Is the pro-choice position that abortion is a good thing?

[Michael_UK]

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, (I'm not female, so I'm less well qualified to discuss the issue).
I was reading the letters page of the New York Times today, and they seemed to suggest that the pro-choice position contained the "extreme" view that abortion was good and should be available on demand with no restrictions. The opposite of this is that abortion should never be allowed.

My view is that the pro-choice position is typically rather centrist, and that they were beating a strawman. My take is that abortion should be available on demand in the 1st trimester, more restrictions applied in the second trimester and available in the third trimester only if the health of the child or mother are in danger. I also view abortion to be "never a good thing", but the least of all evils.

That seems a rather moderate view, and not extreme at all. Is this view typical of the "pro-choice movement"? Are there "pro-choicers" who support abortion with no restrictions up to very late in the pregnancy?

[chascaz]

1. We need to start calling them the "pro-back-alley abortion" people.

This discussion needs to be changed from one about killing fetuses to a discussion about the health of the Mother. And, if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Does anyone have any historical articles, info or pics about back alley abortions, the kind that were performed before Roe vs. Wade? You never hear this argument from our side, and we should, it's the REAL reason why abortions were made legal.

Also, the notion that the GOP doesn't want to overturn Roe vs. Wade because it would eliminate their support from the religious right extremists is BS, because if it is overturned, there will still be a fight, there will always be a fight over this issue, whether it is kept legal or not. If it is overturned, feminists will be fighting to get it back, and the religious right will be there to defend their pro-back-alley abortion views.

Peace - :)

[Mnemosyne]

4. chascaz, you hit it on the head with

"pro-back-alley abortion" people. That is the very best description I have ever heard for them.

Kuddos galore to you!

Peace
V

[chascaz]

7. IT's all about the wording of the message.

Nobody WANTS to have an abortion (they're very painful, I hear), but then not everybody wants to have a Brady Bunch house full of kids, either. Historically, abortion has been around as long as prostitution and drugs, and just like those things, it will always be around, it's just a matter of whether you want SAFE abortions, or "back alley" abortions. In ancient times, women used to take herbal drugs to force a miscarriage.

The only real issue for the govt' should be whether or not federal FUNDING is used to support abortions, or not, and that's all that any citizen should care about it, not whether it is legal or not, and all those other details. As with all issues, when it comes to the govt', their only role is to determine whether OUR TAX DOLLARS are used for this or that, and where our money gets spent....

GOP - Weapons, Military, Taxcutsfortherich, Corporate Welfare, etc.
Dems - Health Care, Education, infrastructure, civil rights, etc.

Peace - :)

[Mnemosyne]

9. You found the right words, no doubt.

Most women really don't want to have abortions. Some are
haunted the rest of their lives, even knowing they made the
right choice. And choice is the important word here. Some are
lucky and never suffer from any emotional repercussions.
Either way, they deserve the choice to be safe.

I think there needs to be more study by herbalists to help
women with herbal abortions so as to bypass all the hell these
pro back street abortionists put them through. Maybe that's
the answer now. I know a woman that painted her bathroom 15
times with the door closed before Roe v Wade to cause a
miscarriage. It worked, but she was so fortunate it didn't
cause any major health problems. It could have I am sure,
breathing paint fumes can't be healthy if it can cause a
miscarriage. It was horribly sad.

Peace
V

[Zenlitened]

12. "Pro-coat hanger"

:grr:

[MountainLaurel]

13. In a related thread

It looks like the days of backalleys and women injuring themselves to abort are back in full swing in the places where access is most restricted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x225285

[breakfastofchampions]

24. I'm gonna use that

[papau]

2. No - just about no one is pro-abortion, which makes the word battle

a right wing con.

Now there are sum who see abortion as a method to get to a smaller population and indeed are "for abortion" in that sense - but even here their numbers are very small.

Your view that "abortion should be available on demand in the 1st trimester, more restrictions applied in the second trimester and available in the third trimester only if the health of the child or mother are in danger. I also view abortion to be "never a good thing", but the least of all evils." is pretty much standard based on my experience.

But there are indeed "pro-choicers" who support abortion with no restrictions up to very late in the pregnancy - based on the concept that no one but the women should have any control over her body. Not that they advocate late abortion - just that it should be a right. This group's size also appears quite small to me.

[femrap]

23. I am happy as a lark that abortion is legal and safe....!!!!!

Since men don't get raped and end up pregnant, I really don't think they should have much say in the issue of abortion...but since we live in a patriarchy, I guess we have to listen to what males say about everything.

There are many, many, many things worse than abortion. Abortions are always going to be an alternative for women....they will be either legal and safe or women will die.

[Mnemosyne]

3. We would like to see it remain

legal and safe. And become very rare. However, the abortion rate has risen with bubble boy in office here. I would imagine it's the fear of raising a child with no jobs and the social support system being hacked into pieces.

The pro-back alley abortion people (great call from chascaz in post #1 by the way!) only want to save American fetuses. Unfortunately they couldn't care less about children after they are born into poverty or if they are awaiting birth in another country such as Iraq. And they obviously couldn't care less for those already living in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur,etc...

It is very disturbing to see such hypocrisy and frightening to see the lack of any empathy.

Peace,

V

[Mend]

5. I don't see any medical procedure as a "good" thing or "bad" thing...

Abortion is a medical procedure designed to end an unwanted pregnancy. Period.

[Union Thug]

11. Agree... Good and Bad? That's pretty subjective...

As Mend says, it's just a medical procedure.

[Warpy]

6. Is sitting in a dentist's office for a root canal a good thing?

Honestly, this is a pretty silly question. Talk to your women acquaintances about it. You'll find that abortions are painful, expensive, and embarrassing, at best. Its not like anybody out here likes them like they'd enjoy a good football match or dish of ice cream.

(Nobody likes gallbladder surgery, either, and it can also be a lifesaver. Oddly, the religious lunatics haven't seen fit to attack those yet as interfering with the will of gawd, but I'm sure they will.)

The points are two: first, the only abortions that are ever outlawed are the SAFE ones; second, any government that feels entitled to interfere in such a personal choice as the determination of whether or not to continue a pregnancy can feel entitled to compel abortion just as easily as forbid it. If you don't believe that, check out Pat Robertson's amazing doublethink when it comes to forced abortion in China. It's about control, not the mealymouthed sanctity of life stuff they all yammer about.

Please stop throwing out false choices along the line of "if you don't want to forbid A, then you must like it, right?" It's a ridiculous question.

[fasttense]

8. Pro-choice is what it says

People are for leaving the choice up to women and not forcing them to go to back alley abortionists or using rusty coat hangers.

The repukes are anti-choice. They want to force women to have abortions only when they want. For example, in Saipan (a kind-of commonwealth of the US) women are routinely threatened with the loss of their jobs if they don't have abortions. Republicans are all in favor of allowing this. In fact, Tom Delay says that Saipan is a shining light for what is happening in the republican party.

Women have been having abortions since before Christ. Passing a law is Not going to stop it. It will just make it more dangerous for women. But, so what, the women in Saipan are not white and rich white women can just go to Europe for their abortions. :sarcasm:

[CTyankee]

10. Your view is entirely consistent with Roe v. Wade

"My take is that abortion should be available on demand in the 1st trimester, more restrictions applied in the second trimester and available in the third trimester only if the health of the child or mother are in danger." That is, in a nutshell, what was decided in Roe. And it is, in reality, what happens. The idea that women wait until the 8th month of pregnancy and then decide to have an abortion is insulting and stupid.

There is one "good" reason for an abortion, in my opinion. That is when a woman who is in an abusive relationship, was abused as a child and perhaps is already abusing children she has, chooses to abort when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

[Warpy]

14. How about she wants to defend her life?

Pregnancy carries significant risks to health, finances, social support system and LIFE. It must be voluntary.

Sad to say, the "only case" you cited would generally "choose" to carry to term because she has such a lack of self worth that she doesn't feel her own life is WORTH defending.

Please rethink.

[CTyankee]

15. I didn't say "only" case

I said "one." I agree 100% with what you say. I was only pointing out that abusing parents produce kids who repeat the pattern when they become adults. The prisons are full of such people.

Actually, a key factor in repeat aborters is the abuse issue in their lives. They somehow do not find enough self worth to take control of their lives by practicing birth control. It is sad but true. I have worked on this issue for many, many years when I was a fundraising professional for both a local abortion providing clinic and for Planned Parenthood of CT. I've read a lot of literature on this. The Alan Guttmacher Institute is the gold standard here. It has great information on all aspects of reproductive health issues.

[omega minimo]

16. Wow, what a loaded question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x3641

[Michael_UK]

17. Thanks for your input (to all)

I'd like to point out, that although I asked the question, it wasn't "my" question, per se. It's the question often posed by the anti-abortion lobby. ~I state outright, that the pro-choice side isn't pro-abortion, and in fact, doesn't view abortion as a "good thing". I think there are those of us who view it neutrally, and some who view it as a "bad thing"

[omega minimo]

19. Why does it matter how we view it if it's not our lives being affected?

"I think there are those of us who view it neutrally, and some who view it as a "bad thing"

In what context are people "viewing it neutrally" or "as a 'bad thing'"? Does it matter what people think about the right of other people to privacy (and freedom from what those people think)?


The link I referred you to contains very clear language on all these matters including the reprehensible "abortion on demand" meme.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x3641


MS. MICHELMAN:

And, in fact, many people who are pro-choice in terms of their beliefs that the policies of this nation should respect the diversity of views on these issues related to pregnancy and childbearing, abortion, and reproductive matters, that there is a diversity of views and they are informed by one’s values, as they are mine.
............

But you can be absolutely anti-abortion, if you will, and pro-choice; believing that women ultimately, not the government, not Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, but women themselves must determine the course of their lives, and central to that determining the course of their lives is determining when and under what circumstances they will become mothers.
.................
Abortion rights and reproductive freedom and choice needs to be seen in the larger context of individual liberties, of women determining the course of their lives and having control over their lives.
.............
And the right to choose is an ex—the right to choose, the right of the individual woman to be guaranteed, to be free from the government and political interference in making this decision is a right that is embraced by the majority of Americans.

There may be different views on the individual act of abortion, but in terms of who should make the decision, whether it’s government and politicians or women, there is universal acceptance that women must make...

[droidamus]

18. not totally on topic

I was just thinking about this topic and something came to mind. In the bad old pre-Roe V Wade days the only way a woman new she was pregnant was to go to a doctor, guess (missed period) or wait until it was obvious. Therefore, it was more apparent, in many cases, that an abortion had been performed (obviously I am excluding miscarriages). In this day and age with home pregnancy tests women can determine the they are pregnant very early in the process without anybody else knowing. If they were then to get an abortion or use some drug to abort who would know except the person assisting. With this in mind how do you enforce a ban on abortion?

[noamnety]

20. ACCESS to medical care is a good thing

When the government prevents access to medical care, that's a bad thing.

There are pro-choicers who don't want senators making their medical decisions, period.

[frogwater]

21. can you clarify?

I'm confused, but why the feeling that there should be various levels of restriction based on which trimester i.e. why more restrictions later in the pregnancy?

[uppityperson]

22. There are people who believe all along the spectrum, obviously

However, most people I know and have dealt with have a much more moderate view such as yours. Anti-choice people take the extreme position and say this is the most common position which is wrong. Sort of like raising the big fuss over "partial birth abortions" which are very very very rare. Strawman indeed.

[athena]

25. Whether abortion is "good" or "bad" is irrelevant.

The issue is whether abortion should be banned. If you think it should not be banned, then you're pro-choice. If you think it should be banned, with women who have abortions and doctors who perform abortions going to jail, then you're anti-choice. The anti-choice position necessarily leads to women dying in back-alley abortions, suicides, and in pregnancy complications, so it's mysogynistic to call it "pro-life". Calling it "pro-life" implies that a woman's life doesn't count as a life.

I find it offensive that you think abortion should be "restricted" at any point. Are you even aware that nearly all late-term abortions are performed for health reasons? The decision should be up to the woman and her doctor. Why should a woman have to prove to the government that her abortion was necessary to save her life or her health? Do you also think the government should put restrictions on your right to refuse to be an organ donor?

I don't think there should be any restrictions on abortion. That doesn't mean I think abortion is "good". When you state that "abortion is never a good thing," you are saying that an abortion that saves a woman's life is a "bad" thing. It's your position that's extreme, not mine.

[frogwater]

26. Again, it's about WORDS.

I have many friends who identify themselves as both pro-life and pro-choice. While at first read that may sound confusing, with explanation it seems a logical point of view. They are pro-choice in the sense that they argue women have the absolute right (in the vast majority of cases) to exercise their choice up until the point they conceive. After that, they argue, the choice to end the pregnancy should be regulated every bit as much as the notion of killing of a child after he/she is born.

So, the argument isn't really about choice at all, it's about where on the continuum of sex, conception, pregnancy and birth the choice is made. Given that the argument isn't really at all about choice, it would seem to me that "pro-abortion" (abortion should be legal) and "anti-abortion" (abortion should be outlawed) would be the more accurate and logical labels to use in this debate.

[athena]

27. I've heard this nonsense many times.

When you call yourself "both pro-life and pro-choice," you are distinguishing yourself from the rest of the pro-choice crowd and implying that they are "anti-life". As soon as you use the ridiculous term "pro-life", you're falling right into the trap the anti-woman right wing has set for you. Unless, of course, you're one of them.

How do you define "conception"? I disagree that there is a "continuum". There is only a continuum if you see the woman as nothing more than a vessel for the foetus. The way I see it, there is a woman, with a foetus in her body. That foetus is using her body for food and survival and putting her at risk of death, at worst, and various health problems later in life, at best. No woman should be forced to carry a foetus against her will.

Your support of the terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" suggests that you are anti-choice and anti-woman. You should think about this issue some more before presuming to have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies.

[frogwater]

28. Allow me to clarify

I don't think you really understood what I was getting at. I was trying to make the point that it's really a question of semantics. Folks I know on both sides are of course neither "anti-life" or "anti-woman". That is absurd. Those are, frankly, emotionally-charged terms that detract from the facts of the debate. Honestly, most "reasonable" people would certainly describe themselves as "pro-life", in the sense that they are against death. Agreed? The difference resides primarily in who's life is being considered: the woman or the unborn.

As far as defining conception, I never really heard before that the term was up for debate. Unless there's another definition I'm not aware of, conception (biologically speaking) refers to the formation of a distinct zygote at the moment a male sperm and female ovum unite. At that precise moment in time, the zygote carries it's own unique genetic code, distinct from both the mother and father. Near as I can tell, the above is a scientific fact and not currently being debated in any medical or scientific circles.

By continuum, I was merely referring to the above, from the moment of conception, to zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler,... etc, you get the idea.

I've tried to clarify the above because you seem to call in to question my intent in writing what I wrote. I'll say it again: I'm trying to make the case that logical, accurate words should be used in communicating, rather than emotionally-charged labels. If, as you say, abortion is neither bad nor good, then logic would dictate that the terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" should be equally benign, and therefore not emotionally-charged.

Lastly, no where in my previous post did I imply or presume to tell other women what they may do with their bodies.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

29. But if conception as you state occurs at the moment

the sperm penetrates the egg then wouldn't any woman who is taking the pill theoretically be having an abortion every month? After all, for a lot of women taking the pill doesn't prevent ovulation, taking the pill prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the unterus.

[frogwater]

30. Possibly...

It depends on the type of pill (I think). As I understand it, some BC pills, by supressing hormones, prevent ovulation altogether or by changing the cervix (to prevent passage of sperm). Others prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg (zygote). In the latter case, the answer to your point would be yes. I don't know what the ratio of usage is though for the different types of pills. Does make me wonder though why I don't hear more outrage about birth control pill usage.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

31. Actually, Asshat ashcroft did try to outlaw the pill

in Missouri, but fortunately 90% of Missouri has the sense to realize what a moronic thing it would be to do & his little idea didn't go anywhere.

[athena]

32. Let's see, now.

You said:

They are pro-choice in the sense that they argue women have the absolute right (in the vast majority of cases) to exercise their choice up until the point they conceive. After that, they argue, the choice to end the pregnancy should be regulated every bit as much as the notion of killing of a child after he/she is born.

According to the above, your friends aren't pro-choice at all. They're merely pro-birth-control, and even that, "in the vast majority of cases." By the way, roughly half of all zygotes die before they can attach to the uterine wall, and 65% of those that manage to attach themselves also die before birth. Would your friends hold funerals for each one of them?

Honestly, most "reasonable" people would certainly describe themselves as "pro-life", in the sense that they are against death. Agreed? The difference resides primarily in who's life is being considered: the woman or the unborn.

Precisely the point I was trying to make. According to those who call themselves "pro-life", the woman's life is negligible compared to the "life" of the foetus. If that's not anti-woman, then I don't know what is.

The term "anti-woman" is no more invalid than the term "anti-semitic". "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are misleading right-wing terms. It's perfectly possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. A woman who would never choose abortion for herself may still not want the government to regulate it. If you're so intent on making the terminology "unemotional", then let's use pro-privacy and anti-privacy. In the end, that's what it boils down to.

[frogwater]

33. Trying one more time to clarify here.

Okay, this has gotten weird.

Seems like you're trying to make a battle where one doesn't exist. I've illustrated pretty clearly (in my opinion) that between those in favor of, and those against abortion, there is sometimes a difference in how the same words are applied to the same situation (abortion). A basic tenant of any debate is to define one's terms and, as such, I distinguished the term "choice" relative to the pro and anti abortion perspectives. To say they "aren't pro-choice at all" is incorrect and misleading. They are only (anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-privacy... choose your label) according to your own definition.

I'm still trying to understand the segue about zygote "failure" rates, and what the funeral scenario has to do with this.

I know of no one who holds the value of a zygote/embryo/fetus's life higher than that of the mother, and is therefore anti-woman. That's way off-base, frankly. The accurate statement would be that they hold the value of life of both equally. Therein lies the root of the debate.

Lastly, I stand by my previous point: "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are ideal logical and accurate terms to use (irrespective of their use by the right wing). If person-A is in favor of abortion being legally available, and casts their vote accordingly at the ballot box, then "pro-abortion" is a completely reasonable and accurate term. "Pro" being in favor of the legality of the actual process "abortion". The flip-side is true for person-B who wishes to see it outlawed i.e. they are against abortion specifically, hence the anti-abortion term. To say that they are anti-choice is inaccurate, as that implies they are against all other choices as well, which isn't the case at all. At best, "anti choice" is no more than a clever marketing slogan.

[MichiganVote]

34. Do we "regulate" the killing of children after they are born?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[frogwater]

35. comparing apples and oranges...

How so?

[Djinn]

36. short answer

Are there "pro-choicers" who support abortion with no restrictions up to very late in the pregnancy?

Yes. I am one of them. Simply because what another woman does with her body is none of my business

On a side note, abortion isn’t even really a “women’s” issue in my eyes, wealthy and middle class women were always able to obtain relatively safe and clean abortions, it’s a CLASS thing. Outlawing abortion in any way disproportionately affects poor people