrictions.

My brother in law (sister-in-law's brother) is a heroin addict. The family has tried everything and he has pretty much used up the support of everyone in the family over so many years. I don't know what a correct punishment for his addiction would be. Certainly nothing that has been tried has worked so far.

But still, I sure don't want to make heroin legal because it's difficult to find the proper penalty to fit the crime.

You hope you have creative competent people who can come up with penalties or punishments that will work. As many of us know with drug addiction, it is not an easy task.

[arcos]

267. addictions are diseases...

Do you seriously support penalties against people who are addicted to something??

Do you realize you would be punishing people for a disease?

[K-W]

268. no, addictions are addictions

and while the disease model is a bit more progressive than its predecessors, it is no more accurate.

Addictions are thier own beast entirely, but certainly should not be considered a criminal problem nor an issue of blame or personal weakness. We are all capable of being addicted, we just have to stumble into the wrong set of conditions.

[Cheswick2.0]

308. Isn't addiction punishment enough?

I am shaking my head here. Surely you don't mean to say someone should be punished for a desease?
I am all for locking up rich dealers. I am not talking about the poor bastards like your BIL who has probably run the drugs across town in exchange for a fix. I am talking about those fucking bastards who have the sense never to touch the shit themselves but are happy to sell to your loved one and mine so they can live in mansions.
You want to punish women. You want to punish addicts. Who else shall we punish to satisfy your need for control? How about poor people and retards?

[Zomby Woof]

139. a tapeworm is another life in someone's body

And we are ALL collections of cells. Tough shit if you don't like the reductionism. You have to do better if you want to get away with being a body nazi on this board.

A woman denied her reproductive freedom is denied her human freedom.

Now eat this collection of cells that fell out of my ass.

[Cybergata]

151. People may not see the wisdom you speak...

since unfortunately we are always told we are the superior species on earth. I learned it as a child, but being a student of Buddhism has made me think about how ridiculous this is. Humans have been so devastating on so many species of animals. We have taken away their habitat or hunted them to extinction. When the abortion argument comes around again, I always have a very hard time with people so ready to ban abortion, and yet take little serious notice of the fact that the largest group of people who live in poverty are children. Or the fact that animal species have been carelessly killed to extinction. This whole issue is a very emotional one for me in many ways. :hippie:

[Zomby Woof]

164. I get tired of humans thinking they are the ultimate

Like WE are the be-all and end-all of the life cycle on Earth, billions of years in the making. We have our moments - but we degrade nature in so many ways that much of our sorrow and alienation is rooted in our divorce from its lessons.



And now a random digression... You got to love the vehement 'pro-lifers' with heads of elk on their walls. Just a few strands in the DNA that differ us from an earthworm. That is why "The Far Side" is so resonant as art.

Life is to be valued, but as you said, we are not doing the children already in this world any favor, or the adults they become, without realizing our proper place on the table of life.

[frankly_fedup2]

278. I agree Cybergata, and what is so sad is we are suppose to be the . . .

ones with intellect, reasoning, and understanding right from wrong. Even in the wild, an animal will take care of it's offspring. When a teenage girl is forced to have a baby, and would have to have the baby unless her parents agreed to the abortion, then there will be more babies found in dumpsters, public toilets, as well as more teen suicides, etc. These girls get so hysterical about their situations, they lose even their common sense and conscience to where they can justify it in their own minds.

[Cheswick2.0]

300. yeah, my body not yours

[in_cog_ni_to]

353. key words there, bud.

at some point........ A fetus is a fetus...not a baby.

I just love it when a MAN starts a thread on abortion. :eyes:

[usregimechange]

3. They all ready are...

If they are in the third trimester without a good medical reason (life and health of the mother).

[Dookus]

20. are you referring to

late-term abortion laws? They're being overturned all over the country.

Only the woman involved gets to make the final decision on what happens with her body.

[usregimechange]

31. edu

"Blackmun argued that only at this final stage of pregnancy does the state have a strong enough responsibility to protect the life of the fetus to override the privacy concerns of the woman and to forbid an abortion."

"Roe v. Wade," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Dookus]

40. And I disagree with Blackmun

on that.

by the way, you seem not to know exactly what Roe did. The decision did NOT set the requirements in place. It defined the limits of what state laws (and presumably federal) could do.

A state could follow MY path and allow abortions for any reason at any time. Roe ALLOWED states to put some limits in, it did not require them to do so.

[usregimechange]

82. That is true, why did they do that? nt

[Dookus]

83. if what is true

why did who do what? What are you talking about?

[usregimechange]

94. Roe doesn't require states to do that it permits them to, why? nt

[Dookus]

104. because it's a flawed decision

they were trying to compromise on a difficult issue. But it also allows for exceptions for the health and life of the mother, which pretty much allows for all late-term abortions, at least as they're done in the US.

Now I've asked you a few times: how many late-term abortions are perfomed annually in the US for reasons you consider frivolous? I'd like to know the extent of the "problem" you're trying to solve.

[usregimechange]

186. I am not sure but it happens, see above... nt

[Cheswick2.0]

309. "I don't know, but it happens"

Then I suggest you find out and prove that it happens before you start proposing changes to a law that has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

[usregimechange]

189. actually, see below...nt

[frankly_fedup2]

329. Please don't believe everything they tell you because it isn't true. . .

There is propaganda that is put out there in hopes that people will believe it. There is a little truth to it; however, they fail to include important parts of the issues and then people go nuts over this misinformation believing this propaganda and believing they have to do something about it. Common sense would tell you that a partial birth abortion, explained as only Sean Hannity can explain it, is murder of a living, breathing human being. They do not do partial birth abortions on a living, breathing human being and why would anyone believe that doctors did this??? Come on people . . . be realistic here.

I explained the reasons for late-term abortions above. I am too tired to post it again. You can read it above if you are interested. If not, that is fine too. However, I'm telling you the truth because I worked in a hospital and did birth certificates, death certificates, transcription for pathology, all physicians.

I even had a 13-year-old new mother, when I approached her to go over the information she wanted on the birth certificate to make sure it is true, turn and ask me, "Do I sign this in cursive?" No joke!! Then, the 14-year-old father's parents were raising holy hell because they said he was not to sign the paternity papers, and they would not allow him to because he was a minor. The 14-year-old new daddy said he wanted to be on the birth certificate and the child have his last name. In between all of this chaos, I called Richmond, where the Vital Statistics Records office of Virginia is, and talked to one of the administrators. She put it pretty blunt . . . "If he is old enough to have sex and create a baby, then he can sign his name as the father and be responsible for its care for the next 18 years. I brought up the part about him being a minor and the parents and she told me they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. So, I went back into the room of chaos, of questions of cursive writing or printing, threats of lawsuits against me (and I'm just the messanger), questions wanting to know my supervisor's name, the phone number of vital statistics, the father trying to drag his son out of the room before signing the paternity papers. I had to get some control so I looked at the father and told him if he did not allow the father of the child, who is willing to sign the papers, sign the papers, I would have to call security and have him removed. This went over really well. Finally the father signed and I took the paperwork and got back to my office ASAP. I did not want to be around those people another minute. I could tell you hundreds of stories like these.

The Bill that Bush signed "supposedly" ending partial birth abortions was totally moot. All for show. Why do you think the Dems were going along with it. They didn't change anything with this law, it was all for show. The one thing this law did do is give the fetus more rights than the woman. I do not believe this bill takes the mother's life into consideration Dookus. You will start hearing about women dieing in childbirth again. This will happen because the physician cannot make a decision to save the mother or the fetus. That law states the fetus. According to Bush, the fetus has more rights to life than an already living, breathing woman. This is all moot, again, because there are no viable infants being born alive and kicking and screaming outside of the mothers body and/or just before coming out of the mother's body having a trocan stuck in the lower parts of their skull and sucking out the brain so the skull is crushed. Like I said, if a doctor did that to a viable infant, he would immediately be arrested for murder. If a doctor did that because it was the wrong sex that the parents wanted and because the parents asked him/her to do it earlier, it would be murder, and the nurses that work with him as well as the pediatrician (who has to be present in the room now by law) would all see what he did and would report him for murder. Three are more people in that room, professional people, then a doctor and the patient. Even an anesthesiologist is in there on standby.

I did it again. Sorry for the speech, I'll get down off my soapbox now.

[question everything]

210. Excellent. Thank you

Wonder whether the originator of the thread is a man or a woman.

[Crowdance]

279. Man, says profile. Why am I not surprised? n/t

[dorktv]

230. This is true enough...it could be considered involuntary servitute and

that is illegal.

[Lerkfish]

333. yup that about sums it up for me...

I don't PREFER that people choose abortion, but I believe they should have that choice.

[sally343434]

5. What is it about men ...

What is it about some men who just can't be satisfied until women are relegated to being vassals of the state (or church)? If men could get pregnant, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

To quote Our Great Leader, "Who cares what you think?"

[XanaDUer]

7. If men could get pregnant,

abortion would be a sacrament.

[Kool Kitty]

45. No kidding. Truer words were never spoken.

There wouldn't even be a debate about it.

[XanaDUer]

55. I know, and I fear

that a great deal of sexist thinking surrounds the concern about fetuses.

Why does the US not have universal healthcare? That would show concern about life, would it not?

Why is the US not expanding welfare? One thing I was angry at Clinton about was this welfare reform. Whom was that going to hurt? Women and children, correct?

Why are US companies open 24/7, staffed usually by the undereducated or uneducated underclass who need the most protection? What kind of pro-family, family values messages does THAT send?

And daycare? Affordable, reliable daycare?

The question is not should abortion be legal (it should be neither-it should be a medical decision between a woman and her healthcare provider), but what is wrong with society that it is so anti-woman, anti-child, anti-family, hate-the-poor?

[Kool Kitty]

76. I agree with all you said,

and you said it well. There is so much wrong with that type of society that I don't know where to start. We just have to keep plugging and get more women in office and positions of power.

[XanaDUer]

Thank you...

America can show its concern for life before and after birth a hell of a lot better than it does now.

[tigereye]

365. nicely said and succinct

why do people so often fail to see the big picture?

[frankly_fedup2]

402. Yeah, they want you to take those vitamins while your pregnant . . .

have the prenatal care to make sure the fetus will have a healthy birth; however, if you wanted an abortion because you knew you could not raise a child on your paycheck or yours and your husbands, but a counselor talked you out of it, you are screwed again because the state says, sorry loser, get a fourth job, don't expect any help from us.

nuff said!

[jdj]

61. I think it would be more like a Jiffy Lube.

A clinic on every corner, in and out in 20 minutes or less.

Moot argument probably, because the human race would have died out long ago.

But another possibility is they'd just find a way to make women have the babies instead. hmmm....wait a minute....

[usregimechange]

14. Lots of women oppose abortion under some circumstances...nt

[WillyT]

152. Yeah... And Many Men Are Smart Enough To Keep Their Opinions...

to themselves when it comes to abortion!!!

Sorry, but when science gets to the point where YOU can become pregnant and carry a fetus to term, then YOUR opinion will become relevant to the discussion of choice.

And not a moment sooner... DUDE!!!

:wtf:

[question everything]

243. Then they should not have one themselves, but should not impose on others

[Cheswick2.0]

311. then those women can decide not to have an abortion

under those circumstances.

[tigereye]

366. cripe it's not like most people want to have one!

It's not exactly a good time! I have sat with friends in the clinic as they waited to have one. I have seen terrified teenage girls going into clinics harrassed by male and female creeps who do not really care about them! The reasons are incrdibly complex. And should be left to the woman, possibly her partner and the doctor.

[knitter4democracy]

376. I do

I think this issue is more complicated than is being discussed here, and yes, I do have a uterus, and I have used it.

I knew a 14 y.o. girl who was forced to get an abortion (without painkillers, so 4 nurses had to hold her down) by her mother. Let's just say she was more than a little traumatized by the whole experience. Her mom had the cash and had medical decision-making power--the doctor asked the girl in front of her mother if she wanted it, so how could the girl answer? After the procedure, she was crying, and when the guy looked up and saw it, he ran out of the room. Was it her choice? No, and her mother was reported by our school for abuse.

How many times is it really not a choice? The b.f. or husband says he'll leave or hurt her if she has the baby, she cannot afford another mouth to feed, her parents will kick her out to the streets (knew another one with that issue) . . . We talk like it's only women with control over their own bodies facing this decision, but how many women in this country don't?

Also, a bit of feminist archetypal criticism here, but I've always been uncomfortable with the procedure itself: a man (usually, since most Ob/Gyns are men) sticks a piece of metal up a sedated woman's vagina and into her uterus, taking out the soon-to-be baby inside. How is that not an image of rape? Now, the morning-after pill is more like the natural abortificants we've been using for millions of years, but abortion is troubling in its imagery.

What if we worked just as hard to make sure all women were supported financially and all as we work to keep Roe legal? I know many here do, it's just we need to work harder.

[NightTrain]

388. And some African-Americans oppose Affirmative Action.

What's your point? That the far right has honed propaganda to an art form? If so, then I certainly agree!

[whistle]

6. I agree, this is a decision between a woman and her doctor...

...the law needs to be written in a way that keeps all other people out of the loop because it just is none of other people's business.

[Yupster]

23. Why do people say between a woman

and her doctor?

So if the woman wants an abortion, and the doctor is pro-life, then what?

Don't you mean it's a woman's decision period?

[Cheswick2.0]

313. Doctors come in when it is a matter of health

what women who wants/needs and abortion would go to a anti-choice doctor?

[cally]

9. I understand what you are saying

but I don't believe in tampering with the current standards. Noone can conclusively define when life begins in any way that most agree with. I believe the decision should determined by the woman, her doctor, her clergy, and in consultation with her mate if it's a long term, stable relationship. None of those consultations or timelines should be established in law.

The problem with any other standard is that women will continue to have abortions and that men and women will practice infanicide. No culture has ever ended this.

[XanaDUer]

11. Good point, cally

abortions will always happen, legal or not. The only question is the number of women (many of whom already have kids , or may be single parents or the sole support of their families) will die or be scarred for life due to illegal abortions.

While I myself am not comfortable with abortions past the 2nd trimester, I also see that it is NOT UP TO ME or my beliefs.

[Yupster]

28. What if

the doctor, the clergyman, and the husband all say no to an abortion and the woman says yes?

Do you really mean the decision should be "determined" by the woman, her clergyman, doctor and mate?

Or do you mean it should be a woman's right?

[cally]

68. Of course I mean a woman's right

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I would never agree with taking away a woman's right to choose.

And on the third trimester issue. I've repeated this many times but a close friend found out her baby was going to die a few hours after birth. Worse, she was likely to die if she continued to carry the baby. She had a partial birth abortion to save her life. I'm adamantly in favor of partial birth abortion. No legal body should try to regulate this.

[Yupster]

168. I understand

I just wonder why people on tv are always saying it's a decision between a woman and her doctor, or a woman and her spouse, when that is not what they mean. They mean it's a woman's right to choose. Period.

[noiretextatique]

369. why is it so difficutlt for you to accept

that a woman has absolute domain over her body? not doctors, not clery, not a mate, and not internet posters....just like men do.

[murielm99]

10. You are male. You cannot get pregnant.

You have no say about what a woman does with her body.

Ever notice that more than 80% of the anti-abortion people are male?

When you have ovaries, come back and talk to us about this.

[GoneOffShore]

13. We need an amendment to the Constitution

guaranteeing that ANY woman can get an abortion.
But, we also need to insure that there are adequate facilities for distribution of birth control pills, devices, RU486, and sexual education so that abortion is the last resort.
And men should have little say, if any, in the process. Women need to be able to control their own bodies and their own health choices.

[XanaDUer]

19. And universal healthcare...

Medical technologies that extend fetal viability mean nothing for those who cannot afford said technologies.

[usregimechange]

21. Their is a baby in their guys. At some point it isn't a lump of cells.

[GoneOffShore]

26. So, you're going to define that moment?

[Dookus]

27. again

that is your opinion, one which you have no right to impose on others.

[GoneOffShore]

38. Especially not on the woman

whose body you are trying to regulate.

[Djinn]

183. the woman involved CERTAINLY isn't a lump of cells

She's a living breathing person, yet you want to put her life at risk by criminalising a medical procedure, make absolutly no mistake that women will still seek out an abortion whether it's legal or not - she just wont find a competant, clean and safe means of doing so.

You seem to love the idea of criminalising abortions and think that the way to make them rarer is to cancel a doctors licence to practice...way to go - how many doctors are going to risk their livelihoods? risk not being able to pay their mortgages or feed their kids? so the upshot of your brilliant plan is to FUTHER reduce the number of medical practitioners willing to perform abortions (in some areas in teh US it's already impossible to get one).

Legal, illegal or some half way point - it doesn't matter - woman who need them will STILL have them, how about some concern for THEIR welfare.

As an aside - I always wonder where the "wont somebody, pleeeeaaaaase think of the fetus" line of thinking is going to end up, will a woman in her final trimester be charged with assault because she didn't give up smoking or drinking? will a woman who drives too fast and crashes her car resulting in miscarriage be charged with vehicular manslaughter?

[athena]

209. And ..

With people being jailed for refusing to donate organs or participate in medical experiments. Those save lives, too!

[FizzFuzz]

292. Its already happening

"As an aside - I always wonder where the "wont somebody, pleeeeaaaaase think of the fetus" line of thinking is going to end up, will a woman in her final trimester be charged with assault because she didn't give up smoking or drinking? will a woman who drives too fast and crashes her car resulting in miscarriage be charged with vehicular manslaughter?"

:cry:
won't somebody pleeeeeaaaaaase think of the woman? And her family, friends and associates who suffer when she dies because of a botched clotheshanger abortion.....Of the burdened medical, emergency and social welfare systems which has to contend with the violent deaths of the victims of back alley abortions, the onslaught of unwanted births, the rafts of abused abandoned children who came into this world as a result of the twisted polemics of zealots.

[Djinn]

381. not to mention the other concerns with blackmarkets

tax avoidance and crime and corruption, maybe we can convince the fetus fans to think of this stuff as they obviously aren't thinking about the physcial, emotional and psychological concerns of women.

[FizzFuzz]

383. another thing the fetus fans don't think about is the need to

care for these millions of unwanted children--physical hands on care and financial care. They are against Gov't spending and welfare protections, yet feel perfectly righteous about condemning millions of women and young girls, let's not forget the young girls who are raped or lied to or desperate for affection or operating on hormones or believe they are valuable only as a sex object (girls seeing themselves as nothing more than sex objects? How could THAT happen? :sarcasm: ), or undereducated (undereducated? gee how could THAT happen? :sarcasm: ) and therefore more prone to a belief that all they can do is breed--to a million dollar over 20 years expense.

Damn fetus fans never seem to have any adopted children, either. Loads of nice babies out there needing homes, and I'm not talking about the pretty white ones that are popular with the very few people who do adopt. I'm talking about older kids who get left behind, or not so cute kids, or kids with birth defects or fetal alchohol, or crack addicted babies--how about doing your part and adopting, fetus fans?

NO, its about punishing women for having sex and controlling them because we are not real people. Its about ranting about superficial moralities that inconvenience someone else, and feeling virtuous because you have just taken a stand on something, unexamined as the consequences of your rule setting may be.

[Tansy_Gold]

382. Women were charged with child abuse for using drugs during

pregnancy.

This was a couple of years ago, in North Carolina, I think, but maybe South Carolina. I'm not sure.

The women were poor, of course, and were tested for drugs when they came to the hospital to deliver their babies. When the blood tests showed positive, the women were arrested -- not just for using drugs, but for endangering their unborn babies.

[Djinn]

395. jesus that's a scary precedent

what's next, woman who continue to eat soft cheeses? or happen to live near high frequency power lines? eat fish?

[Cheswick2.0]

314. so?

There are babies in Iraq who weren't just clumps of cells until we made them that way.
Women are more important than the fetus she is carrying.

[kimchi]

16. I don't agree.

I'm 100% pro-choice. The issue is already divisive enough. I say pick a side and stick to it.

[DemBones DemBones]

17. I think attitudes as well as policies need to be re-examined and,

often, changed. But those who suggest it here at DU are usually shouted down as being "anti-woman" or "anti-choice." Democrats shouldn't have to toe the NARAL line and, in real life, few do.

[XanaDUer]

34. I wish that all children were wanted and that

abortions were rare and legal.

I also feel that women, and women's concerns, and motherhood, are pretty much put down by society at large. Children, too. Look at how horribly children are treated around the world. Child labor, child prostitution, children in poverty...it's sickening.

Unfortunately due to women's biological circumstances, they will not be completely free unless they can control their bodies. Adding unwanted pregnancies onto women will exacerbate their financial inequality.

These are very complex issues, I know.

[frankly_fedup2]

403. One example of what your point was is going on in the Sudan . . .

as we post.

These "virgins" and/or 8 year olds are being raped and impregnated. Then the women are ashamed and want to kill themselves because they feel THEY have embarrassed their husbands (who are out fighting if not already killed by these so-called militia).

But what has our great leader done to help these poor women and children????? Anybody know???? Seriously?

After all, back in the late 90's the major oil companies were in there and did find a large amount of oil reserves so they would have a legitimate reason then . . . not just to save the women and children from further genocide. (Idiots).

[Cheswick2.0]

316. you toe your line and I will toe mine

that's the point. But what you are talking about is deciding what line I toe and that is the problem.

[mitchtv]

18. count me out

"I would cut off abortions at some point ...." I would keep my nose out of others' business,especially their medical business.

[usregimechange]

39. To late. Roe did it.

"Blackmun argued that only at this final stage of pregnancy does the state have a strong enough responsibility to protect the life of the fetus to override the privacy concerns of the woman and to forbid an abortion."

"Roe v. Wade," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Dookus]

43. You need to learn

what the Supreme Court can or cannot do.

[Cheswick2.0]

318. This is really pathetic

Is this all you have to say? There are several hundred posts here and you chose to answer about 12 of them and you have no argument or thoughts of your own. The above post is meaningless.

[iamjoy]

22. You Have Valid Points

And people, don't jump on his case! That makes us no better than the Republicans kicking the pro-choice people out of a Bush rally.

I am very strongly pro-choice. I don't think there are any easy answers to this debate. I have often thought, what if we allowed it only up to viability. Sound logical. But, should a parent have the right to refuse medical treatment for their child? Say in the final trimester, they discover severe fetal abnormalities. If we say it is okay to allow an abortion, we are sounding a little like Hitler. If not, and the child is born and needs to be put in an incubator, can the parents decline that (knowing their child will die)? If you say yes, what is the difference between letting it die after birth when we have the technology to save it or doing a late term abortion? What if a healthy eight year old has a sudden accident or illness and needs life support, can the parents disconnect it? Is there a difference? Can we disconnect life support for a debilitated adult with no hope of meaningful recovery? And if you say "no" who pays for the cost of that care (insensitive, but a fact)?

It is a shame this issue is becoming more and more polarized. Many of the people against abortion don't just want to ban the so called partial birth abortions, but all abortions (to the extent whee it could even be questionable if the mother's life is in danger) and then outlaw birth control. That's why some pro-choice people are so touchy about it.

[usregimechange]

47. I agree and I am one of them.

We don't need religious wackos writing the laws. What we need is reasonable policy that reflects the privacy and self-determination of the mother as well as the life of the fetus/infant.

[XanaDUer]

48. Exactly.

It is a shame this issue is becoming more and more polarized. Many of the people against abortion don't just want to ban the so called partial birth abortions, but all abortions (to the extent whee it could even be questionable if the mother's life is in danger) and then outlaw birth control. That's why some pro-choice people are so touchy about it.

The fear is that banning one aspect of a woman's choice will lead to banning abortions, then birth control, etc.

Because there are many in the so-called Right to Life movement who really just want to shove women's rights back, for whatever reason.

[johnfunk]

32. I for one am more worried about corporate media consolidation...

... and abridgement of free speech rights.

Let's get ALL of our eyes back on the prize and not let a wedge issue such as abortion poison the well of the larger issue of reproductive rights.

[GoneOffShore]

41. Well said - This is not something

that we, as a party need to deal with.
It comes back to the idea that if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.
It's really that simple.

[Cybergata]

35. Most abortions take place in the first trimester!

The whole argument against 3rd trimester abortions is ridiculous since they rarely take place. Anti-Choice people are exaggerating the worst scenario in order to get more support for their cause. I can't imagine anyone having an abortion in the third trimester unless there was no other option to keep them from dying. It is a non issue made an issue by people who want to overturn Roe. It is an issue used to prey on people's emotions, which is generally the tactics that the anti-choice people have used for the last 30 years.

[usregimechange]

49. That is true most are in the first but...

enough were in the last for Justice Blackmun to stand up and take notice.

[slinkerwink]

51. I don't give a fuck about Justice Blackmun.....it's MY body, not yours!

[Cybergata]

112. Both Blackmun and You need to do a little more research!

I'm sorry if that sounds mean, but honestly, professionals on the most part will not perform abortions in the 3rd trimester unless there is no other course of action. Do you know how many of these abortions were done for unborn children that died in the womb or an unborn child that has very little chance of surviving beyond a few days after birth. I think that is just pure consideration for the parents. Can you imagine how devastating that is.

The Bush Bill about banning late abortions was written in a similar way that some states had written similar anti-abortion bills that have been overturned by the Federal Courts. It was worded in a way that stretched the ban way into the second trimester and were written without any concern for the health and well being of the pregnant women.

This is a really good attempt of the anti-choice people to make all abortion illegal. Please, do some on-line research on this matter. For a woman weary of having her body regulated by the state, this is a touchy subject. Anti-choice people are exaggerating the whole thing really out of proportion in order to get a total ban on abortions. Even the laws they have tired to pass aren't aimed at late term abortions only. They sneak other qualifiers into the laws that cut deep into reproduction freedoms.

[Dookus]

116. Yes

A good friend of mine had the very sad misfortune of trying very hard to get pregnant (even having her tubes untied) and at 8 months, learned the fetus was ancephalic.

She needed a third-trimester abortion. The pure heartlessness of people on this issue is astounding. It is NOBODY'S FUCKING BUSINESS why a woman gets a medical procedure done.

[Cheswick2.0]

321. Justice Blackmun can kiss my ass.......... is that all you've got?

When Justice Blackmun can get pregnant he too can decide what is right and wrong about abortion.

[Dookus]

390. LOL

see Ches? We don't disagree on everything!

[Cheswick2.0]

405. no we do quite well on these threads!

:hi:

I don't know about you, but this Justice Blackmun is starting to really get on my nerves. Do you think we could program the poster with some new quotes?

[Yupster]

37. Mostly agree regimechange

Most people are somewhere in the middle on abortion.

Thats where I am. It should be legal, but with plenty of restrictions.

This is a difficult issue which cries out for compromise.

[GoneOffShore]

44. Please spell out the restrictions.

As I stated above, if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.
It's very simple.

[Yupster]

67. My restrictions

Two restrictions I support are

1. No one can perform an abortion (or any other operation) on a minor child without the parents' knowledge. (Judicial bypass included)

2. There needs to be some arguable date after which a woman cannot choose to have an abortion on a healthy fetus if the woman is healthy.

Also, the argument "If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one." in my opinion is incredibly ineffective.

For instance, you might say in 1863, "if you don't like slavery, don't own one." Does that sound like a strong argument to anyone? It's a nice slogan when preaching to the choir, but to anyone else, in my opinion, it just sounds like a slogan.

However it's not as bad as the other popular argument of "If men could get pregnant, then there'd be a law requiring them since men are such wimps," or some other male bashing screech. It may get a giggle out of the girls, but as an argument goes, it ain't much.

[Dookus]

77. I will fight with every fiber

to oppose either of those ridiculous restrictions.

It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, Mr. Man!

[Yupster]

106. I'm a parent

It's none of my business that someone is performing an operation on my ten year old daughter without my knowledge?

That's a very radical opinion.

[Dookus]

108. Tell

me how many 10 year olds have abortions in the US each year without parental consent.

Seriously... tell me.

I'm sick of the anti-choice men here spouting off all sorts of insane talking points that have NO bearing in reality.'

Tell me. How many?

[Yupster]

126. I don't know how many ten year olds

had abortions last year.

If it was my daughter, that's the only one I would care about.

And you would, or would not support a doctor performing an abortion on her without notifying her parents?

[Dookus]

133. I believe if a 10 year old

was pregnant and had good reason for her parents not to know, there ought to be a recourse available for her.

You DO realize that a lot of pregnancies of girls that young are due to incest, right? I can understand why a 10 year old who's been raped by her father may not feel terribly comfortable approaching him with her problem.

[Yupster]

157. That's why I mentioned the

judicial bypass in my post number 67.

However, absent the reason to not let her parents know, what do you think?

A ten year old should or should not be able to have an abortion without her parents' knowledge?

[Dookus]

162. Yes, she should be able to

with judicial bypass. I think we agree.

I'd go a little further, though, and say that any relative, teacher or social or health-care worker ought to be able to petition the court on behalf of the child.

I also think the age of consent for such a procedure should be lowered to 16.

[Yupster]

194. But what about in the absence of all the

exceptions?

What about if we pretty much for certain know that the ten year old is pregnant by the 15 year old boy down the street. The ten year old loves both her parents and has only the best things to say about each of them. There is no hint of abuse, real or imagined.

Yet she doesn't want to tell her parents because she still likes 15 year old Billy and doesn't want to get him in trouble.

In that case you still think I should not have to be told that my daughter is pregnant and is about to have an abortion?

That just seems crazy to me.

How can I protect her from Billy if I don't even know she got pregnant?

She should be put right back into the same position so Billy can keep abusing her and the parents should be kept in the dark?

How can this be suppported?

Are the police, the teachers, the social workers all going to get involved protecting my daughter? Everyone except my wife and I?

As a parent this just seems nuts.

[claudiajean]

263. If a ten year old were actually physically mature enough...

...to be pregnant (and very few are), AND the young woman felt that she could not take her problem to her parent(s) or guardian, then
the problem is in the way the parents communicate and relate to their kid.

The parents "deserve" to know ONLY if the young woman wishes to tell them.

If parents have such a crappy relationship with their kid that she is too scared of their reaction (or religion, or whatever) to tell her parents about an unplanned pregancy, then it is the parents' problem and childrearing failure, not the young woman's problem, and she should hardly be penalized FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE because her parents are so draconian, intimidating, absent, self-absorbed, fundamentalist, or whatever their problem is that she cannot trust them with a crisis this important.

For a kid brought up in a loving, respectful environment, where the kids are treated like people, and not just "kids", their parents are going to be the first place they turn in any crisis, every time.

And yes, even at 10, she absolutely should be able to have final veto authority on issues affecting her own body and entire future. Have you talked to a ten year old recently? They are much smarter and more thoughtful than society often expects them to be.

But I find this entire sub-thread argument a bit odd. You railed earlier against the poor debate tactic of using the most extreme possible circumstance as the basis for furthering an argument. Certainly the example of a pregnant 10-year-old is an extreme example. The simple fact of the matter is that well over 90% of "underage" women who find themselves in the situation of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy are ages 14 - 17, easily intellectually capable and old enough to determine if their parents are in a position to offer supportive, appropriate counsel, or if they need to go elsewhere.

Judicial bypass is a joke. Any 10 year old (or 17 year old for that matter) who can't rely on her parents for emotional support in a crisis is hardly going to be in a position to hire an attorney and commence a complex legal fight.

[Cheswick2.0]

337. Welcome to DU CJ

How are Josh and Toby?

[knitter4democracy]

377. Actually

When I was teaching high school, five years ago, the Detroit Public Schools had in one of their reports that they had, district-wide, about a hundred pregnant ten year olds that year and about three hundred eleven year olds. It happens. Of course, I suspect that the vast majority, if not all, are cases of rape/incest, not a couple of little kids going too far because of what they saw on Showtime or whatever.

[Cheswick2.0]

323. If your 10 year old daughter is pregnant you have failed as a parent

and you are the last person she needs trying to make decision for her. In fact if your 10 year old daughter is pregnant, statistically it is probably yours... again you don't need to be involved in the decision about abortion.

Now get serious, what 10 year old who is not a victim of incest is going to trot herself off the the abortion provider without her mother?

One a 15 or 16 year old girl is having sex and getting pregnant she has the right to make decision for herself. Sadly children do outgrow our control often before we are ready to let them go.

It seems to me that ALL of your issues are about control.

[loyalsister]

271. Flip side

Intimidating parents
There is a reason kids don't want to tell their parents things. Imagine a situation where a parent takes their 15 year old daughter to the clinic and she wants to change her mind.
Unfortunately, she doesn't feel like she can with the authoritarian parent there, so she goes ahead with the procedure. I think that would be a shame. CHOICE!! Don't think it couldn't happen. It cuts both ways.
Only they know what is happening in their household. If they don't want to tell their parents it's probably because they don't feel like their parents would be supportive of the situation in general.

To believe that there are a large number of women enduring most of a pregnancy only to decide that they would rather abort defies logic and paints women as idiot. PLEASE!!!! Late term abortions are an anomaly. Restrictions are in place in most states.

As far as the slavery, you probably don't want to go there. There is NOTHING that comes closer to indentured servetude than pregnancy.
Allowing a fetus to be attached to ones body so that it can take oxygen, food, bone mass, vitamins, etc....... out of her body.

Sorry, but no men DO NOT get it and never will because the concept is impossible for them to grasp. They don't even grasp how insulting and insensitive this discussion is.
Bringing it up like this says "we need to rethink how we think about women for our platform."

[lostnfound]

282. Some of us women don't 'get it' either.

Even after we've been through pregnancy.
Nor my neighbor who actively campaigned for Democrats for years, and switched to Republican after she had her first child, because she changed her mind from pro-choice to pro-life.

I AM starting to 'get it', in part because I weed through threads like this, with 99 generally-hostile posts in order to find the 1 or 2 posts from pro-choice people who go out of their way to write something that explains instead of mocks. For those patient, non-hostile posts, I am very grateful.

So consider this perspective: The 'consistent life ethic' (which opposes war, death penalty, abortion, and poverty) seems to be a concept that is impossible for prochoice people to grasp. They don't grasp how insulting and insensitive it is to lump all prolife positions as anti-woman or as hypocrites, or tell men they have no right to an opinion, etc.

The legality of abortion -- not as a personal moral issue but as a delineator and definer of which human lives are worthy of protection under the law -- is an issue that people of goodwill and good conscience on BOTH sides of the issue honestly struggle with.

I was never taught that life ended with your last breath; I was taught that life ended when your brainwaves stopped.

[Cheswick2.0]

326. Your post is hostile and I do not appreciate that

If you struggle with the morality of the issue, struggle for yourself. You are the only person's fertilty you have a right to control.

[lostnfound]

341. I did not mean it that way,

and I'm truly sorry that it came across that way.

Perhaps you are intending simply to point out that I may be reading hostility into posts when it isn't there, or that 'hostility is in the eye of the beholder'. I was exaggerating to say 99 out of 100 were hostile.

[Cheswick2.0]

373. I understand and I am sorry

The reason people are hostile is because women shouldn't have to keep fighting this battle. There is a line that can not be crossed with my rights and I will not back up from that line. I don't have the patience to keep explaining myself. You have no idea of how many thosands of times this subject has been rehashed here at DU. I am glad there are people here willing to continue to try and educate others on women's rights. I am no longer one of those people, but that is not personal to you or anyone else.

[athena]

412. Totally!

I couldn't have said it better. I thought exactly the same things when I read the nonsense about slavery and pregnant teenagers, but I was too tired of arguing to write it out.

The only times women have late-term abortions are when the foetus will die anyway, and when the pregnancy threatens the health and/or life of the woman. And it is up to the doctor, not the state, to decide whether the foetus will die or whether the woman's life is in danger.

[FizzFuzz]

327. goddammit

1. No one can perform an abortion (or any other operation) on a minor child without the parents' knowledge. (Judicial bypass included)

2. There needs to be some arguable date after which a woman cannot choose to have an abortion on a healthy fetus if the woman is healthy.
----------------

This is just the kind of moral interpretation and rule setting that I was talking about in another post (about male tendencies to hierarchical thinking, abstracting ethical thought to apply to the group, while women tend to think of how any decision will affect actaul people. Sneeringly called moral relativism by some, but a damn fine way of decision making if you ask me.)

Sooooo, I take it you never heard of 12 year olds raped and impregnated by a father or relative ---OOPS! Guess the poor kid will have to bear the child, since she cant tell anyone. (REad "Backlash" By Susan Faludi. REproductive rights chapter: Case histories illustrating the catastrophic effects of repressive reproductive policies during REagan Era. Read the one about the girl murdered by the father who raped her.)

Or how about a woman whose rape case fails--now she's pregnant from a rape that the state says wasn't a rape...and sorry little missy, but its past the "safe-date", no abortion for you. This already happens, without moral theorists like you pushing to narrow the window.

[Dookus]

50. No compromise!

How do you propose implementing your limits? Should the woman be imprisoned until she gives birth?

If she DOES have an abortion after your limit, should she be jailed? Her doctor?

No compromise - either a woman controls her body or she doesn't.

[usregimechange]

56. That is a good point and how is it implimented now?

What if a doctor thinks a life exception is a headache? Medical ethics panel? More professional development? Fines?

[usregimechange]

52. Yes, we need thoughout reasonable policy and who decides?

The public does. Same with the subjective drinking and voting age. A line was drawn there. Was it right? I don't know but one needed to be drawn.

[Dookus]

54. No

one does NOT need to be drawn.

You are pretending there's a problem where there isn't one.

How many late-term abortions are performed in the US for reasons you consider trivial? Come on... how many?

[usregimechange]

58. enough for the writer of Roe to stand up and take notice.

"Blackmun argued that only at this final stage of pregnancy does the state have a strong enough responsibility to protect the life of the fetus to override the privacy concerns of the woman and to forbid an abortion."

"Roe v. Wade," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Dookus]

60. why the hell are you spamming

one paragraph out an encyclopedia on this thread? Why not address the repeated rebuttals to that lame paragraph I've made here?

[usregimechange]

66. What it is ROE V. WADE! Heard of it? nt

[Dookus]

70. I have

responded repeatedly in this thread to your posting of this paragraph. Why not read any of those responses?

If Roe does what you want done, then why is this even an issue?

[jdj]

74. Where is Rilya Wilson??? I keep asking, and no one ever answers.

Who is Precious Doe??? Anyone figured out that yet?

What about beyond the final stage of pregnancy? The state is failing miserably in many of those cases.

Pro-lifers are so concerned about the moment of conception, or the moment of viability, but they never talk about that other moment, the moment the unwanted child is born, which for some reason is the same exact moment that they stop giving a damn. It's bizarre, that coincidence.

[Cheswick2.0]

330. Blackmun Blackmun Blackmun

LOL

[XanaDUer]

71. What do you feel that women are doing

where a line needs to be drawn? Do you feel too many women are using trivial reasons to have something as traumatic as an abortion?

[Cheswick2.0]

328. I'll see you on the other side of a civil war first

Before I give up my rights there will be a civil war. Is it worth it?

[Dookus]

57. and I see you, too

are a man.

Sorry, men don't get to impose their choices on women.

[usregimechange]

59. The gov. already does... repeat

"Blackmun argued that only at this final stage of pregnancy does the state have a strong enough responsibility to protect the life of the fetus to override the privacy concerns of the woman and to forbid an abortion."

"Roe v. Wade," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Read the opinion.

[Dookus]

63. oh sweet jesus in a sling...

YOU read the opinion!!!!

Roe does NOT compel states to outlaw late-term abortions!

[usregimechange]

69. No, it enables them to for the very reason I cite

to protect the fetus at that stage.

[Dookus]

72. then why

do you feel the need to change the law if Roe already does what you want?

I think Roe was flawed in that it didn't go far enough.

[usregimechange]

101. viability second to brain development and earlier in pregnancy.

[Yupster]

111. Choices are imposed on women's bodies all the time

Try going to the police department and asking if any of them would like a prostitute for the night.

Try teaching your eighth grade biology class in the nude.

Try snorting cocaine at your local traffic court.

The state imposes limits on what people can do with their bodies all the time.

[Dookus]

117. Congratulations...

you win the Dookus Award for Lamest Argument EVER!

[uhhuh]

266. That would be a great argument

If it was even close to the same thing as what is being discussed.

If there were laws and restrictions saying that ONLY women would be sanctioned for offering sex services, or ONLY women would be punished for teaching class in the nude, or ONLY women would be arrested for snorting cocaine in traffic court, then you might have something there.

And at that point you might have to look at your argument and disagree with it.

[K-W]

42. Why not fight for family planning instead? A much better solution.

Rather than driving a wedge in the democratic party.

I think that would be a much better way for you to spend your time if you feel that abortions are a problem.

[usregimechange]

64. I am a strong Democrat and this is not a wedge. nt

[K-W]

81. Of course it is a wedge, and seriously family planning is your issue

Just look at this thread. This drives a wedge between pro-choice people. Some of whom, like you believe there should be some restrictions on abortion and some who dont.

Meanwhile the only good way to significantly reduce the number of abortions is to fight for education and family planning. Nip this problem in the bud by reducing the occurances of unplanned pregnancies and making sure people understand what they can do when they happen.

Spend your energy on that issue, that desperately needs to be fought, rather than this issue, which, whether you like it or not is used constantly by anti-choice groups to try and kill all abortions.

[Cheswick2.0]

336. the LARGEST group of voters in the democratic party

are PRO-CHOICE women. You change the party platform and most of us leave. How is this not a wedge?

[jdj]

99. I reminds me of the "egg-sitting" assignment in high school.

Where you had to pretend for a week the egg was a kid.

Pro-lifers don't want to deal with icky sticky family planning or any other gray areas. Too much personal out-put.

They USE the fetus as a way to get their neurotic rocks off. It' is a TOOL for them.

[K-W]

103. Yep, and thier backwards battle against contreception makes you wonder

exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

[Kool Kitty]

155. You know exactly what they want to accomplish.

[Cats Against Frist]

280. I know exactly what they're trying to accomplish

All you have to do is just hit up a tiny bit of research to read the "in-lit" of these organizations -- not only are they against abortion, but "THE PILL HAS CHAINED WOMEN DOWN!!!!"

Give me a break. It's patently obvious that this culture has no blanket "respect for the sanctity of human life," or the death penalty, poverty and pre-emptive foreign policy would not be in the mix. It's all subjective, and motive driven.

The motive behind anti-abortion is actually returning women to their "rightful submissive place," and they capture saps with their sentimental baloney. Since the government should not be interested in the business of when "something has a soul," the only way to determine "when life begins" is COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. You can make up whatever the hell you want, right?

So, they make up "conception," creating a narrative, and SYMBOLIZING the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. But is that an absolute? Whose?

Anyway, they shouldn't be so OBVIOUS about their real plans. If they were worried about abortion, they'd actually have an open and mature dialogue about sex, and womens' health, not some kind of construct-ridden, Victorian shame-fest that seeks to push sex and its consequences under the bed.

[ronabop]

46. You might want to read up on your subject...

If you want to be taken seriously. All of your basic arguments are already part of Roe, so you're basically saying "Reform Abortion Policy, Don't Change Anything!".

Here:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

-Bop

[usregimechange]

73. No, viability is second to brain development...

and in the middle of the second trimester not the end of it...

[ronabop]

119. Wrong yet again.

READ IT, PLEASE!

----------
Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks
-----------
and:
-----------
(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.

(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.

(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 it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
------

There is no magic 'third trimester'. NONE. It's based on the end of the first trimester, and viability. Nothing about the second trimester. No definition of a specific time of viability.

Now, as far as your argument about brain development vs. viability, you haven't really said anything about where you are on the spectrum. I'd accept "consiousness and persistent memory" as one level of brain development, but that could take abortion up to, oh, the 30th month of pregnancy. On the other end of the spectrum is the formation of the primitive streak, which forms in the second week.

-Bop

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I'm in favor of reducing the number of surgical abortions

• by funding research into better birth control.
• by making the morning after pill available OTC.
• by making standard birth control pills available OTC.
• by pushing for federal programs regarding day care, child care, health care and other means to support poor, single mothers.
• by pushing for comprehensive sex education in schools, including condom distribution.
• by working to ensure that everyone who wants birth control, ob-gyn, or reproductive health services has access to them.
• by encouraging people to have anal sex, oral sex, masturbate or engage in other activities that won't result in pregnancy. (I'm not kidding, either)
• by encouraging and supporting healthy, stable gay relationships, which almost never result in unwanted pregnancy.
• by supporting a liveable minimum wage and universal health care, which will both make it easier for poor women to have families.

What I am unapologetically not in favor of, is criminalizing medical decisions between women and their doctors.

Want to reduce abortions? Great. Lots of ways to potentially do that. Why the knee-jerk reaction is to solve "problems" by turning people into criminals, I'll never know.

[usregimechange]

78. Like the criminals who drink before they are 21? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

132. If you're making a point, it's totally lost on me...

I do know that the drinking age didn't prevent me from drinking before I turned 21. That's just reality. Fortunately, though, I didn't need to impale myself on a coat hanger -- or go to some bloody, unsterile back alleyway -- to get a buzz.

[K-W]

Exactly!!!

The right wing fights to keep the conditions that cause unplanned pregnancies, and then fight to force the women to have them.

The solution is reducing unwanted pregnancy, not trying to legislate metaphysics and morality.

[usregimechange]

88. I'm not on the right wing... nt

[Dookus]

91. Perhaps not

but the desire to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies is a very right-wing position.

[K-W]

93. I never said you were, now could you please address the point.

We have shown you where you could invest your energy to actually reduce abortion without intruding on the rights of women at all and without creating a wedge issue in the democratic party, what is your response?

[Cheswick2.0]

338. you might as well be

Let me be the first to encourage you to change parties. We will even give you a watch and a years worth of "Women are Innately Evil" magazine to help you on your way.

[XanaDUer]

90. Fabulous post!

I forget to mention livable wages in my previous post!

:hi:

Yes, there is a lot that could be done, the hard way, to stop abortions, as opposed to making criminals out of women and healthcare providers...

[Cybergata]

143. Not only do you have a great avitar or what ever it is called..

you are very smart. Thanks for your input! :hippie:

[Warren DeMontague]

237. Thanks!

Here's a site you might like, off the subject:

http://www.archive.org/audio/etreelisting-browse.php

peace
:hippie:

[Cybergata]

289. Great site

It did not know of this site...thanks for pointing it out to me. :hippie:

[Bettie]

298. Now THAT is a good plan

Those are the ways to make abortion very rare indeed, which it should be.

There have always been abortions and there will always be some, but we can create a climate where they are rare because they are not needed.

We can create a climate where every child who comes into the world is loved and wanted.

[mountainvue]

75. No!

You and your web site are not going to tell me what I should do with my body.
Thank you.

[usregimechange]

84. The gov already does

"Blackmun argued that only at this final stage of pregnancy does the state have a strong enough responsibility to protect the life of the fetus to override the privacy concerns of the woman and to forbid an abortion."

"Roe v. Wade," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Dookus]

87. Dude...

stop spamming that nonsense. Roe does NOT compel states to outlaw late-term abortion.

[usregimechange]

92. It doesn't say that strawman

"Blackmun argued that only at this final stage of pregnancy does the state have a strong enough responsibility to protect the life of the fetus to override the privacy concerns of the woman and to forbid an abortion."

"Roe v. Wade," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The states can restrict late term abortions already according to Roe.

[Dookus]

95. So then what are you upset about?

Yes, I know states CAN do so, but they are not required to. They also have to make reasonable exceptions for life and health of the mother. Fortunately, in the US, women DO NOT get abortions in the third trimester for frivolous reasons.

But since they already can, why do you feel the need to change things? Sounds like you've already got what you want.

What problem are you trying to solve? How many late-term abortions are performed each year in the US for reasons you consider frivolous? And please also answer my other question: how do you propose to enforce the law? Should a pregnant woman who states an intention to get an abortion be kept in shackles until giving birth? Or should she just be jailed afterward?

[usregimechange]

115. Of course not but nice try in making my position seem

radical by talking about extremist ways of enforcing this. Something a freeps do all the time by calling us socialists. I think the doctors should face some type of repremand where they would lose their license. I don't know really but such laws have been made before. Is it subjective? Yes. But so is the legal drinking age being 21 and not 20.5.

More importantly what happens today to doctors that do so? Has it ever happened? Does it vary by state? I want to know.

[Dookus]

122. You tell me

you're the one proposing to change things.

I know of no doctor imprisoned for performing an abortion since Roe.

Now since YOU want to change things, tell me how you enforce it. Very specifically:

Do you imprison the woman until she gives birth?
Do you imprison the woman AFTER getting the abortion?
Do you imprison the doctor?

Be specific. Any combination of three Yes's or No's will do.

[usregimechange]

130. repeal the dr. medical license....

[usregimechange]

131. Hey, they do that for other things don't they? nt

[Yupster]

145. You really seem to be fixated on imprisoning

people.

Do you perhaps have an interesting story to tell?

[Dookus]

156. oh, I have many interesting stories to tell

luckily none involving prison.

But the fact is, if you believe performing an illegal abortion is equivalent to a traffic violation, then why are you so adamant about changing it? In this country we imprison people for serious offenses. If the offense is not serious, why do you care so strongly?

If it IS serious, then imprisonment is the time-honored way of handling it.

Now who goes to prison: the woman, the doctor, or both?

What if the woman is given an abortion by someone other than a doctor (which was rather common when abortion was illegal)? There's no license to revoke. Who gets punished and how?

[Yupster]

177. I am not at all adamant about changing

the law.

This is far from my most important issue.

I'm an old married guy who won't be fathering anymore kids. I'm generally pro-choice, but I would support some restrictions around the fringes of the right, for instance where I think it takes over my rights as a parent.

But I thought this was an interesting discussion on a night where I had some time.

There certainly are some adamant people on tonight though if you're looking for adamant people. One person told me to eat her shit. Others told me to shut up because I'm the wrong sex. Another told me I had the lamest argument ever. Now those are some adamant people if you're looking for some.

[Dookus]

213. Because

there you are, an old married guy who has no real stake in the issue, telling ALL women that their rights should be abridged so that your delicate sensibilities aren't offended.

Of course you're going to take some shit for that.

[Yupster]

239. I would still like to know

where you draw the line on parental notification?

In the case I described of the 15 year old neighboorhood boy impregnating my ten year old daughter who is part of my loving intact family, would you agree that my wife and I (or at least one of us) should be required to be informed of the pending abortion on our minor child?

If we shouldn't be notified, what about if she becomes pregnant by the same boy a second time when she's 11? Should we be notified then, or should she have her abortion and return to the same situation for a third time?

Or should the teacher then call the police so I can take my daughter to be deposed by the police about her rapes? Then the teachers, the social workers and the police would all know what's going on. Everyone but her mother and father.

And to what purpose? Why keep the parents in the dark?

I just don't get it.

[Dookus]

240. I think if a young girl

decides she cannot safely approach her parents, then she should have other recourse.

Pretty simple.

[Yupster]

259. And what if

a young girl is absolutely sure she can safely approach her parents, but just doesn't want to?

That's my question.

Do the parents have a right to know that their ten year old daughter is about to be operated on or not?

Do the parents have a right to know that their daughter is being sexually abused or not?

[claudiajean]

265. If she doesn't want to approach her parents...

...it's the parent's problem, not the young woman's.

Young women in a loving, healthy relationship with their parents, which is absent any weird additional pressures (such as religious fundamentalism) are going to turn to their parents in a time of crisis.

If she doesn't feel she can comfortably seek their counsel and obtain support for her decision, for whatever reason, then it should be her call to bypass them, regardless of her age.

If the kid doesn't trust her parents, it's the parents' childrearing failing, not the girl's problem. And she shouldn't have to suffer for the next 75 years becasue of her parents' failings.

[Cheswick2.0]

340. spam

[Norquist Nemesis]

79. Whether you think they should be cut off

at a certain point or not allowed at all is fine and you can practice your belief on it should you ever be faced with the decision. That would be your choice. But until then, for you or me to impose our beliefs on a woman taking away her right to make a choice based on her beliefs is unacceptable.

I'm certain I that when I was raped that I would have had an abortion if I had become pregnant. It really isn't anyone's business whether it was the first week or the ninth month. That would have been my choice. For me to limit or completely deny another woman to make the choice for herself is not and should not be within my power.

[usregimechange]

86. It already is...

"Blackmun argued that only at this final stage of pregnancy does the state have a strong enough responsibility to protect the life of the fetus to override the privacy concerns of the woman and to forbid an abortion."

"Roe v. Wade," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Dookus]

89. LOL

how many times is that in one thread? 10? 20?

You don't even know what the Supreme Court can or can't do, so it makes you look sorta silly to keep posting one stupid paragraph again and again when you don't understand what it means.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Dookus]

105. sigh

Read the thread. You repeatedly asserted that these restrictions are in place because of Roe. That is wrong. Roe only ALLOWED those restrictions, it didn't mandate them.

But just for shits and giggles, I'll ask a fifth time: How many late-term abortions are performed annually in the US for reasons you consider frivolous?

[usregimechange]

110. Very few but enough for Justice Blackmun and the High Court...

Oh, and by the way Roe did allow states to restrict abortions.

Quote me where I said otherwise.

[Dookus]

120. You kept saying

the government already imposes such limits, and then quoted Roe as if Roe imposed those limits. That was wrong.

Now tell me how many late-term abortions are performed for reasons you find frivolous. "Very few" doesn't cut it. Does that mean 1? 100?

If it's 1, do you still feel the need to change the law?

Tell me exactly how many so we can gauge the seriousness of the problem you propose to solve.

[usregimechange]

127. The government is more than the High Court so yes...

the government has restricted (constitutionally) late term abortions. States do so and the High Court allowed them to do so. Why? Why did they do that?

And no, I don't have data on frivolous late term abortions. Do you have data that they do not occur? I don't know. I would like to.

[Dookus]

138. So you don't know

yet you want to change the law. Interesting.

[usregimechange]

160. Well you won the debate, I hope your happy.

I for one will continue to think about this issue because ethics should not be a mindless endevour. I have zero evidence of this happening but I have read that it does and have no reason to think it doesn't. In fact, the NY Times had a recent article that was posted on DU with people saying they had abortions because they didn't like the sex. I am looking for it. In the mean time, assuming this does happen, what are you going to do if you find it does?

[usregimechange]

161. Ha, think I found it but have to lexus it.... nt hold on....

[usregimechange]

166. coming in now...

Dr. Jonathan Lanzkowsky, an obstetrician affiliated with Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan, described one woman who had been born with an extra finger, which was surgically removed when she was a child. Her children have a 50-50 chance of inheriting the condition, but she is determined not to let that happen. Detecting the extra digit through early ultrasounds, she has terminated two pregnancies so far, despite doctors' efforts to persuade her to do otherwise, Dr. Lanzkowsky said.

In an extreme case, Dr. Mark Engelbert, an obstetrician and gynecologist on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, said he had performed an abortion for a woman who had three girls and wanted a boy.

BURDEN OF KNOWLEDGE: Tracking Prenatal Health; In New Tests for Fetal Defects, Agonizing Choices for Parents

By AMY HARMON (NYT) words
Late Edition - Final , Section 1 , Page 1 , Column 1

[Dookus]

207. At what time in the pregnancy did these abortions occur?

Where they third-trimester? You don't say.

Are you now supporting limiting even first trimester abortions to women with "good" reasons?

[Yupster]

180. There was an HBO special following some

junkie prostitutes around. One of them had about a dozen abortions. She for sure used it as birth control. That's not saying there are many like her, but unless HBO was lying, there was at least one.

[Dookus]

215. ahhh

my favorite right-wing point. "using abortion as birth-control".

It is not up to you to decide the valid reasons where abortion is acceptable.

Anecdotes like this are meaningless, anyway. Do you want to change the law for ONE junkie prostitute?

[usregimechange]

242. Yes, just as you would change the law for one mass killer. nt

[Dookus]

247. I would not restrict the rights

of half the population because of one criminal. You would. :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

342. fabulous, since all rapists are male

and most mass murderers are male, I'm thinking a law forcing all men to be castrated at puberty (after giving a few sperm samples for the continuation of the species) and given Estrogen injections might be a good law.

[Yupster]

250. I'm glad the junkie had the abortions

I'm pretty much pro-choice -- I sure am for drugged up prostitutes especially.

I just know that abortion is used for birth control, at least in this one case it was.

[Dookus]

257. I'd prefer

letting her have access to free depo-provera. But that's just me, I guess.

[Cheswick2.0]

344. Well thank God for small favors

Who would want that woman raising a dozen children?

[Tansy_Gold]

386. Who knows? Maybe that's why she's a prostitute

Maybe she couldn't get an abortion after her pimp/pusher knocked her up and now she's got kids to support as well as a drug habit.

Most women don't sell their bodies for sex because they like it, and most women don't choose abortion as the favored method of birth control.

Rather than say, "We shouldn't let this hooker be a mother," maybe we ought to say, "No mother should be forced by poverty and lack of drug rehab to be a hooker."

[Cheswick2.0]

404. You are right, eihter way the situation is bad for children

But perhaps the people who don't wan to allow this woman to have an abortion because she "is using it for birth control"...(well duh!) would like to support this woman and her kids and make sure they all have medical care.

[Norquist Nemesis]

107. Yes, and I disagree with it

Like k-w posted, you're just trying to drive a wedge. Instead of working toward a solution that would reduce the need for abortions, you're trying to whittle them down. What happens when religious beliefs win over science in our courts and they proclaim life begins at conception (period)? Even though you may not have the same belief, the choice has been completely removed. What then?

If you believe abortion is wrong, then work toward creating circumstances and opportunities for women so that it is not needed instead of controlling their bodies.

[Fleshdancer]

98. for once I wish we could talk about preventing unwanted pregnancies

instead of what should happen once a woman is already pregnant.

Sex education and birth control are so much more effective in lowering the amount of abortions than illegalizing the practice and making it dangerous for poor women.

As for third trimester abortions go, show me an 8th month pregnant woman who chooses to have an abortion for the hell of it and the doctor who's willing to perform it and then we'll talk.

[DemBones DemBones]

146. If it were more difficult to get an abortion, people

of both sexes would be more careful to use contraceptives properly and consistently. Of course the ultimate responsibility falls on the woman, always has and always will.

Anyone who has known a few people who had "unplanned" pregnancies knows that most are due to a missed pill or a decision not to bother with birth control "just this once" (often because "it was supposed to be the safe part of my cycle") or just plain ignorance about what works and what doesn't, often due to "Well, my friend said this worked. . . " information. It is much rarer for properly used methods to fail, i.e. the problem is user failure, not method failure.

So I support excellent sex and contraceptive education being widely and easily available to all, and abortions being more difficult to get.

Just as we need people to learn to be competent users of automobiles, we need people to learn to be competent users of effective contraception. In both areas, "accidents" should be avoided!

[athena]

260. But

we don't make it difficult to get cars to prevent accidents. (It's a hundred times easier to get a gun in this country than to get an abortion, thanks to anti-choice state laws instituted in the last thirty years.)

Making it difficult for women to get abortions just kills women (read this: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/generation/walk/wis_1_true.html).

If sex education is made adequate, if sex becomes less of a taboo subject, and if birth control is made better and more widely available, very few women will need abortions, indeed. For the few that still need them, the solution is to let them decide for themselves whether they will get an abortion, not to force them to resort to desperate measures.

[cushla_machree]

310. I don't agree

Whether or not it is difficult to get an abortion, people will still have unwanted pregnancies.

You won't have more 'careful' people, just more unwanted pregnancies.

[loyalsister]

272. Thank you!!

This idea of an epidemic of women carrying to the 8th or 9th month and deciding to abort.
What an insult to our intelligence!!!

[Fleshdancer]

297. an insult to our intelligence...that's EXACTLY what it is

I don't know what's more insulting, the idea of big bump bellied women standing in line for an abortion because it's the fun thing to do or the idea that woman should be forced to wait 24 hours prior to having an abortion. As if a woman who's 7 weeks pregnant just wonders into her clinic without thinking long and hard about her options.

:grr:

[Tight_rope]

102. No help from me...I want to controll my own body...Not government!

[usregimechange]

109. The gov. may already constitutionally restrict your right in the...

last trimester.

[Zomby Woof]

114. this fetus smokes pot!

Oh shit! The drug war intersects with abortion and freepers everywhere implode!

[Dookus]

128. Hey!

Where'd you get my sonogram?!

[madfloridian]

118. Disagree.

By implication any discussion on this sounds like women really are just eager to have abortions. It should be like ANY medical procedure, between a woman and her doctor.

[usregimechange]

135. If I wanted to end my life because I was depressed...

would that be a medical procedure?

[Dookus]

140. Only if you committed suicide

by removing your liver :eyes:

[usregimechange]

147. Well, I don't eugenics as a medical procedure either, do u?

He has MR lets smite him to prevent the spread of his genetic information. Is that a legit life and health exception? No. Does it ever happen, I hope not but you know what? If it never happens why did the high court concern itself with fetuses in the last trimester by allowing states to restrict them? You haven't answered yet.

[Dookus]

149. Please

read your post again and fill in the missing verbs, nouns, adverbs, adjectives and gerunds that will make it English.

[usregimechange]

171. Now you resort to typing errors... sad.... nt

[Dookus]

217. I resorted to typing errors?

I think you mean I resorted to pointing out YOUR errors.

And they weren't typing errors, unless your fingers missed whole words at a time. I could NOT understand your post at all.

What's sad is you didn't bother to make your point intelligible.

[Cheswick2.0]

345. He is right, and that is not something you will see me type often

on this board. But your post really is uninteligable. I have a perfect smartass answer for what I think you said, but I don't want to waste it if I guessed incorrectly. Can you repost what you meant to say?

[Zomby Woof]

150. jesus christ on a safeway cart

You use "u" as shorthand. That pisses me off as bad as your fetus worship.

The only president who would appoint a RoeVWade reverser to the SCOTUS would be a Republican. So continue to be disappointed that good liberal jutsices will not fascistically declare that "Well! RoeVWade should be overturned because we can keep sperm alive in the microwave!"

RoeVWade is more than just time limits on viability, it is about safeguarding human freedom, a subject in which you're grossly ignorant.

[Zomby Woof]

142. yes

So please get started now.

[Kool Kitty]

159. No. But it would be your choice.

Your decision.

[frankly_fedup2]

406. Personally, I miss Dr. Kevorkian. When does he get out of Jail?

I think he got 15 years after he was warned the last time but did it anyway.

Is he still alive????

[walldude]

167. Exactly

anti-abortionists make it sound like this is something a woman looks foward to. It's stupid. Clinton said it best: "Abortion should be safe, available, and rare." Like the ladies were saying, if it were men having the babies, abortion would be a sacrament...

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[usregimechange]

141. Hey I created this thread, check out my other web-site:

Southwest Missouri for Kerry
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swmoforkerry/

Assumptions kill.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[usregimechange]

153. What is your problem?

1). Notice how many posts I have, I didn't just show up. 2) Do you value babies but only after they are all the way out? What makes concern about them "fetus worship" one second and protecting innocent life the next? Is groupthink limited to Republicans? 3) There are more issues in the world than this. Kerry will be the next President and with my support.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[Kool Kitty]

163. ZombyWoof-

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[usregimechange]

169. alrighty then? nt

[Zomby Woof]

173. yep

Smart women love us liberals who respect their freedom. :P

[usregimechange]

184. Their freedom to kill fully developed infants?

Surely the court was right to allow states to restrict late term abortions. Was Roe incorrect?

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

407. and yet another bullshit circular, side lateral arabesque

from the original poster. If you are talking about limiting abortion at some cut off date, please say what that fetal age is. Fully formed human doesn't mean shit. Children aren't fully formed untill about age 18. Are you suggesting abortion is okay until then? Cause it sounds kind of messy to me.

[Rabrrrrrr]

170. Anyone forming laws to tell another what to do with their body is sick

as far as I am concerned.

It's between the woman and God, assuming there is a God, and as far as I am concerned (as a Christian professional), I believe that either God forgives (assuming abortion is "bad") or that God is on the side of the woman (assuming God is a God of love).

Either way, *I*, as the person who IS NOT carrying the theoretical fetus, have no right to tell the person who IS carrying the theoretical fetus what to do with it.

I might disagree with a decision, but I would never impinge on the pregnant person's right to make her own divinely-mandated right to make her own decision.

And anyone who WOULD infringe on that right is sick.

As far as I am concerned.

So says Rabrrrrrr, after serving friend Dookus 2 21-ounce martinis, and feeling I should come offer my two cents' worth in defense of friend Dookus, and in support of Slinkerwink and ZombyWoof and others on the side of sanity.

[Zomby Woof]

174. I just passed a law

It tells your body to get up and put on another Zappa album. But you already knew I was sick.

[Rabrrrrrr]

185. I like that law!

Better than 80% of what we have now. :-)

Though, to be consistent, I can't abide by a law that tells us what music to play either.

Though I would be willing to support a no Clay Aiken or Toby Keith law.

:-)

"And Jesus will think you're a jerk...and it will be true!"

[Zomby Woof]

196. you just questioned my ZombyGod powers

Heretic! Burn this steak! No, make it medium-rare. :D

[Cybergata]

286. Zappa helped me survive my first decade of teaching...

the the 80s that followed! Zappa wasn't sick. He was a genious both musically and in his social commentary. I was fortunate enough to see him in concert three times. The Attorney General of New Mexico (this was the late 70s early 80s) was a good friend of his, which might have something to do with his visits to New Mexico. :hippie:

[Zomby Woof]

384. of course he wasn't sick

You are preaching to the Barking Pumpkin choir here. :-)

I am DU's Zappaholic in residence. But I have lots of good company.

[usregimechange]

175. It isn't just a womans body, it is an infant....

not a clump of cells an infant with a brain, awareness, and all of its senses including those that tell it that it is being sliced to death. Come on! This is why the High Court allowed states to restrict the right you talk about. There is a competing interest involved. Mother privacy and self-determination is important and so is the life of the late term fetus.

[Zomby Woof]

178. then you raise the baby

And it is a collection of cells, albeit tasty ones I can baste with garlic butter!

[Bat Boy]

179. Last conversation I had with one was a bit one sided.

Or could you be anthropomorphizing zygotes?

By the way, nix on the late term abortion propaganda. It's bullshit. There aren't nearly as many as you need to make your point.

[Zomby Woof]

182. BikiniBoy!

:bounce:

Come, let us dine on Zygote Stew!

[Bat Boy]

187. I'll bring the potato salad!

You don't want the recipe. Just eat it and be grateful you don't know what I know.

[Dookus]

220. even if it IS

another life, so what? It's a parasitic life that depends entirely on the host to support it. The host should decide what happens with it, not you, not the state.

[athena]

256. If that's the case,

then sperm are not just sperm, they are potential "infants". As a man, the best way you can prevent the killing of infants is by getting sterilized. That way, you will be certain that you will never make a woman pregnant against her will and cause her to seek an abortion.

(I hope no one misunderstands; this is just sarcasm.)

[Cheswick2.0]

348. no need for sarcasm qualifier

I think all men who are anti-choice should be forced by law to be sterilized. Then they can keep all their precious sperm to themselves.

[Tansy_Gold]

389. And men who

masturbate are mass murderers.

Women who masturbate are not.

:evilgrin:

[Cheswick2.0]

408. Just imagine if we wasted an egg every time we masterbated

Do you think they would pass laws forcing us to live in chains with our hands bound behind our backs until we produced our requisite 2.8 children?

[drdigi420]

277. not until it breathes is it a human

until you realize that, your points are moot

[Kitka]

343. So I disagree with the High Court…

I acknowledge it’s more than a clump of cells late in pregnancy, but that doesn’t mean that we steal a woman’s right to choose at some arbitrary point in time. I feel late term abortion is a tragedy, but a necessary one.

[Cheswick2.0]

347. okay, so we are talking about late term fetus

how many healthy late term fetuses are being aborted by healthy women? Either supply the information or look like a fool.

[DemWitch]

172. NOT that I intentionally want to get in the middle of a flame fest...

but for crissakes... if your anti-abortion there is no law that says you can't raise your kids with those values. Why is it all these anti-abortionists find it necessary to cram their beliefs, no matter how heartfelt down the throats of others, denying them thier rights. I am anti-abortion. But that's my belief, and my belief shouldn't impose on someone elses choice. IF I had a daughter who came to me at 16 and said she was pregnant, I would hope the VALUES that I raised her with would give her the strength to carry to full term. However, it's her life not mine. I'm not the one who is going to be responsible for the next 20 some odd years for another human being. If she chose not to, then I would support her. That's her choice, and I have no right to deny her that right.

And one other thing... when all these good meaning people who feel laws should be enacted to prevent a woman from her choice trot their upper middle class white bread fat asses down to their local adoption agency to adopt a little black, hispanic or asian gift from God, or a 5 or 6 year old that fell through the cracks, or a baby born with HIV or an addiction, then your arguments about caring for all of God's children might be a bit more sincere.

[Kool Kitty]

176. Hear, hear!!

[usregimechange]

181. Gezzz, now I am middle class! I guess that experience of...

using an outhouse in the middle of winter and drinking springwater was a delusion. Wait! Now I am a dumb hick right? One that will soon graduate with a Masters degree. Look, a mothers choice is important and should be protected until the fetus has developed to a point that it is no longer just someone's choice to kill, when it is not merely a clump of cells, when it can feel and sense your choice in the form of pain.

[Bat Boy]

Never try to crucify yourself...

As dramatic and noble as the attempt may be, you can never get that last nail in.

[Rabrrrrrr]

191. I guess I just prefer to trust the women who is making the decision

and let her make it, and support her in it. Even if I disagree with it.

I prefer compassion and understanding. Whatever the reasons are, I am not in that boat.

Every pregnant woman is faced with a hell of a responsibility, far more than the man who impregnated her, and I, for one, am not willing to say to a woman who doens't want to give birth, "You have to."

[DemWitch]

195. no...

what I am saying is that since you have no uterus, you should keep your nose out of other women's and let them do what they choose with them.

As far as the middle class point goes, where is it typed that it was directed at you? It isn't. And I could give a shit where or how you live, or where you take a dump, I'm more concerned with you wanting to intrude upon my sister's life, and the lives of may of the fine women I have been blessed to know.

[Cybergata]

290. You are so awesome!

That's all I have to say. :hippie:

[Susang]

188. What fun!

More men telling me what to do with my uterus. With all this chatter, you'd think that the Handmaid's Tale was being used as an instruction manual rather than the cautionary story it is. :eyes:

Ever notice how whenever there's a discussion about how we shouldn't be talking about abortion, that it is distracting, that that very same day, a divisive thread will magically appear about that very subject?

[usregimechange]

192. I think debate is healthy. Mindless policy is scary... nt

[Zomby Woof]

198. mindless policy

Hypocrite. You want to rewrite Roe V Wade to satisfy your sick obsession with embryonic protoplasm. You're outed, dude!

[Susang]

205. And using n/t is supposed to convince me that you desire debate?

Sorry, I just don't deal in one sentence snippy retorts that ultimately mean nothing. Though in a sound bite culture such as ours, I'm sure you will do well with your style of "debate".

[athena]

218. What is mindless policy

is making abortion illegal.

When abortion is made illegal, women die. Before Roe v. Wade, 1.2 million women per year were getting abortions, and 5000 per year were dying (see http://www.feminist.org/roevwade/whatif.asp). Even now, women are dying thanks to "mindless" restrictions on abortion created by men like you (see http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/generation/walk/wis_1_true.html).

Don't claim to be pro-life. You are nothing but anti-woman.

[Zomby Woof]

221. Welcome to DU!

Now that is my kind of concise, factual, link-laden smackdown. :toast:

[Susang]

222. Hi Athena!

Welcome to our fun Monday night/Tuesday morning abortion extravaganza! :party:

Oh, and welcome to DU! :toast:

[Zomby Woof]

225. shit!

BatBoy lied! He told me Monday Night/Tuesday Morning Extravaganza was the Bacos Buffet at Denny's. :grr:

[Susang]

234. He's like that

Mischievous little bastard. :D

[athena]

229. Hi!

Glad to be here!:toast:

[Bat Boy]

231. Welcome to the mud pit!

Christ, it was months before I tackled an abortion thread.

You are going to be a holy terror around here.

Welcome!

[GoneOffShore]

283. Thanks for playing

"Whack a Tr... (oops) Mole" with us.
And welcome to DU.

[FizzFuzz]

393. Go girl!!!

:hi:

[athena]

409. Hey, fellow feminist!

:hi:

I hope you don't mind that I have the same avatar as you? I just joined three days ago. I can change it if you like.

[FizzFuzz]

414. naw!!!!! I'm not an avatar hog--Gloria Steinem is for EVERYBODY!

When I first saw your avatar, though, I did a double take: "What the....? Did I write that?? Geeez I know I'm brilliant and eloquent but I'm not that good!! Or maybe I am? (lean in to monitor for closer inspection.......) Darn, its not me." ;)


Yay fellow feminist!!mind if I call on you when I need feminist back up? Sometimes I wish I could call in the calvalry of sisters around here. Hee hee. :toast:

[athena]

418. I thought the same thing when I saw your post.

Please do call on me when you need feminist backup. :toast:

[FizzFuzz]

420. haa!!! cool, OK , will PM ya if I need ya. Hmmm I wonder if I

could get any other feminists here in on that??? hmmmmmmmmmmm.:bounce: :hippie: :party:

[Bat Boy]

223. Debate is healthy. Try it sometime.

Don't issue a platitude, repeat it ad infinatum, then sit back and claim you've engaged in a discussion.

Show me a fact. Show me proof. Show me something that justifies you making the decision with the implicit assumption that any other is wrong.

Better yet, show me that you would have one tenth the compassion for the child or the mother that you show for the zygote.

Show me why a man has any place making a decision for a woman reguarding her body.

[Zomby Woof]

190. The Aborted Popcorn Song!

Look at me!
I write fake laws!
I am the anti-choicer
Santa Claus!

Roe V Wade?
It's too lean!
Let's make it stricter
And much more mean!

I should vote for Bush
Says the Happy Fetus
But that librul Kerry
He wants to eat us!

ZombyWoof
He likes them toasted
But BatBoy likes
Them garlic-roasted!

So let's keep that
Zygote from the freezer
So it will never be
A baby geezer!

Just keep it away
From Michael Jackson
No fetus is too young
For his attraction!


---ZW

[Bat Boy]

197. Genius!

I bow to your popcorn and bring offerings of melted butter.

[Zomby Woof]

201. just be careful

Itt'sss harrrd typinnng wittthhh buttteryy greasyyyy fingersss!!!

[Bat Boy]

202. Not if you practice enough...

And believe me, I have.

[usregimechange]

204. That might just trivialize this issue a bit.

Immature as well. When does a fetus become a person and should be protected by law? How do you know? Have you thought about this or are you too bust jerking off?

[Bat Boy]

206. Using a penis for it's intended purpose...

Instead of a tool for legislation.

[Zomby Woof]

219. "...and the Pun Of The Year Award goes to...."

That boy with the guano-aroma!

[Bat Boy]

227. Thank you...

Thank you very much.

[Cybergata]

287. Oh my dear Buddha...

after viewing this photo, I need to wash my brain out with soap. It still won't help. The image was suddenly etched into my memory. I fear I'll push this view into my subconsciouses and it will find its way into my nightmares! :hippie:

[Bat Boy]

391. Oh, it doesn't go away...

Sometimes I see it in my sleep.

[Zomby Woof]

211. Yes, I am jerking off

But I cannot come up (pun intended) with names for ALL of the sperm. Maybe you have some suggestions?

Not protected by law until that cord is cut, George! Deal with it.

May your dreams tonight be haunted by 1,000 women whom you denied their rights, chasing after you with a tub of my popcorn, ready to exact their venegeance upon your poor weak self.

[Susang]

214. Night of the Living Popcorn

Now that's scary! ;-)

[Susang]

212. You've been here for over 1000 posts and you don't know by now?

Almost every poster on this thread has posted on most of the abortion threads that have come up in the past few months, nay year. And yet, you say you don't know what our opinions are and think that we haven't given this matter significant thought? :wtf:

[Dookus]

224. When the umbilicus is severed

before that, it's a parasite, and the host should decide what's done with it.

[Djinn]

232. when born

end of story

[Susang]

199. I had to copy and paste that one

In case it disappears too. ;-)

[Zomby Woof]

203. Deleted message

Some of my best work has that exact title, by some strange coincidence. ;-)

[Bat Boy]

208. Dude, when are you coming to Chicago...?

I don't know how much long distance fun I can stand.

[Zomby Woof]

216. Nothing I would love more

Nothing my wallet would love less!

Seriously, Chicago is one of my truly favorite places. A bonus to have the likes of you and SusanBat there. A DU reunion people would kill their late-term fetus over.


Patience, and soon we will fill Lake Michigan with popcorn.

[Bat Boy]

235. Mmmm...soggy, fishy popcorn....

I can't wait.

[dorktv]

226. No fetus that is born prior to 24 weeks can live

We are talking fetuses that are listed as gestational age 23w6d babies. The doctors try their hardest and yet the baby dies.

Brain development might be a good way to look at though.

[Killarney]

355. That's not true.

There is a very slim chance, but babies CAN survive from 20 weeks on. Slim chance, but it happens. I know a three year old that was born at 20 or 21 weeks. He's perfectly healthy.

[dorktv]

358. Was he written up in any medical journals? Because that would be a

medical miricle.
As for perfectly healthy, does that mean the child has no blindness, no respitory problems amoung other problems? Most extreme premies have breathing problems. I would check with the family of that child and ask what the doctors set for gestational age. There are generally two kinds: one is estimated (this would be by mestration cycle) and the other would be developmental. (This would be when a woman goes for an untrasound and they do a based on development of the fetus gestational age estimation) Neither are totally exact because every person is different and so would their pregnancy. However the ultrasound one is more accurate.

[Killarney]

363. he was on the local news

a tv news crew came to the hospital to do a human interest story on him (where they live). but I don't know if he was in medical journals. they never mentioned that.

when he was born, he was only one pound.

[liberalpragmatist]

233. I agree somewhat, but it's hopeless discussing this on this site

It's better to just talk about less divisive issues here.

Personally, I do think that abortions on healthy fetuses in healthy women after brain wave activity begins in the second trimester, should be banned. If not that standard, than maybe third-trimester or viability.

Nearly all abortions that are the result of an unwanted pregnancy occur in the first trimester anyway, and I want those to be legal, no questions asked.

As for the argument that nobody aborts a healthy fetus in the third-trimester, it has a point. It is very rare. But many crimes are rare. Actual murder (NOTE that I'm Not saying abortios are murder) are rare. We still punish them. Moreover, though some of the responses are a blanket "women aren't evil, nobody does this" is unconvincing. I agree that EXTREMELY FEW do this. However, there is always going to be a subset that may. Saying that the few who do abort in an indefensible manner are not being ethical is not to condemn all women, just as some men being rapists doesn't imply that all men are evil.

This is in line with over 70% of the American public, and most of the country. It is the position of such liberal senators as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, who favor a late-term abortion ban with exceptions providing for the life or health of the mother (and I would add an exception for concerns with the fetus' health).

People argue against this saying that doing so values the fetus over the mother. Frankly, the embryo is a potential life and the fetus in later stages of development is medically and by most ethical standards, a human person. It feels pain and is conscious. Abortion laws should be permissive and allow women the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy prior to the standards I set out above. Abortion laws need to protect the rights of women and their health, but they need to balance that with the rights of the fetus. You can't say that a fetus that is two-weeks from birth is not a full life. And doing such a ban would not allow for further restrictions on women's bodies. It would be the fine line, in line with the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans and most women. Besides, one can use the slippery-slope argument to justify blocking ANYTHING.

usregimechange, people will call you anti-choice and anti-woman. They will call you a freeper mole and claim, incredibly, that Bush is closer to your position. They will ask you and I why we hate women. Just ignore them. Go ahead and think what you want. There's no need to tow the NARAL line. Most Democrats don't.

Still, don't hold it against the other people on this site, even if they criticize us. I can understand where they're coming from and I realize this is a difficult topic. We agree on far more than we disagree and we're all friends here. Friends can disagree and even get angry and still be friends.

That's my position, and I'm sticking to it. If you have differences, say what you think. I request that you keep it civil and don't just throw epithets at me. I request that you respond respectfully and give substantive arguments. This is a complex issue and I can empathize with the 100% view. So don't flame me. I'll let anyone who wants to respond have the last word.

[Susang]

238. Doctors overwhelmingly oppose any late term abortion ban

As it effectively ties their hands when treating their patients. No offense, but Kerry & Boxer's opinion doesn't mean shit to me. My doctor's does. That's the only one I'm willing to listen to and it should be between us.

[athena]

248. I posted most of this stuff elsewhere, but it seems appropriate here.

In discussing whether abortion should be legal, the rights of a foetus and the point at which life begins are irrelevant. Nobody in this world has any right to take over another person's body, live on its energy, and force it to undergo a painful and/or dangerous medical procedure (or any medical procedure, for that matter). Giving birth may necessitate a caesarian, which carries all the risks of surgery, including the risk of death, and can cause serious problems later in life, such as incontinence or lower-back problems. Women accept these risks when they decide to have children; but you can't force a woman to accept them against her will.

The state should not be allowed to force women to give birth against their will, just as it should not be allowed to force people to donate organs or take part in medical experiments against their will. Donating organs or participating in medical experiments also save lives, but nobody calls it "murder" to refuse to donate an organ or participate in a medical experiment.

It is never OK for the state to put a woman in jail for having an abortion. Not one day after conception, not nine months after conception. Suppose a woman falls down a staircase one day before she's supposed to give birth. And someone claims that she did it to kill the foetus. Would you put her in jail for this? How could you ever know for sure whether the woman fell on purpose or not? It is every person's right to decide what to do with his or her body. It is precisely because this is such a basic and natural right that it's so difficult to take it away.

Finally, the U.S. is the only developed country in the world where abortion is still an issue. The whole rest of the civilized world has decided that abortion is a woman's natural right. What makes you think you are smarter and wiser than the rest of the world?

[usregimechange]

254. Germany restricts abortions for one and

no one said through mothers in jail. Maybe revoke the Dr. license. And what about the late term fetus/infant? Where does it figure into such a choice? Just raw tissue?

[liberalpragmatist]

261. You make some good points BUT

I'm not calling for women to be imprisoned. That would be ineffective. A fine, perhaps.

Moreover, you're right - almost every other country in the world has settled the abortion issue - on grounds that you would find insufficient. In most of Europe, abortions are only legal w/out question within the first or second trimesters. Look it up. It's true.

Frankly, I think those are the lines on which we should have legalized abortion. I agree with Roe v. Wade, but I think a strong case can be made that b/c the issue was never settled by Congress, we never had the kind of debate other countries had - it was judicial legalization, and while I agree with Roe v. Wade and am glad it happened, I do think it has made the debate far longer than it has existed anywhere else.

And yes, I realize I'm breaking my own rule of not responding. Sorry. I won't do it again.

[Rabrrrrrr]

285. Well said!

And welcome to DU, Athena!

Like I said in another post up yonder, and as you did here, it's the woman's body and we need to trust that she can make her own decisions, whatever they are, and have compassion upon her.

The state should absolutely not be in the habit of telling us what to do with our bodies.

[lostnfound]

346. You are NOT wasting your breath (or fingers); thank you for your input

"Nobody in this world has any right to take over another person's body, live on its energy, and force it to undergo a painful and/or dangerous medical procedure"

You said this once before and it made a difference for me in how I think. Perhaps you were the one who pointed out that no one is obligated to offer up a kidney or other organ..The integrity of the body is a concept which is so basic that it can be overwhelmed by other concepts such as "protecting society's most vulnerable" or respecting life, etc.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that this statement have helped me a lot in accepting and understanding the prochoice position.

[athena]

380. Thank you!

Thank you for making my day! That means so much to me.:7

[FizzFuzz]

396. Kudos!! And Here Here!

Nice avatar too. ;)

[usregimechange]

249. That is almost 100% what I think and why... nt hey, join my site

[uhhuh]

270. Great idea! With one little, extra stipulation....

There should be a nationwide referrendum on this issue, each person in the country who has reached an age where they are capable of concieving a child will be given a vote on this issue.

The difference is, there will be no secret ballot. If restrictions on abortion in the above detailed circumstances pass, all those who voted in favor will be registered with their state as available to have a child assigned to them. They are not permitted to reject this child for any reason.

Those who voted against will be permitted to register as well, but will not be required to. That makes it fair.

If someone refuses, or does a particularly bad job of it, they will recieve double the civil or criminal penalties that one would recieve for violating the sanctions imposed on pregnant women who seek illegal abortions.

That sound like a good balance, doesn't it?

[Kitka]

354. Excellent idea. <nt>

[Tansy_Gold]

392. I would add an amendment to that referendum

All males who vote for the measure will be taxed to provide funds to support all the babies. The only way to avoid taxation will be vasectomy.

[Kitka]

349. Yeah, screw the woman <m>

who will then be forced to carry a fetus that will die at birth. Fuck her. Yeah, ignore all of us, and her. Sit there smug in your perceived moral superiority, “allowing” others to have the last word so you don’t have to defend your position. Yay you.

[Missy Vixen]

244. Just throwing this one out here

Usregimechange, when you miss a period, give me a call, okay?

Julie

[Zomby Woof]

245. I wish I were drinking water or something

Just so I could spray it across the monitor. :D

[Bat Boy]

252. I went and got myself a glass of water for that very purpose.

Well done, Julie!

[Susang]

246. I think he fled the scene

Don't think you'll be getting that call.

Myself, I'm going to bed. I've had enough of this for one night. :hi:

[Zomby Woof]

251. good night!

Don't let the BatBoy bite (no, wait, you're as kinky as the rest of us zygote-killing Dems!)!

[Bat Boy]

253. I'm filing my teeth to a nice point right now...

Nighty-night...

[usregimechange]

255. Infants can be boys or girls and are important too. nt

[Djinn]

258. lost me there

infants can be lots of things - they tend to have been born as well so somewhat irrelevant to this discussion.

Just curious - you say you'd keep the availability of late term abortions if the mothers health or life were at risk - what does "health at risk" mean? does this mean a woman who state that without the abortion she'll kill herself can have an abortion?

[Susang]

295. What infants aren't are missed periods

Your response to JulieRB's comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Unless you can enlighten me as to where she mentioned infants in her comment about missing periods.

[ronabop]

262. Gigantic thread, only one D.A.P.R. member.

I wonder who that member could be?

Oh, and I still haven't seen usregimechange's response on what actual level of brain development is important.
2 weeks: primitive streak can appear
2 months: reptilian brain can appear
6 months: neurons start linking up, can feel pain
7 months: brain waves resembling normal human brain waves can appear.

I have decided to revise my previous answer for being concious, and retaining memories (2-3 years old), to the following:

"A mother should be able to mercifully abort a fetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, or adult, until that offspring can successfully read, comprehend, and intelligently discuss the implications of, and facts about, Roe v. Wade."

-Bop

[K-W]

264. He also hasnt responded

to the several posters who have suggested he turn his energy to fighting for family planning as that would actually decrease the number of abortions rather than causing democratic infighting and accomplishing nothing.

[Bridget Burke]

269. But he's caused a major distraction.

Just according to plan!

[Swamp Rat]

273. Rove, is that you?

:hi:

Why do men even think they have a say in this? I mean, they never stop trying to control women and their bodies! I'm a man, yet I would not try to force a woman to give birth even if I wanted the baby.

Ladies, I'm with you all the way. It's YOUR choice!... not some assholes who think they have it all figured out as to what is proper or not.

[drdigi420]

276. why would you help the GOP by spreading this BS?

[Crowdance]

281. Like the Betty Bowers site?

Is this like that Betty Bowers site (but not as good)? You know, a parody of a real site, in order to hold ridiculous ideas up to the light? Many people who see the Betty Bowers site wonder at first if it's for real.

[Love Bug]

284. I didn't read this whole thread because we've heard it all before

Once again we have another "let's restrict abortion" thread started by a MALE DUer. With apologies to all of the great prochoice male DUers here I have only one thing to say:

Unless you have stood on the cold bathroom floor one morning praying the stick doesn't turn blue, stand back and let the women hash out this issue. In other words: no uterus = no opinion

[sangh0]

293. Another male DUer

who thinks that abortion is the biggest problem this nation faces.

Love that progressivism!! I guess some people are tired of worrying about the SwiftBoats lies.

[Name removed]

335. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

351. That's what I am saying

thanks

[Cheswick2.0]

299. there is nothing "civil" about what you are doing

Surprise surprise, when I checked your bio I found out you are Uterus free.

Keep it up and the democratic party will be a third party, one which is full of appeasement minded wimpy white guys and the black guys who want to be like them. The rest of us will be leaving thank you. Maybe you can attract some of the Nascar Dads and those obnoxious feminists for life. I think there are about 500 of them.
Womens Party here I come.

[noiretextatique]

372. LOL....I see you're in top form

LMAO :D "wimpy white guys and black guys who want to be like them"...priceless. let me know when the party starts. :hi:

[Cheswick2.0]

378. Oh hell, lets just start now

I'll vote for Kerry in november, but after that all bets are off. I want a party which will force men to mind their own business and VALUE the votes of the women who support them. More than that, I want a party who will support women for President and I want a cabinet with more women than men on it. We are the majority and at least once in a while we should be represented in proportion to our numbers in society.
I say we organize this winter and act like a union, get on board with our demands or we vote for and run our own candidates and those women in the democratic or other parties who do support our issues.

[noiretextatique]

379. count me in...it's long overdue

damn skippy our votes need to be valued, as should or lives and the issues that directly affect us. as indiana green once mentioned, we are all a part of the "back of the bus" party as long as the votes of others are deemed more important than those of the people used by the wedge issue politics that attract those folks. i think that's called betrayal when it happens outside of politics. those wimpy white guys you mentioned call it "compromise," but note: it's always at the expense of some other who happens to be black or brown or female.
i'm with you.

[ProfLefty]

312. Just not Acceptable.

I fear that any restrictions on a woman's right to choose which is really simply her right to exercise control over her own body would put us on that slippery slope that rw abortion foes have been striving for ever since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down. Often I hear these kind of reasonable sounding proposals usually predicated upon some scientific or medical fact but they are inherantly dangerous because they are nothing more than attempts to reframe the issue and divert our focus away from the fact that this issue is a very straightforward one...we cannot allow our society to ever force women to give birth against their will...no matter what.

[TexasSissy]

315. I think abortions currently are illegal after 6 mos. (2 trimesters).

Is that not correct? And a lot of doctors will not perform them after the first trimester, although some doctors can be found who will.

Unless abortion has been expanded in the last decade, that was the law the last time I checked.

[Tweed]

325. I think it's great. Abortion needs SERIOUS reform

You shouldn't be able to abort a child if that child has brain activity. That's at the LEAST!

[Cheswick2.0]

352. and another person with a penis sticks his nose in my business

this would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[Name removed]

359. Deleted message

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

[Kitka]

361. We all play God all the time…

or don’t you believe in life support?

[Tweed]

362. I"m against death support

[Kitka]

364. And you’d like to take that choice away from others, too?

[Cheswick2.0]

370. well of course, just look at his post

he called me a bitch with a pussy in response for the very real comment that he is a man sticking his nose into my business. That kind of person always wants to control women.

[Kitka]

367. Oh, and it’s not “death” support I’m talking about….

I think it’s quite sad myself that you’re in support of protecting fetuses but against saving a brother, mother, father, or child who needs life support. I’m not talking keeping coma patients alive indefinitely – I’m talking about if my kid gets in a car accident and needs to be on life support but then comes around. According to you, that’s “playing God”, and she should just die, right? And artificial insemination and IVF for infertile couples? They should just live with it, right? Wouldn’t want to “play God”?

[Cheswick2.0]

368. if you had said vagina and called me a person

instead of a bitch, I wouldn't have been able to alert on you. But please spare me the playing God bullshit, God and I are just fine with each other.

[GoneOffShore]

334. Well, it's interesting to see that

the group has ONE member. I guess it would be men only anyway.

[kwolf68]

356. Damn this thread is long

.

[RebelYell]

394. You are male, correct?

You will never stop abortions, legal or otherwise. Deal with it.

[FizzFuzz]

397. ONe good thing about this thread is that there sure are alot of brilliant

eloquent, truly ethical people here! Lotta funny folks too.

:loveya:

now, hoo-ee, I've been online way way too long...better attend to my life :hangover: <--from too much DUing today!!

[NightTrain]

399. Abortion: one penis, NO vote!

Capische, paisan?

[Dookus]

413. and that pretty much sums it up.

the thread is too long. It should end on that sentiment.