Pro-life or pro-choice?

[JohnnyCougar]

[jpgray]

1. I don't think this poll explains the positions well

To my mind, pro-choice begins and ends with providing the choice of a safe legal abortion. It doesn't endorse the practice.

[JohnnyCougar]

6. I will define the positions for you

Pro-Life: No abortions no matter what. Just like the Fundys tell it.

Pro-Choice: A woman has the right to choose. It's her body, and the fetus has no rights. It is not a human yet.

Pro-Life in spirit, but pro-choice as far as law goes: The fetus is part of the woman, and she gets to decide what to do with it, but we all hope she doesn't have to abort it.


Of course, no one fits perfectly into these categories, but you would select the one closest to your belief.

[beevul]

35. One more...

"Pro-Choice: A woman has the right to choose. It's her body, and the fetus has no rights. It is not a human yet."

Pro-choice also includes those of us who believe that no matter what any given moral perception of abortion, it SHOULD NOT BE the place of government to interfere in any way.

[Viktor Runeberg]

24. Endorse the practice!

Where is the choice that says:

It is the moral obligation of a just society to be sure that every child is absolutely wanted. Thus it is also the moral obligation of a just society to provide and encourage the use of birth control, including abortion, by any and all women who are not absolutely sure that a child is wanted.

This _is_ the true pro-life position - if you believe that pro-life has something to do with quality and not just quantity. If you believe it's about quantity of life, you should also be in favor of cancer, which increases the quantity of human cells in the world, at least in the short term, as do restrictions on birth control - while long-term both are disaster.

[Timebound]

2. I think...

I am both Pro-life AND Pro-Choice. I don't think abortion should be used as birth control, that it should be used as a last result and/or if the woman's life is in danger. (consequently, even though the proceedure is barbaric, partial-birth abortion should not be banned because there is the possiblity of medical complications later on in pregnancy that can threaten a woman's life)

Despite my personal beliefs on shoulds and should-nots, as a law student when the time comes I will FIGHT very hard for a woman's right to choose. No matter what the circumstances.

In the words of Voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you do, but I will fight to the death for your right to do it."

Now again don't get me wrong. I am a lady, for the record. I am pro-choice. I just really wish that people would use birth control and then so many abortions wouldn't have to happen.

But with Shrub's abstenince-only programs... *rolls eyes*

[ever_green]

10. Those are my views too.

Well said.

[The Flaming Red Head]

20. abortion is too painful to be used as birth control nt

I hate when anyone suggest that as a talking point it just shows they're not aware of how the procedure is done or the fact that anesthetics used don't block the majority of the sensation

[peacebird]

38. anesthetics? what anesthetics?

they sure didn't give those out when i had mine, lo those many years ago....

i concur - no one would use abortion for birth control, not only too, too painful but also costs too much.

[jsascj]

28. I could not have said it better.

[jsamuel]

3. Really doesn't belong in "2004 Elec. Results", does it?

[JohnnyCougar]

4. damn...I'm posting in the wrong forums today!

I did it on Kos, and now I did it here.

I think I just need some rest.

Mods feel free to move it to GD if you wish.

[Chipper Chat]

5. The terminology "pro-choice" is unfortunate.

The implied meaning that any pregnant woman can "choose" whether or not to give birth has galvanized the religious right and has translated into lots of votes for the "sanctified candidate."
How about two positions: (1) "Pro-life" and (2) "Pro-life with reservations."
Leave choice out of it.
Elanor are you listening?

[Dolphyn]

15. The terminology "pro-life" is even more unfortunate

So many people who call themselves "pro-life" are also pro-war and pro-death-penalty. They're opposed to killing American fetuses, but they don't give a damn if unborn children are blown up, along with the mothers, in Iraq. What hypocrites, calling themselves "pro-life" when they have no respect for the living.

It's all about framing, as George Lakoff would say. I make a point to say "anti-abortion", not "pro-life" ...

[procopia]

23. They are also not pro-life regarding the woman

Partial birth abortion is sometimes the best method for the health of the mother.

[Chipper Chat]

36. Good post Dolphyn

Totally agree !

[KaliTracy]

7. Reproductive Rights

I too, feel that "pro-choice" can be a term that some don't understand. I am pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that I would choose to have an abortion -- just that my beliefs/feelings shouldn't get in the way of another's choice to have a safe, legal abortion.

It amazes me that Pharmacists are Refusing to fill Birth Control Pill prescriptions (and that they have an organization) -- to me this is totally wrong -- they don't want to fill it, fine, they give it to another pharmacist to do so. But there have been instances that the pharmacist kept the script, and no one else was there to fill it, etc. This is NOT right! Drug distribution is a private act between a woman and her doctor.

My mother had the unfortunate experience to be RH-negative incompatible *before* ro-gain was invented. She had a still-born after me, which is how they determined this. She tried the pill, which made her sick. If she was to get her tubes tied, she would have to have 2 psychatrists signatures saying that she would be "mentally unstable" if she had another stillborn (she had a 1-4 chance of having a live-birth) (Again, this was in the late 60's, I was born in '65). My father had No problem getting a vasectomy, didn't need anyone's permission -- Including my mothers -- and even today, women need "consent of spouse" for tubals in many hospitals, but men can get a vasectomy in most cases without the wife's knowledge.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Both. And neither.

This is a wedge issue for the Radical RW. Nothing more. Nothing less. They want to fight this battle to distract everybody as they trash the Progressive values our great nation stands for.

NGU.

[JohnnyCougar]

9. I know, I know....

but it is an issue. The propaganda worked. So we have to deal with it.

If "partial birth abortions" are so rare, why don't we just pass a ban excluding rape?

[sarahlee]

11. Because there are many other reasons

they are needed.

No one has the right to force another human being to give their body and health to another entity - that is slavery. It is no one else's business.

[JohnnyCougar]

14. An obvious exception that I forgot would be the health of the woman

What other reasons are there? I think most people are against abortion simply when it comes down to not wanting to have the baby. So can't we make exceptions for cases where there is risk to the mother? I would have to say that at least 75% of the people would be willing to make such exceptions in the law.

[sarahlee]

41. I can't believe

progressives would ever have this discussion.

There is no choice but to offer safe abortions to any woman, regardless of reason - no one else has the right to decide whether that woman is capable of carrying a child - mentally and physically. Even today, childbirth involves the risk of life or long term physical disability. Less than in the past, but not eliminated. Even with the healthiest, least complicated birth, a woman's body pays for it forever.

Adoption is not a "safe and free" alternative for the mother or child regardless of what anyone wants to say. As with all life choices, there are long-term risks involved. My mother was a psychologist who worked for non-profit adoption agencies for over 25 years and was one of the first proponents of Open Adoption and Reunions because her experience and research found so many problems with the majority of adoptions - the secrets no one wants to talk about - like how 60% of the children in mental health facilities are adopted kids. She advocated for lifetime counseling to be made available for all members of the triad by any adoption agency. Non-profits recognized and embraced that philosophy, but the for-profit centers generally don't as it cuts into their profits - consequently, you have more non-profits going out of business, while the for-profit agencies take over. This will create another increasing burden on taxpayers over time.

I tell you what. Once we have found a way to create a society where the village really does take responsibility for every child, where parents have the support to be parents and still feed and clothe and house their families and provide adequate health care for all - then, we will be in a position to say that the choice of carrying a pregnancy to term may be less necessary. But our society and culture are no where close to that. Consequently, the discussion is moot.

No one values life more than I. I am about as spiritual as a person can be. I pray daily. I have provided care for children who had no other place to be. I have counseled with women making this difficult choice and helped escort them into clinics for procedures and have been present to witness women signing the papers and handing over their babies for someone else to raise, to probably never see again. And then sat and held them as they cried. And talked with them years later and listened to them talk of the pain that has never left them.

I have also had two children and I have had an abortion.

I will not be part of any group that wants to force a woman to go through any pregnancy she does not feel equipped mentally, financially, or physically capable and willing to do. I won't willingly see women dying from self inflicted or hacked abortions again. Been there and done that. Some of you may be too young to remember. I am not.

I cannot tell you how angry it makes me to see Democrats and supposed progressives even having this discussion. And I will be damned if I will listen to a man discuss it. Those opposed to choice, need to focus on how we create a society and culture that makes them less necessary. A society and culture that prepares all members for sexual activity and then provides support for all its citizens throughout their lives. That is the discussion and the place our energy is needed. Not a discussion about imposing our will or beliefs on another human being’s body.

Keep your laws off my daughters’ and granddaughters’ bodies!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[JohnnyCougar]

13. Your post is out of order, and in violation of the DU rules.

Before the moderators delete it, I will jsut say this to you. I know quite a few people, including one of my best friends who are Democrats except for this one issue. They will not budge on it, no matter how bad the war gets in Iraq, no matter how many times Bush lies, they will not vote for a pro-choice candidate.

So the propaganda has worked. I see it working every day. These people have those pictures of aborted fetuses ingrained in their head, and they wouldn't vote for Jesus if he was pro-choice, even though they are Christian themselves.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Those are the people. They can be persuaded if we do it right.

It's the Radical RW leaders who don't give a damn about the lives of fetuses or anyone else. They don't want a victory on this, they want the fight. Ask your friends why Bush**, with a RepubliCON House, a RepubliCON Senate, and a RepubliCON Extreme Court hasn't done one damn thing about passing a Forced Pregnancy Initiative. Nothing!! Why? Because all they want is the fight.

(on edit: that's not my deleted post above, by the way... LOL)

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

29. I prefer to think of abortion laws as "Forced Pregnancy Initiatives."

And I think abortion is too important a matter to be left in the hands of sleazy, irresponsible politicians.

NGU.

[peacebird]

39. only excluding rape? What about protecting the life of the mother?!?

that is why most late term abortions take place - the mother has a medical complication which puts her life in danger.

edit: sorry - i posted before reading the second post where you added in the mothers health....

[thephaseshift]

16. You're missing the point - like so many people

The world is rarely black and white.

You missed an important - but usually neglected - possiblity: pro-choice UP TO A CERTAIN TIME. Since you described 'pro-choice' as 'the woman's right to choose' without further comment, I can only assume you mean she can abort anytime, and of course most people will not agree with that. Maybe you think it's obvious that you *mean* Roe vs. Wade, i.e. set a 6-month limit. I don't know.

I think Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's chapter on abortion (in Sagan's book A Demon-Haunted World) is the best analysis of the problem I've ever seen, and everyone should read it.

What Sagen/Druyan try to do is this (to summarize!):
- assume that we value human life more than that of other animals
- suggest that abortion should become illegal as soon as one can begin to honestly call the foetus 'human' (and not POTENTIALLY human! - after all then we have to go all the way to conception in our logic).
- therefore, the goal is to determine when a foetus develops 'human' characteristics, and to set the cutoff time on the early side to be on the safe side
- now we need to figure out what makes us human! Features such as just-recognizable limbs, eyes, etc. should NOT count as 'human' because other animals have those too, and we kill them regularly.
- Sagan/Druyan come to the conclusion that what really sets up apart from the other animals is the brain, and in particular: consciousness. Mixed in with this is the ability to suffer (which is more complex than the ability to feel pain).
- basically, the best current studies show that it's really only after about 6 months that truly human features start to emerge, and thus they happen to agree with Roe vs. Wade - but for scientific and logical reasons rather than emotional and legal ones.

I think many people who see conception as something 'magical' - and therefore want to make abortion illegal in all cases - are being extremely hypocritical. After all, many of those same people will see nothing magical about the conception and development of,say, a pig (and they're quite similar to us in the womb for awhile!). It's clear that for some time a foetus is no more human than many other animals, and this is well established. We simply have an automatic emotional reaction to a foetus' *potential* as a human, but in such a serious issue we have to go beyond emotional reactions, since we also have to think of the mother and the possibly complicated circumstances involved.

Of course many women may CHOOSE not to abort based purely on emotional and instictive reasons. This is perfectly normal and OK, but the point is, she should be legally *able* to abort up until a point where *rational* scientific knowledge shows that the foetus is not yet uniquely human.

Therefore I chose 'pro-choice' on your chart, but with strings attached ; )

[JohnnyCougar]

17. There is an "other" button

I have yet to explain my view on abortion yet. But mine has zero chance of being accepted by the public because it is just like you describe. Unfortunately, most of the public wants it one way or the other.

I have studied child psychology, and recent evidence shows that babies begin to learn even while inside the womb. They can't see much, but they can hear, and they do have the ability to recognize voices before they are even born.

The period in which their brain starts developing into one supporting thought processes that are distinctly human is around 5-6 months. I don't see abortion after this point as moral or ethical unless the baby is

1. deformed or impaired to the point where the life it were to live is not worth it

2. the product of rape or incest

3. a danger to the health of the mother

But there are problems in implementing this. If you impose a limit in the middle of the pregnancy, what do you say to the woman who is a few days over that limit? How do you decide conclusively as to what that limit is? How do you say what is rape and what isn't? It just gets hairy from there on out, so I think the choice is best left up to the woman herself. You have to rely on their good faith not to kill their baby before it is born, if it has reached the stage that it is a human. It is an avoidable decision, nonetheless. If you really don't want to make that kind of choice, you shoudn't be having sex. If you can handle that choice, then go for it.

[sportndandy]

19. Is that the point?

Sounds like you are arguing for social control. That is "science" should decide when an abortion is okay. But now we have to argue over whose science is better than whose, and whose interpretation of "scientific evidence" is better than whose. This is where science becomes religion, and those who accept it seem to do so on faith. I hate to be cold, but in a legal sense anyone who has not taken a breath should not have the same standing as a person who has already been born. Again, sorry for the coldness, but my allegiance is squarely with those who are already born, at least in a legal sense. That being said, anyone who has put themselves in a position to need an abortion for reasons that don't involve health is irresponsible and deserves no respect. But no respect doesn't mean no rights.

[thephaseshift]

26. But...

Social control? I'm just summarizing what I think is the most rational solution to a complex problem.
Why science? Science is simply our best tool for setting a legal limit, given that one has to be set, that's all. It has nothing to do with faith or religion, even in cases where scientists disagree. Science determines the likelihood of something being true based on evidence. The less evidence there is, the harder it is to pin down the reality of a situation, and the more scientists will come up with different theories. BUT, a good scientist should also recognize that even their own theory isn't certain until more good data are available. A bad scientist will *want* something to be true so badly that they'll pretend the data is convincing enough to support their theory. Ideally, such emotional extremism is weeded out by the larger number of (hopefully) more careful scientists, and this way it's possible to tell what we really know and what's just speculation. Science is a set of tool and methods that most scientists will try to use properly, and somebody misusing them will be isolated in the sea of more careful suggestions. A bad scientific theory stands out like a sore thumb because it doesn't follow the strict set of rules that scientists all try to stick to. That's how it usually works.
When something becomes obvious though, then you'll find that most scientists will agree, because they'll be able to reproduce the studies of others and come to the same conclusions.

Now, let's look at the extremes. According to you, a baby that is one hour from being born - and hence hasn't taken a breath yet - has less rights than the mother *even* when she (or the father) has been irresponsible. You seem to imply that she should legally be able to abort right up until just before birth if she so pleases. Isn't that a little extreme?? I'm sure everybody would agree that a baby is fully formed and fully human near birth. People use the term 'viable' - being able to survive outside the womb - as a criterion, which I don't think is a good one since whether a baby is viable or not depends largely on technology these days (we can deliver babies more and more prematurely with better technology...of course up to a point!).

At the other extreme there's the microscopic embryo. Anybody who tells me that a clump of cells has the same status as a nearly-born baby can't possibly be taken seriously.

There's something I think we have to realize: just because a baby is in the womb during its entire development doesn't mean its status should be constant. The womb is just a place after all, and I think we tend to assign a lower 'status' to the baby-in-formation mainly because we can't yet *see* it, and the very concept of 'womb' is almost abstract. But the reality is that the baby goes from a few cells to a fully-formed human in that one hidden place.

My point is this: at one end we clearly have something completely non-human, at the other end we have a perfectly good human (even if it hasn't taken a breath yet!). Assigning a blanket law to the whole 9 months is like assuming that as long as the baby is 'in there' it's always more or less 'the same' somehow. And so it's clear that we need to zoom into the area in between the extremes and figure out where to draw the line. Of course it's difficult, and that's why it's best to stay on the conservative side of what we *almost certainly know*, whatever that may be. There isn't THAT much conflict between scientists as to what goes on in the womb, to the point that it would be impossible to draw a line anywhere.

Most good scientists will agree *more or less* on when truly 'human' features emerge - I propose we draw the line at the earliest 'good scientific guess'. And that seems to be in the 5-6 months range.

Note that this is purely a legal formality. It's necessary in order to protect the mother while not conflicting too much with our values as humans.

What happens if the mother is a couple of days late and wants to abort? Of course it's not an easy question - and I think it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. But just because it's not easy doesn't mean you just throw away all careful thought and set a blanket law one way or the other.

After all - there are many legal limits and thresholds that seem absurd when you choose a borderline case. Two examples: drinking age and driving age. Why shouldn't I be able to drive a car 2 days before my 21st birthday? Or go into an X-rated movie until age <whatever>? These are examples where nobody gets so riled up as to take it to court, but it's exactly the same problem. That's the nature of the law - one has to draw lines, but one should also allow for special cases.

[demodonkey]

18. Most of those I know who say "pro-life" are really only "pro-FETUS"!

I actually had one guy tell me he doesn't care if the baby is thrown into a dumpster to die a horrible death a few minutes after it is born, but it HAS A RIGHT TO BE BORN!

I am sorry, but that's plain SICK.

And not even to mention the hundreds of thousands who are dying and being maimed in **'s war...

[Chimpanzee]

21. Pro-Choice

I don't want it used as birth control and I wish people didn't need to have them - but that is irrelevant! You either believe a woman has the right to get an abortion or you don't. I think it should be called pro-choice and anti-choice (or anti-abortion). Nobody is pro-abortion.

[Swamp Rat]

22. To the women of Earth:

I doggedly refuse to interfere with your right to choose.

[Razorback_Democrat]

25. Pro life in spirit, pro choice in reality.

I don't believe that abortion should be made illegal. I believe that a woman has a right to choose what happens to and in her body.

I am pro life, and I believe that what we need is a CULTURE CHANGE in that regard. Pro life should not just be about abortion. It should be about ALL LIFE period.

We need to do a better job of getting that message out, that all life matters and as democrats we stand up for life and people!

More choices are needed, we need programs that educate people accurately (teens especially) about sex and how you get pregnant. (not some program that preaches abstinence and says you can get pregnant by touching someone) We need alternatives for women who get pregnant, ways for society to support their needs before during and after pregnancy. There is a ton here.

We need to be loudly against the death penalty (except perhaps in the most heinous of cases?)

We need to be anti-war, not wishy washy on this.

We need to be winning the hearts and minds of those single issue voters who vote on the idea that "Democrats" are "baby killers"

I live in Arkansas and believe me, that is a belief of red(neck) states like this.

Thanks

[Vidar]

27. Wrong board for this poll--one of the general boards appropriate.

[cdp]

31. ClassWarrior and JohnnyCougar etc.

I'd like to see what you have to say about this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1407155

[Gregorian]

32. I am antiPro-Life (with a snippet from Bill Hicks)

This is what Bill Hick said on the night he was kicked off of the Letterman show-

Bill: You know whoís really bugging me these days. These pro-lifers ...

Smattering of applause.

Bill: You ever look at their faces? "I'm pro-life!"

(Bill makes a pinched face of hate and fear, his lips are pursed as though he's just sucked on a lemon.)

Bill: "I'm pro-life!" Boy, they look it don't they? They just exude joie de vie. You just want to hang with them and play Trivial Pursuit all night long.

Audience chuckles.

Bill: You know what bugs me about them? If you're so pro-life, do me a favour - don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries.

Audience laughs.

Bill: Let's see how committed you are to this idea.

(Bill mimes the pursed lipped pro-lifers locking arms.)

Bill: (as pro-lifer) She can't come in!

Audience laughs.

Bill: (as confused member of funeral procession) She was 98. She was hit by a bus!

Audience laughs.

Bill: (as pro-lifer) There's options!

Audience laughs.

Bill: (as confused member of funeral procession) What else can we do? Have her stuffed?

Audience laughs.

Bill: I want to see pro-lifers with crowbars at funerals opening caskets - "get out!" Then I'd be really impressed by their mission.

Audience laughs and applauds.

[Up2Late]

33. No!No!No! No! It's NOT Pro-Life! They are ANTI-Choice!

No!No!No! Not Pro Life! We all need to turn this LABEL on the ANTI-Abortion activists just like they have turned "Womens Rights" to "Pro-Abortion" on the Women Rights movement! It's "ANTI-Choice" v. Pro-Choice or even Pro-Constitution! We all need to use only the words WE choose, not the labels the "Anti-Choice" reactionaries have chosen for us.

I would say that the #1 Reason Bush was able to SELL the idea of 4 more years to the "Red States" was by changing the Republican "Language" to something more positive or more simple. Everyone reading this should go to the web site for the PBS documentary show, FRONTLINE at: <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/>

Watch the November 9, 2004 show titled "The Persuaders." If you don't have 90 minutes to watch, at least watch the last 30 minutes of that show. In this show you'll see the man (Frank Luntz) who REALLY should be credited (or blamed) for Bush tricking the "Red State" Rubes into voting for him again. It's at:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/>

Another very important FRONTLINE to see is the February 27, 2001 show titled "The Merchants of Cool" at <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/>

This FRONTLINE shows how marketing and mega advertising firms are targeting and marketing the next "must have" products and services to younger and younger teenagers. This show was a really good "wake-up call" for me. I think you'll find it helpful as well.

Also, If you haven't read George Orwell's book "1984" and or
"Animal Farm," you should then read these and compare them to what you just saw, It's truly shocking.

[sam sarrha]

34. pro-life, i am against the death penalty, pro-Real sex education

[readmoreoften]

37. pro choice not pro birth

pro-dead-iraqi-baby-brains-everywhere Americans are not pro-life, they're pro-birth, anti-choice, anti-family.

[DoNotRefill]

40. Pro-choice.

It's none of the Government's goddamned business.

Even if we lived in a world where NOBODY conceived without WANTING to conceive, we'd still need safe, legal abortion on demand and without apology.

Eventually, I'd like to see a pro-choice SCOTUS ruling based upon the 13th Amendment. A woman is not an incubator.

[sarahlee]

42. Bravo DoNotRefill!

I'm with you!