So you're pro-life'...Explain why we should make abortion illegal?

[cally]

I can understand, not agree, why many are against abortion. I think it should be legal and rare. The issue for me is how to deal with unwanted pregnancy. I want every child to be wanted and nourished. So, I advocate for improved sex education. I advocate making birth control available and affordable. I advocate for women's economic rights. I advocate for improvement in economic opportunity. I'm conviced all of these programs will decrease the rates of pregnancy and abortion.

So, if you advocate a ban on abortion or partial birth abortion then what will be the outcome? Do you think women should carry to term a pregnancy when they will die? May die? Cause health problems? How do you define health problems? Should we write these into law or should a physician decide because it is too variable to make good law?

If we ban abortion then what do you expect will happen? Do you believe we'll end abortion? Do you think any woman will have a coat hangar abortion? How do you justify the women who will die? Abortions have occured throughout history. Prove to me how our society will eliminate them through making them illegal. Easier, prove that restrictive laws will reduce the rates of abortion.


I just don't get the pro-life position. I don't like abortion but I don't see any alternative that makes any sense. Make some sense.

[Kazak]

1. I couldn't agree more...

I feel the same way.

:)

[DireStrike]

3. -nt-

[donheld]

4. What are you going on about?

:shrug:

[cally]

5. I don't know what happens when I post on DU

I do know the difference. I'm actually considered one of the best editors, for a firm reknown for accuracy, at my work. Sorry.

Now back to main topic.....

[thoughtanarchist]

2. I see alternatives that DON'T make sense...

like 14 year olds (who must have been the products of abstinence ed) giving birth and leaving their infants to die in a dumpster somewhere.

[NMDemDist2]

6. reproductive slavery

keep em barefoot and pregnant

[efhmc]

157. I like the way you think and the way you turn a phrase.

[Hippo_Tron]

283. We need to do this just like the right does...

If Gay Bashing = family values, then Pro-life = reproductive slavery.

[lojasmo]

7. We shouldn't.

I believe that the indiscriminate killing of war is wrong.
The death penalty is costly and ineffective. We should 86 it.
My wife and I won't get an abortion (though I'm snipped, so it's unlikely that we'll need one.)

Despite my pro-life beliefs, I will not stand for the abridgement of a woman's right to choose her own medical care within the constraints of roe v. wade.

[SudieJD]

8. I'd Never Have One...

But it's not for me to say or insist that a women can not have one. It would be a hard thing to decide to do, it's something that I've never had to face.

Each woman has to make her own decision on this, it's no one Else's business.

Sudie in MN

[rabid_nerd]

9. here are some stats

PA has some of the most restrictive laws, yet don't have the levels of surrounding states NY, NJ, MD

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact3.htm

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

These are pretty neutral links, IMHO describing the debate without taking sides.

[Cheswick2.0]

91. what does this prove?

Only that women in Pa are forced to go out of state for abortions and that poor women are being punished for being poort and are having more children they can't afford.

[bleedingheart]

148. Women in PA used to go to Ohio for abortions...

I know of a case when I was in college where it was easier to obtain the aborton in Ohio than to get it done in PA. One of my best friends had her boyfriend drive her there...

[Cheswick2.0]

261. I am not surprized

Women will do as they need to do to control their lives. Harsher laws only punish poor women.

[radwriter0555]

253. Abortion is a perfectly safe, legal and acceptable form of birth control.

it works fine, and remains sane solution to a serious problem with life-altering consequences.

Don't like it? Don't have one. This isn't a moral issue, it's a life issue.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. I'm not a "pro-lifer" ( ?) but I think central to their argument is...

the belief that restrictive laws will, in fact reduce rates of abortion ( your second to last paragraph.)

If I'm not mistaken, they point to exponential increase in rates of abortion after Roe v. Wade.

I don't know how valid their stats are on this.

[cally]

14. Thanks for the info, and insight. Does anyone think about data collection

Of course, rates of abortion increased after Roe v. Wade. Abortion was legal so folks could report when abortion occurred. Any researcher would predict this. If this is what the pro-lifers are using, then they really need to take some public policy, economics, sociology, etc. classes.

[Smarmie Doofus]

17. Indeed... somewhat analagous to alcohol consumption before and after ...

prohibition. Hard, if not impossible, to compare meaningfully.

[Yupster]

136. It's been pretty well established that

alcoholic consumption went down during prohibition.

Studies have been done comparing hospital data and statistics of certain diseases that go along with alcoholism.

How big a drop-off can be argued, but I don't think there's any doubt among historians that there is a group of people who will refrain from something when it's made illegal.

That was what I read about prohibition when I was a history teacher anyway.

On edit -- the bigger problem with prohibition was that organized crime took over the distribution of alcohol during prohibition which led to many other problems in society which may have been greater than slightly higher alcoholic consumption.

[Smarmie Doofus]

147. Leave it to a history teacher...

In fact, I'm one too... albeit in Special Ed.

Yes, you're point is well taken, and while difficult to establish definitively, it's reasonable to conclude that some will refrain from illegal activity but the reverse... that some will engage in it BECAUSE it is illegal... is hard to support... particulary where abortion is concerned!

Question though is how many. Pro-choicers claim... in this thread, in fact, that abortion rates did NOT go up after Roe v. Wade.

[LisaLL]

151. abortion rates

Legal abortions increased after Roe v Wade. During that time period, illegal abortions decreased. Pre-Roe it was hard to measure the numbers but the estimates I've seen are between 200,000 and 1 million/year. The number of women hospitalized for the complications of abortions fell dramatically during this period. One of my attendings who was a resident in NYC pre and post Roe told me that pre-Roe over one third of all gyn inpatients were there because of illegal abortion complications. (Imagine adding an additional one third gyn patients to what we have now.)

What we see internationally is that legality has very little impact on the frequency of abortion. The driving force is unwanted pregnancies.

When fertility rates are stable (meaning women basically have the number of kids they feel they can support), as contraceptive use increase, abortions decrease. When fertility rates are rapidly dropping (like in the early 70s in the US---Going from a family size of 4kids or so down to approximately 2)and contraception becomes available, contraception use increases but cannot keep pace with the desired needs and abortion can *initially* increase with it. Once fertility rates stabilize and contraceptive use continues to increase, abortions decrease. This has been the experience in the US. For the past 12 years or so, abortion has been decreasing.

When pro-lifers point to the increase in legal abortions in the 70s (often to justify that they think contraception increase abortion rates!!), they deliberately leave out the most recent 20 years of experience, fertility rates, and any discussion about the rate of illegal abortions.

[Yupster]

153. One thing we do know for sure

is that adoption rates went down dramatically after Roe v Wade became law.

I read somewhere that before RvW just over 50 % of unmarried teens adopted out their pregnancies. We all remember this if we were old enough. A friend from the neighborhood would go to visit their aunt for a few months and then come back 6-7 months later.

Now the stat is only about 3 % with the rest either keeping their baby or aborting. I can't remember the percentages about which is more likely, but the differences wasn't dramatic. Miscarriages were 14 % and the others were about 48 % and 35 % but I don't remember which was which.

In fact though, a large chunk of the babies that used to be adopted out are now being aborted, and that's a sad thing.

[LisaLL]

160. adoption

Yupster,

You are incorrect. The biggest reason for the decline in adoptions is that single women are much more likely to keep their babies. Given the pain of giving away a baby for adoption, most women feel that "social stigma" is just not a good enough reason.

Adoption is not a panacea. Think about it---you have two bad situations: a couple who wants a child but can't get pregnant and a woman who is so desparate that she is forced to give away her baby. Much better to prevent pregnancy and treat infertility. Trying to increase adoptions by forcing women to produce more babies to give to others is not a noble goal.

Just as abortion is personally and viscerally unacceptable to many women, adoption, too, is personally and viscerally unacceptable to many women. Forcing someone into either of these options when they are against it is inhumane.

[Yupster]

177. Vey true Lisa

the stats I saw were that the number of single moms keeping babies used to be very, very low. Now it's one of the two highest solutions to a single mom pregnancy, along with abortion.

[LisaLL]

165. other things we know for sure

We know for sure that legality does *not* impact the frequency of aborion. (Chile and Peru and Mexico where abortion is illegal have much higher rates than the US. Netherlands, France, Germany, England, legal have lower rates.) There is plenty of evidence on this with our with *many* other countries. (I've read research papers and seen tables of lists with countries sorted by abortion rate and legality).

We know for sure that when abortion is illegal, maternal death increases substantially. We know *for sure* that the most effective way to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancies by maximizing contraception.

We know for sure that woman do not want to be in situations where they are pregnant and do not have the means to raise a child. In that case, no choices are *great* and she has to choose the least bad option which is not the same for everyone.

If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions: maximizing contraceptive use, maximizing the availability of emergency contraception, maximize the use of sex ed programs that are effective, supporting what makes it easier for women to raise their children--these things are effective. Making abortion illegal is not effective just dangerous. Bullying women into giving away their babies is not effective.

[LisaLL]

167. adoption

Another excellent factor is that the teen pregnancy rate now is *lower* than it was in 1960.

Preventing pregnancies will also lead to lower numbers of adoptions. This, too, is desirable.

[LisaLL]

166. pro-life and legality

If pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder:

Why would they rather make it illegal (when that does not reduce abortion) rather than do what it takes to reduce abortions and keep it legal? Is it the punishment of the illegality and the punishment of women (by injury and complications) that is more important than actually reducing abortions to them?

If pro-lifers goal is the punishment to teach people that nonprocreative sex is wrong (by increasing the risk of bad outcomes, so women can't "get away" with having sex), do pro-lifers feel that deliberately increasing abortion rates by is a justifiable and acceptable loss in their goal of teaching people a "lesson"??

[cags]

227. Why can't we reduce abortions and make it illegal as well

It doesn't have to be either or.

Why can't we provide the education, contraceptives and support and still make it illegal to have an elective abortion.

My goal is not to punish women who have nonprocreative sex, I do it all the time.

[bvar22]

196. You will have to provide a LINK for your statement that:

"alcoholic consumption went down during prohibition.'

I have seen figures to support the position that Alcohol consumption INCREASED during prohibition.

Especially significant was the introduction of new traditionally non-drinking groups such as women drinkers.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4399/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

[Yupster]

242. Here you go

"Consumption of beer, wine, and spirits prior to and following national prohibition was accurately reflected in the payment of federal excise taxes on alcoholic beverages. The tax figures appear reliable because bootlegging lacked sufficient profitability to be widespread when liquor was legally and conveniently obtainable. The amount of drinking during prohibition can be inferred from consumption rates once alcoholic beverages were again legalized. Drinking may have increased after repeal; it almost certainly did not decline. During the period 1911 through 1915, the last years before widespread state prohibition and the Webb-Kenyon Act began to significantly inhibit the flow of legal liquor, the per capita consumption by Americans of drinking age (15 years and older) amounted to 2.56 gallons of absolute alcohol. This was actually imbibed as 2.09 gallons of distilled spirits (45 percent alcohol), 0. 79 gallons of wine 0 8 percent alcohol), and 29.53 gallons of beer (5 percent alcohol). In 1934, the year immediately following repeal of prohibition, the per capita consumption measured 0.97 gallons of alcohol distributed as 0. 64 gallons of spirits, 0. 36 gallons of wine, and 13.58 gallons of beer (4. 5 percent alcohol after repeal). " Total alcohol consumption, by this measure, fell by more than 60 percent because of national prohibition. Granting a generous margin of error, it seems certain that the flow of liquor in the United States was at least cut in half. It is difficult to know whether the same number of drinkers each consumed less or, as seems more likely, fewer persons drank. The crucial factor for this discussion is that national prohibition caused a substantial drop in aggregate alcohol consumption. Though the figures began to rise almost immediately after repeal, not until 1970 did the annual per capita consumption of absolute alcohol reach the level of 1911-15. In other words, not only did Americans drink significantly less as a result of national prohibition, but also the effect of the law in depressing liquor usage apparently lingered for several decades after repeal."

That's from www.druglibrary.org/shaffer

[rabid_nerd]

21. Restrictive laws DO, Prohibitive laws DON'T...

Restrictive laws are like parental notification for underage unless dangerous to do so, 24 hour waiting period unless dangerous to do so, etc. are the "tough laws" that PA has under it's "Abortion Control Act" (Enacted by Democratic Governor Robert P. Casey) that are similar to REASONABLE gun control laws that come short of prohibition.

I don't believe in prohibition over medicine, prohibition over freedoms without serious consideration. That said, We must have a sensible argument about the fact that the standard of life beginning at birth is asinine.

HOWEVER, IT IS THAT ADMITTING that life begins before birth where the big social debate comes.

We lose by sticking to "life begins at birth".

[cally]

26. I agree that we lose when we insist that life begins at birth

OK, then what. I still believe in abortion. I believe in late term abortion to save the mother's life or health. I can't decide that and I know we can't determine a just law to determine when a woman's life or health is in danger. So, I want to leave it up to the woman, her medical providers, and her religious beliefs to determine that. I don't want to leave it up to the crazy laws.

[Razorback_Democrat]

71. Absolutely! Especially with new ultrasound technology

you can see the BABY in the womb, call it a fetus and most people in this country will see the agenda of trying to dehumanize it.

[nascarblue]

163. Ultrasound is not "new" NT

[Razorback_Democrat]

170. 3D ultrasound is n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

93. what do we lose?

We elected a pro-choice Governor, a pro-choice senator and a pro-choice President time after time over the last 14 years. So what do we lose?
Poor women in Pa, lose you lose nothing.

[Eileen]

28. Legalization DID NOT increase the number of abortions!

"I'm not a "pro-lifer" ( ?) but I think central to their argument is the belief that restrictive laws will, in fact reduce rates of abortion ( your second to last paragraph.)

That is precisely what the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI) continuously claim but in fact it is an outright falsehood. The simplest statistic of all to check the validity of the claim is that of the birth rate. If the abortion rate increased considerably - as they claim - then there should have been a compensarting decrease in the birth rate. No such decrease occurred - in fact the birth rate increased slightly after abortion legalization.

What did happen after legalization was a precipitous plunge in the number of women killed and maimed by their need to have unqualified and incompetent providers perform abortions - or their attempts at self aborting. True many abortions in the pre-Roe period were performed by qualified physicians but they were not available to every woman.

If anybody is interested in looking at the pre-Roe numbers in more detail you'll find them - on this page -. There were approximately 1,000,000 abortions per year both pre and post Roe and the biggest variable affecting that number was the economic climate at the time.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

[drthais]

54. 'restrictive laws will'.....

reduce abortions?
how about....reduce the number of LEGAL abortions?

ah, to never be 15 and pregnant
or to have a teenaged daughter in 'trouble'
or to have been raped
or to be told that your preganancy puts your own health in jeopardy

these are the things Roe Vs. Wade are about

think
think
think

its not a simple thing
it is complex
as Kerry tried to explain in the debate

[JerseygirlCT]

58. Yes, how do you track the number of illegal abortions accurately?

they can't possibly have statistics to back up that contention.

[DemBones DemBones]

238. Pre-Roe, there were very few legal abortions so of course

there was a huge increase in legal abortions once most of the restrictions were lifted. That doesn't indicate much.

But how many illegal abortions were performed annually back when legal abortions were very rare?

Pro-choicers claim abortion rates haven't increased, they're just being obtained legally now. Pro-lifers point out that pro-choicers can't prove how many illegal abortions took place at any time since no one keeps records of illegal events. Numbers given are guesses at best. I find it very hard to believe that there were roughly a million illegal abortions a year, year after year after year, pre-Roe.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was one of the leaders in the push for the legalization of abortion, and was an abortionist himself for many years. Since a religious conversion experience, he has changed his position and opposes abortion as strongly as he used to argue for it. He says that he and other leaders of the movement just made up their claims about the huge number of illegal abortions in this country to make it seem that this had been happening all along.

[Razorback_Democrat]

11. Pro Life here, but NOT anti-abortion

I believe that we should find as many ways to change the culture so that we take care of kids and their mothers as well as we can and encourage birth control!

I believe that there should be legal abortion, but there should be parameters to work around. For one, we need to clearly define when a "fetus" becomes a "baby". For instance the Missouri case, calling an 8 month old baby a "fetus" when it is able to live on its own is incorrect terminolgy.

There is a lot that needs to get hammered out and I'm afraid that the Zealots on both sides keep any meaningful discussion from ever happening on this issue. Besides, what would the rat wang do without abortion to hold over the right wing Christians' heads???

The right wing needs abortion as an issue, one that never gets solved.

[Fiona]

12. There's absolutely nothing wrong

with calling it a fetus. From Encarta:

unborn offspring: an unborn vertebrate at a stage when all the structural features of the adult are recognizable, especially an unborn human offspring after eight weeks of development


<14th century. From Latin, “offspring” (source of English fawn “young deer”).>



Don't buy into the anti-choice argument of calling it a baby. It's a baby after it's born. Until then, it's a fetus. There's nothing wrong with the term -it's not meant to be disrespectful or dismissive. It's simply accurate.

[Razorback_Democrat]

35. I disagree

There is a difference. An 8 month old "fetus" has the ability to live outside the womb. A fetus should be restricted to the term used to describe a completely dependent stage of life. Our science needs to change to mesh with the reality we know!

This is what I mean, we have to have dialogue, not hard and fast arguments. I used to be completely pro-choice, then my wife and I had fertility problems and all that changed. Sorry if it doesn't please the politically correct, but most Americans I would venture to say, don't see an 8 month old "fetus", they would say it was a baby!

Don't buy into the anti-choice argument of calling it a baby. It's a baby after it's born. Until then, it's a fetus. There's nothing wrong with the term -it's not meant to be disrespectful or dismissive. It's simply accurate.

[Fiona]

42. lol

it's not a personal choice. Words have definitions. "Fetus" has a specific definition, and even at 8 months, the woman is carrying a fetus, not a baby.

[Razorback_Democrat]

68. Definitions change as new knowledge is obtained!

and this will change

calling a baby that can live outside of the womb a "fetus" is just a way to dehumanize what is human!

shameful really

[Cheswick2.0]

94. baloney

calling it a fetus simply says that it is inside the uterus rather than outside.

[Razorback_Democrat]

109. Calling it a fetus dehumanizes it, makes it easier to kill n/t

[RUDUing2]

176. no calling it a fetus differentiates it from the already born. nt

[AngryOldDem]

184. From where I sit, the terminology...

...does both. It accurately describes the state of the unborn as well as makes it easier on the conscience when it is aborted.

[Heddi]

103. No, calling a "fetus" a fetus is the CORRECT terminology

Look: Maybe, to me, anything that I can sit on is a chair. Maybe I sit on rocks, and I call rocks "chairs" because I can sit on a rock, and I can sit on a chair.

But that doesn't mean that we should change the meaning of "rocks" to mean "anything you can sit on", or that we should equate and make synonymous ROCK and CHAIR.

It's the same with FETUS and BABY. Believe it or not, fetus isn't used to 'dehumanize' anything. It's a medically correct term. It's WHAT it is, and no matter whether you think it's dehumanizing, it's not a baby and it never will be a baby because the minute it BECOMES a baby is the minute that it is INSTANTLY not a fetus.

A butterfly will NEVER be the same as a caterpillar. A caterpillar is NEVER the same as the butterfly. It starts out as one but becomes another and the terms cannot be used interchangably because they're NOT the same thing.

An "elbow" doesn't stop being an "elbow" just because you like a different word for it.

[pnb]

108. I've got a question here

Does it have to be a fetus OR a baby? All definitions of baby that I found basically said a very young child...but did not mention anything about it actually being born yet.

Why can't a fetus who has been in the womb for 8 months be a fetus AND a baby? Are they mutually exclusive?

[Heddi]

121. Here's how it is

in my Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary Edition 19, which is kind of the authority of all terms medical

fetus (fe'tus)
1. The later stages of the developing young of an animal within the uterus or within an egg
2. The developing human in utero, after completion of the eigth gestational week. Before that time it is called an embryo.

Baby {ME. babie} Infant

Infant {L.infans} A chid in the first year of life. SEE: neonate

====

So no, a FETUS is not a BABY, as a FETUS is defined as the developing human IN UTERO, where as a BABY is defined as an INFANT, which is a child in the first year of life. So they are two COMPLETELY different things. There's no way that one could be the other, or vice versa

Hope that clears things up

Edited to fix tags
Edited AGAIN to fix tags

[pnb]

271. Thank you

I'll actually go and look up infant next time too. ;-)

[left15]

307. I'm not arguing but...

When I went to a Pre-Natal (sp?) class with my wife before our first child was born, I made the "mistake" of calling the baby a fetus, and WOW. Every pregnant woman in the room looked at me like I was the scum of the earth.

[w4rma]

308. If you call them babies you better recalculate everybody's ages. (nt)

[American Tragedy]

67. It's still pretty hard for me to call it a fetus at the eighth month

I was born in the eighth month, weighing 8 lbs, quite healthy, and a baby by virtually anybody's definition.

[Razorback_Democrat]

69. Per other posters, you were a fetus

shows the compassion and humanity of their beliefs

[American Tragedy]

81. Well, I am still pro-choice, but even in utero there is a difference

between a first trimester fetus, and what is realistically a fully developed infant.

There are rare situations in which the baby must perish in order for the mother to survive. Roe v. Wade stipulates that is the only justifiable scenario in which a third trimester pregnancy can be deliberately terminated, and I think most people agree. So, whether you call it a fetus or a baby, it's clear that we regard that stage of development differently.

[phylny]

120. It seems to me that YOU are ascribing a negative meaning to the term

that simply doesn't exist as the word is defined. YOU are the one who is saying the term dehumanizes it, not others. The term fetus is correct, and has nothing to do with compassion or humanity. It has to do with the correct meaning of the word.

[Heddi]

124. it has NOTHING to do with compassion or humanity

It has to do with THE DEFINITION OF THE FUCKING WORD THAT IS BEING USED.

Look---I'm sorry if you find "Fetus" to be dehumanizing. It's not. It's a medical term, and abortion is a medical procedure. Therefore, when describing the difference between a FETUS and a BABY, medical terms must be used, and used correctly.

It's not inumanity, or lack of compassion. It's called using the right words to describe the situation.

Please see my Rock:Chair comparision that I posted above.

[nascarblue]

162. OMG, it doesnt matter anyways, fetus or baby, you can't

Get an abortion at 8 months! Thats what the topic is.

[Heddi]

123. But you were BORN

therefore you made the transition from FETUS to BABY through the process of birth.

FETUS has nothing to do with how developed or not you are, or if you can survive outside the womb or not. FETUS is a developmental term that is used to denote a particular time in the sequence of human development. Once you are born, you're no longer a fetus. You're a baby.

Just like if the fetus dies in the womb, it's a miscarriage, even if that baby was 2 seconds away from being born.

However, once either the birthing process occurs vaginally or through c-section, that is a "birth" and if the baby (which it would be at that point seeing as how it's been born) dies OUTSIDE of the womb, it's not a miscarriage.

They're two completely separate, distinct terms. Of COURSE you were a baby when you were delivered at 8 months. You were a fetus, however, directly before being born.

[Cheswick2.0]

262. once you were born you were a baby

We agree on that.

[rabid_nerd]

15. Various beliefs about when personhood takes place (overview)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when5.htm

Some beliefs about when personhood begins are:

A few hours after conception when the ovum splits into two cells. Some regard human personhood as being defined by the first act of cell splitting.

About two weeks after conception, when a yellow streak develops in the embryo. This will later become the neural tube which will be protected by the backbone. It develops into the brain and central nervous system. Once this develops, it is impossible for the embryo to split into a pair of identical twins. The concept of personhood implies a single entity; twins develop into two persons. After two weeks from conception, the embryo can no longer split and grow to become two persons. Some consider it a person at this stage.

3 weeks from conception when the embryo is about 2 mm long and has started to develop visible external body parts. It is no longer a blob of tissue.

At about 4 weeks. when its heart starts to beat.

6 weeks from conception, when primitive brain waves can be first sensed.

2 months, when the fetus has lost its neck structures which resemble gill slits, and its tail. Its face resembles that of a primate.

3 months the fetus begins to "look like" a baby. The recent development of high resolution 3-D ultrasound equipment provides incredibly detailed pictures of the fetus at this stage. These photographs are convincing many people that the fetus is a human person at this stage because it looks like one -- even though none of its higher brain functions are functioning. 6

16 weeks: Fetal movement, often called quickening, is usually detectable by the 16th week of pregnancy. It is apparently an involuntary movement of arms and legs. The fetal brain is not developed to the point where the fetus is conscious at this stage in gestation.

4 months when the fetus' face has developed to the point where one can tell one fetus from another.

About 24 weeks, when the fetus becomes viable, (i.e. able to live outside the womb) with current technology. When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered: "If we?re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that?s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo." 7

At 26 weeks or later, when the fetal brain's higher functions become operational. Scientists have: " measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming at 8 months gestation." 8 Carl Sagan discusses this point in his final book. He suggests that the one factor that is uniquely human is our ability to think. Thus we become persons when the cerebral cortex is in place and "large-scale linking up of neurons" begins. This does not start until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy -- the sixth month.

Most Jewish traditions teach that a fetus becomes a full person usually when its head emerges from the birth canal.

Some believe that a personhood happens when a soul enters the body at some stage of gestation or -- as in the case of some Aboriginals -- after birth has taken place.

[Heddi]

18. Your point is?

I'm not sure what point your'e trying to make, other than outlining the "landmark points' during fetal development.

Big deal. Hey I got a pediatric and maternal nursing book that goes into alot more detail than that, pretty much day by day of what happens during development.

That doesn't mean that a fetus is the same as a baby. Much like an embryo isn't the same as a fetus.

In the developmental landmarks you point out, you include quotes by "medical ethicists" and what the Jews think and Christians think about when personhood begins---again, I ask what your point is. If you're trying to argue the "Religons need to be listened to, too" argument, I would remind you that there are religious folks in the Middle East and in Africa who believe it is necessary for young girls to have their labia and clitoris removed, and their vaginal opening sewn shut to ensure maximum monogamy before, during, and after marriage. Surely you wouldn't suggest that we should allow THESE religious beliefs to dictate what medical procedures we do and don't allow on young women, or that because ONE religion believes that clits should be removed at puberty then HEY! That religion needs to be respected, so we just gotta lop off the luv nub, right?

Remove religion from the argument. Abortion is a MEDICAL procedure. Let any conflict with God be between the woman, her doctor, and their respective Gods. My beliefs should have nothing to do with it. Yours shouldn't either. Neither should Osama Bin Ladens, or George W Bush's.

[rabid_nerd]

25. Hey - I'm Atheist.. AND I'm Pro-Life... Deal with that...

But I come at this from a scientific and ethical view of protecting a person (theoretically) FROM the mother. I understand the moral dilemmas about forcing an unwilling mother to give birth, but such is the consequence of creating life.

I do NOT accept as valid the argument of abortion as a "medical procedure" any different than euthanasia once life begins (hence the overview of opinions from various religious, medical and atheistic points of view - hardly meant to be a comprehensive medical text).

I do NOT bring religion into my argument, and agree generally with Carl Sagan myself. I temper my argument from a social point of view that the choice to be a parent should be equally weighted and at the same time for both parties, hence the pre-copulation "choice" standard, and the exception standard for rape, incest, etc. based on violation of that "choice".

I believe that unless unwilling, that if you take the risk, you are MAKING THE CHOICE to be the mother if contraception fails and the male is MAKING THE CHOICE to be the father, barring exceptions.

[Heddi]

27. But how do you deal with

the fact that yes, when two people have sex, they are taking the risk that pregnancy will occur, HOWEVER, it's not as if Sex Education in this country, either via schools or parents, is all encompasing and gives anything remotely RELATED to the facts about human sexuality and it's very complex components? How do you expect two perfectly hormonal 16 year olds to be so future oriented to think about what happens after ejaculation to make a completely logical choice concerning contraceptive choices, whether or not to even HAVE sex at that age types of choices when the information they've been given about sex basically is:

From parents: Why, I can't talk to my kids about sex! That's totally personal. The school should be doing a better job

From School: Well, your parents don't want us talking to you about sex, so we just want to tell you that virgins rule. Here, wear this bracelet to promise to be true to yourself. Thank you. Class is over

I mean, come on. A LARGE number of teenagers are unwitting parents---not because they're stupid, but because the information isn't there for them to process. They're denied the absolutely SIMPLE right to learn about human reproduction in a scientific, medically sound way.

ANd let's say those teenagers had great parents who told them alll about the birds and bees....but contraceptives failed. Should women AND men be behelden for the rest of their lives to a few mm of latex? Are you saying that there is NO room for an accident? NO room for error? NO room for "whoops...my pharmacist forgot to tell me that if I'm on antibiotics and taking the pill, I should use backup birth control for the time that I'm on antibiotics because they can make the pill less effective"?

So let's say that they DO get pregnant--in addition to having to deal with the lack of education they've received, and the lack of availiabilty of birth control, how do we NOW deal with the lack of adequate medical care for people who have no health insurance? To ensure a healthy child is born, we must ensure proper prenatal nutrition, proper prenatal vitamins, proper maternal care and checkups---hard to do when you don't have insurance, there's a 4 year waiting list for state insurance, and where are you going to go otherwise?

So how do we deal with THAT? On top of everything else?

So let's say they have the baby. How do we deal with the fact that teen parents (mothers and fathers) are significantly more likely to live in poverty FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, more likely to have MULTIPLE CHILDREN, more likely to DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, and their child is more likely to have a communicable disease, live in poverty, drop out of school, have a child wehn they're a teenager, live in poverty for the rest of THEIR lives....

So how do you deal with THAT?

So let's say they have the baby. What kind of job skills does a 16 year old mother possess? What kind of life should she be forced to live, should the father be forced to live, should the CHILD be forced to live because of an "oops"?

And not just teen parents---there are plenty of people in their 20's-40's who are very poor, and cannot afford to have a child or another child. SHould they just be abstinent until they win the lottery?

So How do we deal with these very real, very common situations in your "only in the case of incest and rape"-tinted world? Can you not see the reality of why people get abortions? Can you not see the reality why abortions are the ONLY choice for many people?

[cags]

65. I don't think poor people would say they were better off never being born

I am also pro-life and not for any religious reason.

I agree with the previous poster.

Your argument says that if your life is more likely to be harder or poorer than you shouldn't be born.

To me that's bullshit. Nobody's life is perfect.

And yes I think if a person cannot deal with the consequences of an "oops" they should be abstinent.

[Razorback_Democrat]

72. Very good points

some would call it analogous to trying to create the "master race" by aborting the ones that would be poor or have hard lives.

Surprised really that the neocons haven't planned that already since it is such a fascist sounding thing.

[Heddi]

89. I said NOTHING about any "Master Race" or "poor don't deserve to be born"

bullshit AT ALL!!

Did you even READ my post?

What I did NOT do was state in any way, shape or form that "poor people have no right to be born" or that those that live poor or hard lives should be aborted.

If you had read what I wrote and actually thought about it instead of making a knee-jerk reaction of "bbbbut the poor deserve to live too", you would have realized that what I was doing was listing just a very small sampling of the LITANY of reasons that many people---poor and affluent---feel that abortion is often the ONLY choice that they have.

If someone *happens* to be poor, and they know that they cannot care for themselves, much less an EXTRA mouth to feed, an EXTRA body to have to receive medical care, an EXTRA child that needs clothing, WHY should THEY BE FORCED to bring a child into the world that they don't want and can't properly take care of?

Jesus Christ. I didn't write anything about forced sterilization for poor people. I didn't advocate that abortion was only a choice that poor people should make, or that abortion was the only choice for poor people.

What I did was list the reasons why people have abortions. Young and old, rich and poor, black and white.

I don't see why there should be all this uproar and hoo-hey about what I wrote, when I was writing NOTHING but the PLAIN TRUTH about WHY SO MANY PEOPLE FEEL THAT ABORTION IS THEIR ONLY OPTION, but nada about this myopic, rose-coloured world of "Bad nasty abortions will just go away once we make it illegal". BULLSHIT. There will always be unwanted pregnancies, unintended prengancies, unconvenient pregnancies, unhealthy pregnancies. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE THAT AWAY, no matter how hard you want to, or feel it needs to be done.

Want to decrease the number of abortions? How about

1) COMPLETE AND MEDICALLY FACTUAL sex education that begins in kindergarden and lasts until the last day of high school

2) COMPLETE health care for every citizen of this planet regardless of age, income, or health status. Allow women to get the pre-natal care they need. Allow their babies to get the well-baby checkups, vaccinations, nutritional information, etc, that they nee

3) COMPLETE AND UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION without any restrictions. Doctors should NOT be allowed to refuse to write a BC Rx because it goes against their moral grain. Pharmacists should NOT be allowed to refuse to fill a BC Rx because it goes against their moral grain. STate-funded free BC should NOT be reserved only for married couples (as it is currently in South Carolina). MInors should NOT be required to obtain parental permission, or required to obtain parental consent to take contraceptives

4) COMPLETE and THOROUGH support of the poor and working poor in this country including EQUAL education for anyone regardless of their income, job training skills. life skills, etc.

THAT is how you decrease abortion rates. THAT is how you ensure that every pregnancy is wanted. THAT is how you can stop the cycle of poverty in its tracks.

I'm sorry that people get up in arms about REAL LIFE, REAL STATISTICS.

If you are a child of a single parent, you are MORE likely to live in poverty than the child of a 2 parent household. THAT IS A FACT. I'm sorry if it's not Pollyanna enough for people. THAT IS A FACT

If you are a child of a TEEN PARENT< you are more likely to not only live in poverty, but you are more likely to be a teen parent YOURSELF than a child who was the product of a non-teen parent THAT IS A FACT. Don't accuse me of 'hating the poor" because of what statistics say.

I don't hate the poor---I lived below the poverty line from birth until age 21. I dont hate the poor---but I hate BEING poor, and there's no shame in saying that. NO CHILD should have to suffer sleeping in a room with no heat, living a life where food, shelter, and clothing are just non-existent. NO PARENT should have to struggle to EITHER pay the water bill OR buy food OR buy formula.

By the things I outlined above, not only will you reduce the number of ABORTIONS, but you'll also REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN POVERTY.

[Razorback_Democrat]

90. Hey now, let's look at this again

you said:
Want to decrease the number of abortions? How about

1) COMPLETE AND MEDICALLY FACTUAL sex education that begins in kindergarden and lasts until the last day of high school

2) COMPLETE health care for every citizen of this planet regardless of age, income, or health status. Allow women to get the pre-natal care they need. Allow their babies to get the well-baby checkups, vaccinations, nutritional information, etc, that they nee

3) COMPLETE AND UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION without any restrictions. Doctors should NOT be allowed to refuse to write a BC Rx because it goes against their moral grain. Pharmacists should NOT be allowed to refuse to fill a BC Rx because it goes against their moral grain. STate-funded free BC should NOT be reserved only for married couples (as it is currently in South Carolina). MInors should NOT be required to obtain parental permission, or required to obtain parental consent to take contraceptives

4) COMPLETE and THOROUGH support of the poor and working poor in this country including EQUAL education for anyone regardless of their income, job training skills. life skills, etc.

THAT is how you decrease abortion rates. THAT is how you ensure that every pregnancy is wanted. THAT is how you can stop the cycle of poverty in its tracks.


read other posts on here, I have said similar things, but not as well as you did.

I agree culture change is what is needed to eliminate abortion
I am not for making it illegal and none of my posts are
I am for calling an 8 month old "fetus" a baby since it is likely a viable human being and shouldn't be dehumanized by calling it a fetus which can be discarded easily

as for the master race, maybe I misread, I will go back and look at it.

[Razorback_Democrat]

92. In retrospect, apologies if you were offended Heddi

I was responding to what the other poster said and not directly to you, whose post I had only scanned.

Again my apologies.

[Heddi]

97. no problemo! It happens

There's always so much said, it's easy to scan to "get the gist" of a comment, and completely miss the bigger picture of what's being said.

[Razorback_Democrat]

I agree, and I think that your list of things to reduce abortion

are the way that the Democratic party, or any party that wants my vote needs to go!

[Heddi]

99. Who said anything about "Better off not being born"?????

You are completely confusing me because I said nothing of the sort in my post. I said absolutely nothing about "if your life is more likely to be harder or poorer you shouldn't be born"---where did you EVER get that from?

What I said WAS:

If someone KNOWS that their life is already hard and poor, and they find out that they're pregnant and KNOW that not only is THEIR life going to get a whole lot harder and a whole lot poorer, they're going to have a CHILD that is going to live hard and poor.

Don't PARENTS have the right to decide when and how they want to bring another person into this world?

I'm sure that a woman who is homeless has a very very real view of how hard her life would be should she get pregnant. VERY real view. Can't feed herself, and SURELY can't feed another. WHY SHOULD SHE NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN ABORTION?

Why are YOU wanting to PUNISH THE CHILD for having parents who weren't in the greatest of situations?

You DO realize that every person who has a child isn't necessarily a GOOD parent, right? You DO realize that there are people who should N-E-V-E-R be parents, right? If I *KNOW* that I am an abusive person, if I KNOW that I live in an abusive situation, don't I have the OBLIGATION to prevent myself from putting an innocent child in that situation? Why does the child have to suffer for the sins of the parent?

Although I feel I'm wasting my breath considering that you think that anyone who isn't 1000000% ready to have a child in ANY situation at ANY time should totally abstain from sex. Yeah. That's realistic :eyes:

[cags]

173. I didn't miss your point, but I don't agree with it

I don't think that a hard life is a reason to abort.

This idea that everyone must have sex and consider the consequences later is just plain irresponsible.

If you are willing to accept the risks then you should be willing to accept the consequences.

[Mandate My Ass]

188. Having an abortion is accepting the consequences

Having an abortion is being responsible.

Giving birth to an unwanted, unplanned-for child without the ability, inclination and outside support to provide for it is the absolute zenith of irresponsibility.

Contraception fails. The only time to deal with the risk of contraception failure is after it happens. Permanent life alterations and the risks involved in enforced pregnancy and birth for contraception failure is extreme folly at best.

[cags]

207. No to me

So lets just off the baby instead right.
Can't have any permanent life alterations.

Unless you feel as I do that it is murder you will never understand my side of this issue. So agreeing to disagree is the best option here

[Mandate My Ass]

210. "off the baby"

Nice hyperbole. Murder, I don't think so. Pregnancy can be life threatening too. But that's OK since it's just a woman and her only value is what her uterus can produce.

You'll never understand either. Nobody ever asked you to have an abortion you didn't want, did they?

didn't think so...

[cags]

211. Yes they did actually

and I believe if the life of the mother is threatened than an abortion should be an option.

[Mandate My Ass]

212. asking and forcing are two different things altogether

Banning abortion is forcing another to assume risks and burdens they have no desire to take. Birth control fails, and quite frankly, I don't care how the woman got pregnant and whose fault it may have been. She's a person, not an incubator.

I see no respect for life for women in this country so I can't promote the opinion that a "possibly" living embryo has rights that supercede the living.

Homicide by sperm donor is the number 1 cause of death to pregnant women in the US. When that gets the kind of political attention it deserves and real solutions are put in place, I might be tempted to sit down and listen to the "every sperm is sacred" people.

[cags]

214. Exactly

They weren't forced to get pregnant(and you know I'm not talking about rape)they did it by thier own actions. They did take the risk.

[Mandate My Ass]

217. So the embryo is sacrosanct if the mother wasn't raped

but is perfectly disposable if she was? Huh?

Get the beam out of thine own eye before pointing to the mote in another's.

Advocating enforced pregancy as punishment for sex is a Puritanical, misogynistic and authoritative position, not one that in any way shows respect for the sanctity of life. It's the modern day version of hairshirts, scarlet letters and sackcloth and ashes. Ugh.

Your eagerness to put your nose in the bedrooms of people you don't even know, speaks volumes about your true motives in this issue. I can live perfectly peacefully following my own moral imperatives without forcing them down the throats of others. I bet you wish you could say the same.

[cags]

225. I most certainly can say the same

I am a very live and let live kind of person as long as you are not hurting others. I believe abortion hurts others. You obviously don't believe a "fetus" is a person, so you can't understand the other side of this issue. Theres no punishment for sex, just be responsible for your own actions. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. What people do in thier bedrooms doesn't matter.

In the case of rape there is no black and white, and I still think its murder. Theres no right answer in that situation,

[Mandate My Ass]

236. Then you're a stone-cold, self-defined hypocrite

You think "murder" is OK if a woman is raped and not OK if she's not.

You have proven over and over again by your own statements it is about the bedroom and it is about the stigma of women's sexuality that determines whether or not an abortion can be sanctioned.

If she conceived in "sin" she must bear the "burden" of an unwanted pregnancy. It's all about punishment. If she is "sinless" (raped) she can dispose of the issue of her womb even though it is still "murder" in your book.

I'm glad the virgin Mary didn't have you as an advisor. She would have gladly (almost mandatorily) have aborted the baby Jesus and all those harlots would have their criminal and immoral seed inheriting the earth procreating with wild, promiscuous abandon. :eyes:

[cags]

237. I think you are assuming things

about me because I don't believe in abortion.

Whats with all the sin, sinless and virgin mary crap.

I am not a Christian
I don't believe sex is a "sin"
Mary probably was not a Virgin
and babies are not a punishment

And your right I can see the hypocrysy in the fact that I have said I will withold my feelings in the case of rape. I will give that position some thought and you may change my mind.

[Nobody]

220. How would you know?

If a pregnant woman walks into a clinic and asks for an abortion, how would you know that she was or wasn't raped? Not unless you try to access the police report (which is likely to be confidential information and not available to you) or ask her this very personal question that she has every right to answer with: None of your business. Which is how I'd answer it.

If you say that it's OK to abort if the woman was raped but not if she wasn't, you are choosing whether or not to abort. That's choice. The difference between you and me is that I want the choice to remain with the autonomous human being whose body it is.

On edit: Forgot to proofread. Fixed error.

[cags]

226. I'm not saying its OK

I'm saying that situation is to complex for a black and white answer, and never being in that situation and hurt like that, I would withold my personal feelings

[Mandate My Ass]

240. That's sooooooooooo big of you to withhold your "personal" feelings

on consequences you would never have to face yourself but would impose upon others against their will. That is IF they meet your definition of morality.

Consensual sex = suffer bitch.

Non-consensual sex = you're still a murderer but I'll get over it. :eyes:

AFAIC, every post you've posted in this thread has been about your personal feelings and your value judgements of others' decisions in which you have absolutely no stake except to condemn that of which you don't approve. Uptight much?

[cags]

252. For your info, I have faced those consequences

and I have been in that situation. You assume too much about people you don't know.

I was 16 years old when I became pregnant with my first child, and my family was dirt poor.

And I see the hypocrasy in my statement about rape, and I've given it alot of thought throughout the night, and you have made me change my mind. I will no longer say there should be exceptions for rape. A wrong is a wrong

The point of this thread is to give my opinion on this issue.

[Nobody]

246. Indeed it's too complex, that's why it's not your decision

how a woman chooses to deal with a situation that will affect her own life and that of her already existing family.

The woman is a trustworthy human being, not a community-owned vessel.

[Cheswick2.0]

267. okay now hold your personal feelings in all the other situations you don't

understand and which are none of your business. Try to understand that you are being judgemental and in the case of the pregnant woman your judgement is no better than the pregnant woman's.

I will never promote a law that forces women to have abortions after they have had two children, though I do think society would be better off if we all limited ourselves to two. I understand that other people have other motivations that are different than mine and judging them to be selfish is not really my job.

[Cheswick2.0]

266. You thinking is so victorian

people have sex and sometimes they get pregnant when they don't want to be. Forcing someone to become a mother because she had the nerve to have sex is Victorian.

[Pithlet]

222. Don't tell me

When and if I should have sex. Don't tell me when and if I should have children. Don't tell me I should have children because I decide to have sex.

Isn't that simple?

[cags]

228. Even more simple

Hey have all the sex you want just don't kill babies

[Pithlet]

293. Nope

I don't kill babies. Never have. I'm not for killing babies. I've never personally known anyone who's ever killed a baby.

[loyalsister]

125. UGH!!!

That is a noneffect.
Back to logic 101.

[Yupster]

135. Sorry Heddi but

I think the lack of sex education argument is a weak one.

Education and knowledge is rarely excellent and mostly not even adequate on any subject.

We don't spend any time at all on drunk driving at school but still expect people not to drive drunk. There are 100 other examples.

In fact, when I talk to teachers I work with they complain that kids don't know a whole lot about a lot of things these days, but one thing they do know is that if you have sex you can get pregnant.

I think your argument is a way of deferring the issue with a speed bump rather than confronting it.

[Heddi]

137. But sex ed encompasses MORE than just how to get pregnant

we have STAGGERING rates of STD's among young people. Diseases like chlamydia and gohnorrhea and herpes are just ABOUNDING throughout teenage and young adult populations. These diseases have repurcussions far beyond just a burning sensation when you pee, or goofy looking warts on your thingie.

Sex education is completely lacking in this country, and I don't see how you can say otherwise. Yes, teenagers know that sex=pregnancy, but are they really, REALLY taught what PREGNANCY means?

I've worked with young adults who just know it all when it comes to sex (according to them). But, when you ask them about different things, the difference between X contraceptive and Y contraceptive, how pregnancy occurs, when it's most likely to occur, etc, They know NOTHING.

One young girl thought that when people spoke of "jelly" (as in "KY"), they meant Smuckers. Seriously. Her preferred method of BC was a trojan with grape jelly smeared on it. And she was 17 years old.

Another young couple in their mid-teens (I believe around 15 or 16) had heard from a very reputable source (older friend or cousin, I believe) that one could prevent pregnancy if you had sex in a pool, or had sex standing up, since the chlorine in the pool killed sperm, and if you were standing up, the sperm couldn't swim 'upstream'.

Completely and utterly false. Of course, all of the children I dealt with were learning sex education in a system that taught ONLY abstinence-only education. They had NO idea what they were doing, so they just did whatever cock-a-mamie story sounded good and were risking THEIR health and the health of everyone they ever had sex with at the same time.

[Yupster]

143. I didn't say otherwise

I didn't say sex ed is not lacking.

I also think we need to do a lot more about poverty and guns and illiteracy. However none of those things should stop us from having laws against murder.

Same with sex ed. All those things you say may be as true as could be, but they needn't stop us from having laws one way or the other about abortions.

You can't say we can't address issue A until we've addressed seven other issues first to your particular satisfaction. That's just not reasonable.

You can't say I refuse to entertain the idea of having a law against murder until there are no more young people growing up in broken homes. That's just not reasonable.

Same with someone saying we can't make laws against abortion until students are properly educated and thoroughly use contraceptives.

They are two different issues.

If abortion is killing a human being, then except in rare circumstances, it should be illegal, whether the person had strawberry jam on his condom or not.

[Heddi]

146. But many people don't see abortion as killing

just as many do.

Many people have no ethical or moral concerns about abortion, but many others do.

I don't understand why abortion is "murder" if my BC fails, but it's practically sacrosant should I be raped.

Why is it murder in one respect, but okee dokee in another?

If you advocate (editorial 'you') that abortion is murder, then abortion in the case of rape, incest, and mother's health is murder too. Why is it acceptable murder in one set of situations, but absolutely unacceptable in another?

How do we prove rape? What if I had sex with my husband today, and was raped tomorrow and became pregnant? How do I know who the father is? How do I know if it was the product of a loving relationship, or a horrid violent crime? Who gets to decide?

What if the rape wasn't reported initially, but the woman is found to be pregnant months later? Is the onus on her to prove that rape occured?

Do you think that if rape and incest are the ONLY acceptable reasons for abortion to occur, that there would most likely in some situations be an INCREASE in the number of false rape charges that are made?

How do you reconcile that not every person who is of reproductive age is fit to be a parent? Maybe I'm the most awful person in the world, and I know that. I know that I live in a dysfunctional relationship, that I heavily abuse alcohol and other drugs, and that the man I live with is a sexual predator. SO I take birth control but it fails. Are you saying its BETTER to bring a child into the world, to be raised by people/person who have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to ever be around children than it would be to terminate the pregnancy within the first 3 months before any neural processes are even developed? Before lungs are even formed? Before this fetus isn't any more than 1/3 of an inch long? It's better to have a child live in a known abusive situation, with no love, with no one there to advocate for it, than it is to have an abortion?

Do you honestly believe that the minute birth occurs, every BAD thing in your life goes away? Suddenly that $5.50 an hour job pays $45k a year? Suddenly your abusive husband/boyfriend/self becomes Mr/Ms Congeniality? That your lack of medical insurance goes away? That your undying desire to NOT have another child/a first child suddenly goes away? That your medical condition that while it may not kill you, but will be aggrivated by pregnancy, will just not occur?

Don't you see that whether you call it murder or abortion, or a fetus or a baby, or say that it should only be legal in rare circumstances---don't you see that no matter how much you try to legislate someone ELSE'S life, there will ALWAYS be women and men and families for whom abortion is the ONLY choice available to them. There will ALWAYS be women who have abortions performed on them irregardless of whether you agree with their reasons or not.

Why should THEY have to be forced with unsterile situations, untrained individuals, and unregulated procedures because YOU aren't comfortable with the procedure?

making it illegal won't make it go away, you know.

[Yupster]

149. Some issues are very complex aren't they Heddi

Answering one question just brings up 10 more.

I guess it's tempting to just refrain from any action because there's so much to consider on each side. In fact many people make most of the decisions of their life by not deciding.

In a lot of circumstances, I'm sure legislators wished they never got eleceted when they have to decide on a difficult topic, but that's what we elect them to do, as uneducated and imperfect as they and we all are.

Anyway, let me wish you and your family only the best of wishes, and much peace and love during the holy days.

[LisaLL]

141. sex ed

Nicely said Heddi (137)

Several sex ed programs have been appropriately evaluated and result in a reduction of teen pregnancy (see "Emerging Answers" from the Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy written by Douglas Kirby). These include accurate information about contraception. Also several focus on antecedents to sexual activity and have social, community service, vocational training aspects----ways for kids to feel connected in the community and feel like the have more of a future than getting pregnant at 16.

I had a patient recently who seemed very uninformed about contraception. It turns out that she was told by her school (abstinence-only) program that "birth control pills make you fat, depressed, and you get pregnant anyway." Because of this misinformation, she did not obtain contraception and got pregnant. It takes a lot more work to correct lies first before you can teach the facts.

The higher pregnancy rates for teenagers in the US compared to France, Germany, England, the Netherlands is primarily because of differences in contraception use. (Sexual activity rates are similar). Contraception use is related to education and access.

[smirkymonkey]

31. Bravo!

Well put. Especially the last paragraph.

[Razorback_Democrat]

36. So it is a fetus until it comes out of the womb?

like it is a caterpillar until it combs out of it's cocoon?

[RUDUing2]

202. yes..from the 8th week following conception until birth he/she is a

fetus..after birth he/she is a baby...

[rfkrfk]

251. Where did the number '8', come from?

Who makes these legal-medical terminology definitions?
.
The United States Senate...?
The state medical board...?
a couple of med students who are jerkin off in the back...?

[RUDUing2]

257. medical definition based on the stage of development..

http://www.drkoop.com/ency/article/002398.htm
A single sperm penetrates the mother's egg cell (ovum) and the developing child gets half of its genetic information (in the form of DNA) from the mother (this is contained in the egg), and half from the father (from the sperm). The resulting single cell is called a zygote.

The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube and divides to form many attached cells. A ball of cells is produced, each cell including a copy of the genes that will guide the development of the baby. Once there are about 32 cells, the developing baby is called a morula.

With additional cell division, the morula becomes an outer shell of cells with
an attached inner group of cells. Now the developing baby is in the
"blastocyst" stage. The outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish
and protect the inner group of cells, which will become the embryo (the next stage for the future baby).

The blastocyst reaches the uterus at roughly the fifth day, and implants into
the uterine wall on about day six. At this point in the mother's menstrual cycle,
the endometrium (lining of the uterus) has grown and is ready to support a
fetus. The blastocyst adheres tightly to the endometrium where it receives
nourishment via the mother's bloodstream.

During the time between implantation and the eighth week, the cells of what is now called the embryo not only multiply, but begin to take on specific functions. This
process is called differentiation, and is necessary to produce the varied cell types
that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, nerve cells, etc.)..........Note: The end of the eighth week marks the beginning of the "fetal period" and the end of the "embryonic period"...........

[rfkrfk]

259. there was NO election, for the people stating those opinions

please tell me where the 4,838,400 second number {8.00000 weeks},
comes from.

[RUDUing2]

260. I am not sure what you are asking? Medical definition is based on

reproductive research. The development is split up into stages based on level of development. The info I supplied gave you the information of what is used to detirmine each stage of development. At 8 wks of age the development finishes the embryonic stage and enters the fetal stage, which last until birth.

[rfkrfk]

264. kewl, but, the numbers seem arbitrary

and cooked to support 'circular' logic.
there are stages, I suppose,
the 7.9\ week xygote emerges to become a 8 week
embryo, or whatever. R.

[RUDUing2]

280. the numbers is based on the time it takes to complete each stage of

development..at the end of 8 weeks all of the development of the embryonic stage has been completed and the development of the fetal stage begins.

[x_y_no]

63. The point ...

The point is that the important question when it comes to the ethics of abortion is not "what is the definition of fetus" but rather "when does human life begin?" And the reason that is important is because in our society, humans have rights - so it's important to understand who is human.

Personally, I think the logical point at which one can make the distinction between "potential human" and "human" is when higher brain function commences at 26 weeks or so.

[Razorback_Democrat]

70. And that is how a rational discussion should start!

not this flame throwing "I'll prove to you it's a fetus until it is born, the dictionary says so" bs

Thanks

[loyalsister]

126. That's exactly where ROE v Wade drew the line

They said go debate that in Sunday school, with a philosopher or with your own conscience. It's not a legal question. Get over it.

[Az]

105. The problem

Is it cellular life based on human DNA that we seek to protect? If that were the case we should just lock the fetelized eggs in a petri dish and never let the develop further. That only leads to death. Obviously this is ridiculous.

Ask yourself this. Would you consider it immortality if someone were to take a skin sample from you and culture it? Would that be you? Would you survive as long as the sample did? More to the point would you experience it.

Experience, identity, self. This is what it boils down to. It is not life specifically that we value. It is the identity that arises from life. It is that in ourself which we recognise in others that we seek to defend and protect. Thus samples in petri dishes and cells are not people as they have no identity.

Specifically what they lack is a brain. Identity and a sense of self seem to arise from the structure called the brain. Thus it is easily argued that there is no identity without a brain. Thus a groups of cells, no matter how developed, lacking a brain cannot have an identity. There was a baby born if Florida several years ago that had no brain. It had a rudimetery brain stem, but the entirety of the higher brain was gone. Kept on a machine it could be kept functioning but it certainly had no identity. It was not a person. And yet fundementalists fought to keep it hooked to a machine.

Pinning the question of abortion on when life starts is a false issue. Life began billions of years ago. Everything since then has been a continuation of that first moment of abiogenesis. Life does not begin in the womb. It continues. It is the same process that started all that time ago. Life is not specifically what we are trying to protect.

At one time our understanding of this issue was too primitive to understand the deeper implications. Thus life and identity as well as a host of other notions became intertwined in a knot beyond the philosophy of the time to undo. Now we understand a great deal more. We can use this knowledge to pierce this gordian knot and truly look at the moral implications of our actions.

A fertilized egg is not a human being. In time given the proper conditions it could become a human being. But at this time and moment it is not. A human being is not just alive. It has at some time become sentient. It is a process that posesses that spark of identity that we recognise in ourself. That is created by a functioning brain. Thus anything without a functioning human brain is not a human being. It is simply a thing that may become a human being.

[Cheswick2.0]

263. I agree with the Jews... life begins at birth

[Heddi]

16. I'm in nursing school. I can tell you that

MEDICALLY SPEAKING (as in, how doctors and nurses and other medical professionals speak amongst themselves in medically recognized jargon), a FETUS is anything that has not passed through the vaginal canal or removed from the womb via C-section.

A FETUS is not a BABY---a baby has been born. A fetus has not. It doesn't matter if it dies while crowning, it's a fetus, a stillbirth, and not a baby that died.

Just like there is absolutely NO medical procedure known as "partial birth abortion". It's in none of my medical textbooks, in none of my medical dictionaries, and in none of my gynecological and maternity medical books.

There is, however, a procedure called an Intact Dilation and Extraction (Intact D&X) that is an abortave procedure done in the last trimester of pregnancy that is used to deliver fetuses that have either died en utero or have such severe nerual tube defects that they would never survive outside of the womb (microcephaly, hydrocephaly, macrocephaly, etc).

So, medically speaking, there is quite a clear line between a fetus and a baby.

[Eileen]

32. Don't fall for the propaganda.

The Phantom Procedure which has been called a 'PBA' by the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI)
IS NOT a Late Term Abortion (LTA).

The Phantom Procedure which has been called a 'PBA' by theAnti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI)
IS NOT a D&X Abortion (or ID&X).

The Phantom Procedure (PBA) is an undefined procedure and can be used to refer to almost any abortion performed after 12 weeks.

Please read my - previous DU post -

As a further reference to the truth of these statements you could read - an excellent article - in Women's eNews.

Please do not permit this propaganda term to deceive you.

Edited to add:
The D&X procedure is actually a second trimester procedure - most frequently used in the 16-21 week frame - and not a late term prodcedure. By the time the late term starts (27 weeks) the fetus is normally too large to perform D&X so induced labor or D&E are the preferred procedures after this point.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

[Razorback_Democrat]

37. That's all just defensive language, I know several OB's that will tell you

that they don't believe that personally, but the medical community is behind the times on this one

[bobedwards]

41. but...

Let me play devil's advocate for a second. WHat you're doing is playing a semanctics game, rather than arguing the underlying philosopy of the abortion debate. The debate's not about who uses what terminology, but about what that thing is when you have conception, and if it's a person who has rights. Harping on terminology like that may impress one or two people
here, but the pro-life crowd would not be impressed with that and will tear you a new one if you try that with them.

[IronLionZion]

29. yup, pro-life here, but not anti-choice

rat wang! ha I love it.

:toast:

[loyalsister]

122. Disagree

Pregnancy is about the woman.
Until it is born or we develop a practice of electively birthing infants pre-term, it is most definitely a fetus, because it is developing and dependent on the woman.

There is truly only one constitutional WHO in this picture. That is the woman. The fetus is entirely dependent upon her body for sustenance until it can live on it's own. Her oxygen and her nutrients are what provide life support. If she gets sick, she goes without medicine to protect it.
We don't require people to donate kidneys or even donate blood.
Why should a woman's body be legally indentured to a fetus?

[RUDUing2]

175. fetus means the child has not left the womb yet...

has nothing to do w/whether or not it is viable outside the womb..it simply reflects a stage...like baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult...

Baby means outside the womb...fetus means inside the womb...

fe·tus ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

**********************************
The terminology concerning the Bobbi Jo Sinnet case was completely correct...the murderer cut a fetus out of the mothers body and then kidnapped the baby...I think the problem is worse when you try to blur the line between the already born and the yet to be born...

[Heddi]

13. I'm a firm believer that you cannot, with any efficacy, legislate morality

we try to legislate morality by saying "No Prostitution!!!" but what happens is that prostitution remains illegal, there are no safeguards in place, no regulations, no NOTHING. So of course STD's are going to be spread. Of course there is going to be a no-win situation for the women because of the tremendous emotional, physical, and financial power that pimps hold.

But we haven't made prostitution go away by making it illegal. All we did was make it MORE unsafe for prostitutes to work.

We try to legislate morality by the war on drugs. Outstanding success, wouldn't you say? We've got pushers on every street corner in the poorer areas of town, young children who grow up thinking (knowing?) the only way they can get OUT of the ghetto is to be a big fucking baller, a pimp, a pusher, a gangsta. We have people who have medically treatable conditions (addiction) that are being thrown in jail, allowed to rot on the street without any treatment or support.

But we didn't make drug use go away by making it illegal. All we did was to make it MORE unsafe to do drugs, and to create a vicious cycle of User/Pusher/Prisioner/Ex-Con/User/Pusher for far too many people in this world who see no other way out

They WANT to legislate morality by making abortion illegal. The questions you pose are excellent, and in all my years on DU, I've never seen them answered. Will women be imprisioned if they get an abortion? Will doctors loose their license if they perform them? How will we know an "abortion' from a "miscarrage" or "Sake of the mother's health"?

What will be done for the poor women and men who face unexpected or unplanned pregnancies? How will they pay for prenatal care? Even if the child is given up for adoption, there are certain things a mother needs to do pre-birth to ensure that her child develops fully.

Will women who use drugs/alcohol/toxic substances during pregnancy be even MORE likely than they are now to be charged with child endangerment? What if their child dies en utero? Will that be MURDER?

Cally, you rase interesting points. I'd love to know the answer because I've never seen them forthcoming.

Of course I think we all know that the right wing really DOESN'T want abortion outlawed (I mean Right Wing in Goverment..not the Pro Life Freaks who throw plastic babies at women going to get a pap-smear or vaginal warts removed). So whenever the question of "what is the punishment, then" is raised, they all fall silent. They talk about "individual circumstances" and "We'll have to see..." platitudes. THEY don't want to face the reality of illegal abortions any more than WE do.

[cally]

20. We all know the answer about use of drugs/alcohol

It's another strand in the campaign. Most of us are appalled when women use drugs and alcohol when pregnant. The RW plays that and condemns the woman. Put that together with no abortion, birth control, sexual education, and women whoever use are to blame. Push it further and women become baby incumbators.

Each step seems reasonable. My rant on the reasoning....I'm not for abortion as birth control. I'm not for women using drugs or alcohol when pregnant. Wait, there's a study that women should never use even when not pregnant. Children should tell their parents about their activities. Of course. But some don't or can't. It goes on and on.

:hi:

[Heddi]

24. Completely

:hi: yourself!

It's so confusing and all encompasing. I think that the focus, in addition to being on education, should also be in encompassing health care availability to ALL people, ESPECIALLY women of childbearing age. Shit--just by being post-menses pre-menopausal we have SO many health concerns that we have to focus on---Pregnancy being just one of them. And even if pregnancy was the ONLY thing we had to be concerned about, that in and of itself is a pretty huge medical debt to take on if you have no insurance, or lackluster insurance with high copays, etc.

Would we require all women to take Xmg of folic acid a day once they start menses should they happen to get pregnant? Would we REQUIRE all women to take pre-natal vitamins once they start menses SHOULD they get pregnant? How about monthly drug & pregnancy tests once you start menses, you know, in case you get pregnant we can go ahead and lock you up for child endangerment if you have a little hash in the blood.

A few years ago, in South Carolina (where I'm from), there was a huge case of these women going to MUSC (medical univ. of SC)---for prenatal services. The women were all poor, all black, and were given urine drug tests WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR PERMISSION. If they turned up pos for drugs, they were told to either enter mandatory rehab, or be charged with child endangerment and have their parental rights terminated upon the birth of their child.

The women took the state to court, and the women won, and good for them.

As far as the reasoning, there IS no reasoning.

To reduce abortion, we need the following things:

Better education
(okay. we'll just have absinence only. And the information we do present about sex on the CDC website will say that condoms aren't efficient at preventing AIDS or pregnancy. And that you can get AIDS from holding someone's hand, or Gonorrhea from stitting on a tractor seat)

Better access to birth control
(okay. We'll just make it impossible for women to get birth control. Did we mention that it's okay for doctors to refuse to Rx it if it goes against their religious beliefs? And that it's okay for pharmacists to refuse to fill the Rx if it's against their religious beliefs? And that we have to get parental consent for minors? And that the state can only give free BC to legally married couples (in the state of SC that's the law)

There is no reasoning. Just circle jerk of circular logic.

[bobedwards]

44. Again...

to play devil's advocate, would you say murder should be legal since most would say it's morally wrong, and people will commit muder anyways? Large cities have a very high murder rate, and making it legal could save the police lots of paperwork. You can argue a secular position against it, how it harms society, as I could argue a secular position against prostitution, how it harms society. Be careful with the "don't leglislate morality" argument, because reality is that we're legislating someone's version of morality all the time. Like, what's wrong with harming society? Do you not want it to happen because your sense of morality believes it's wrong? Maybe I don't agree with your idea of morals, maybe I think it's perfectly legitimate to harm other people. People can play word games all day over this subject, but fact is someone's version of what's right and wrong will be legislated in some way or fashion. So question is, who's idea of morals shall we codify into law? Oh yeah, back in the old days before Roe v. Wade, I don't think the women who had abortions were imprisoned, just the doctors or whoever that performed the procedure.

[American Tragedy]

86. It's not about morality, it's about unconsensual impositions upon other

citizen's rights. How we define those rights is the difficulty, I suppose. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are good beginnings, in explaining the responsibilities of government to the people: we have the right to be guaranteed a republican form of government by the state, protected from domestic violence and threats from abroad, etc.

Murder decidedly infringes upon others' basic rights as human beings and citizens. But prostitution, as a transaction between two adults, does not strike me as a violation of any party's rights. If people can lawfully have sex, and lawfully exchange money, why specifically can't they exchange money for sex?

Even if it indirectly 'harm society', individuals should have the right to determine the course of their own lives and particularly their own bodies. In general, I would rather endure the consequences of my actions than exist in an authoritarian state governed by do-gooders and elitists who think they know best for me.

[Cheswick2.0]

95. what uterus is a murder victim living in....................... as always

the woman and her Rights are the forgotten piece of the puzzle. Until birth, the life and welfare and rights of the woman supersede those of the fetus.

[IronLionZion]

19. I'm pro-life

I think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It should only be used as a last resort but is still the woman's choice.

We can reduce abortions with education, employment, health care, etc. People won't abort their children if they don't get pregnant in the first place, and are gainfully employed, and have affordable health care and can provide for the child.

I suppose we agree on much of this. I like to be called pro-life because it's sounds better than pro-choice. Sorry if you were looking for an argument. :P

I wish we could return to the days when the issues were jobs and health care, not abortion and gay marriage.

[Razorback_Democrat]

40. I think you said what I thought, and believe generally

but were much more succinct with it!

[Earl Ham]

22. hahaha

becaues they are crazy and it all depends on the siuation because if the parent is dieng its abortion time but if she just doesnt want it its very very bad

[fairfaxvadem]

23. I'm with you.

Pregnancy and the decision to proceed or no doesn't happen in a vacuum, but you'd sure think so the way the anti-choice folks frame the discussion.

But of course, they don't really want to talk about the environments in which unwanted pregnancies occur. That would mean that they would really have to address a lot of social ills, including the continued inequality of women in terms of education, jobs, etc. That would force them out of their self-righteous comfort zone, and I expect hell will freeze over before that will happen.

This is why we will never see universal healthcare: the abortion issue. At least, that is part of it, IMHO.

Sure wish they'd just answer the simple question of how much jail time women will face if they ever get their way and abortion is recriminalized. But no, they never want to deal with that either.

[Yupster]

30. Many pro-lifers believe

abortion is simply murder. Therefore it should be illegal. It's really pretty simple.

Do pro-lifers believe banning abortions will end them? No.

Does banning murders end them? No of course not but that doesn't mean murder should be legal.

Does banning drunk driving end it? No, but drunk driving shouldn't therefore be made legal since it can't be stopped anyway.

The belief is pretty simple. If you believe an abortion is murdering a human being, then it should of course be illegal. You can then argue about exceptions like the life and health issues just like you argue about self defense in other murders, but the basic concept is pretty simple.

A pro-lifer believes abortion is murder, therefore it should be illegal.

[cally]

33. I couldn't tell by your post...but I assume that's what you believe

If so, I just don't get it. Banning abortions may increase them. I don't get the justification. The pro-life group are against sex ed, birth control, etc. I'm not implying that you are, but why would any pro-life person ever accept the bigger picture of the RW. Why would you accept the arguments against sex ed, birth control, etc.? If you want to decrease abortions why think the best way is to outlaw them?

[Smarmie Doofus]

158. I think you may be going too far with....

"the pro-life groups are against sex-ed and birth control"; lot's of 'em... the fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists... yes. My impression is ( and it's not much more than an impression, I'll grant you, as I'm not that familiar with the activism surrounding this issue) is that lots are not and come to a "pro-life" ( god, how I hate the terminology) pov via non-theistic, humanistic, philisophical paths.

This is absolutely true of many INDIVIDUALS I've met who object to legal abortion.

[cags]

87. Great explanation!

[LisaLL]

144. if abortion is murder, why wouldn't they want to do what it takes to reduc

My questions are: If they really think abortion is murder, why wouldn't they want to do what is most effective in reducing abortions??? If they are so impassioned, certainly they would at least want to learn about what is effective and how to evaluate the data. If they could drastically reduce the number of abortions while protecting the safety of women, I would think they would be happy to do so. And yet, they do not.

There is plenty of data that shows what is most effective and yet most pro-lifers are opposed to supporting those measures.

If we could prevent 1/2-3/4 of abortions in the US by preventing pregnancies, while keeping it legal, why would pro-lifers be opposed to this?

If making abortion illegal and impairing access to contraception increases the number of abortions and number of women harmed, why do pro-lifers support this?

[cags]

185. All pro-lifers are not equal

I think there is a big difference between the democratic pro-lifers on this board and the fundie pro-lifers.

As a democrat pro-lifer I believe:

Better sex education in schools
Birth control should be available to teens without parental consent
Better help for young and poor mothers

[LisaLL]

190. good answer

Cags,

Good for you. Very respectable and reasonable answers. Are you also ok with keeping it legal for safety reasons while working like mad to reduce unintended pregnancies?

If that is the case, then you and I, with very different labels attached to us, support the same things and have the same goals. Given this, I think we should redefine the labels and call people with these goals "pro-Prevention".

[cags]

209. If for safety reasons you mean

the mother will die unless its done then yes I'm OK with that.

I like the pro-Prevention label too

[Pithlet]

223. No, they aren't.

Your argument, the "babies as punishment for sex" argument, is one of the more abhorant ones.

[cags]

229. Your making that up

I never said babies as punishment for sex. I said be responsible for your actions I don't know what is so hard about that concept.

[Pithlet]

292. What's the difference?

If someone has sex when they didn't want a baby, and a pregnancy ensues, you're saying they shouldn't have an abortion because they have to take responsibility. It is punishment for recreational sex. Plain and simple. If a pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, it's okay to have an abortion. But, if it was consensual, then it isn't okay. You are making a value judgment for someone else's behavior and want control of their body. Punishment for sex.

Of course, that is assuming that you're okay with allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest. If not, then I'd amend myself to say that you just want to punish a woman for daring to ovulate while being the victim of a sex crime. It is a more consistent position, if your opinion arises from "fetuses are people, and therefore abortion is murder". It's still an abhorrent one, however.

[bobedwards]

34. Plain and Simple...

The belief is that it is murder, and logically murder should be illegal. Pro-lifers know murder laws do not stop it, but that should not be the reason to legalize it. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

[noiretextatique]

49. i think male masturbation is murder

tell me how successful i would be in outlawing it. (not really...just making a point) people's "beliefs" don't always make for good public policy, and this is something the pro-control side doesn't seem to grasp. there are many factors to consider: sex education, the availibility of birth control, and its effectiveness, and the cost of to society (measured in female lives) when abortion was illegal. not too mention the lack of male contraceptives and the burden that places on women. "abortion is murder," just doesn't provide the answer to all of the issues involoved, not matter how strongly one believes that. and shouldn't one's beliefs govern their own behavior anyway? should your beliefs determine what i can and cannot do? should the beliefs of racists' determine the extent to which blacks, jews, latinos, etc., can participate in society, and which rights they can have? i think this country has learned (at least some of the country) that racist beliefs are neither accurate, or sacred or fair. however, at one time, those beliefs did determine laws that resticted certain people from full paticipation in society...the same with women.
if the pro-control coalition didn't include people against any form of contraception, and those who advocate (and act on) murdering abortion providers, perhaps i'd take their "beliefs" more seriously.

[bobedwards]

50. Well for them

it's not merely a matter of beliefs, but they have some good arguments on their side, as well. They do not say "We believe this, make it a law!" They say "here's why it's murder..." then go on to explain their position. Can't just discredit what the other side says merely because they believe it as passionately as you believe in the choice. And I don't know that all pro-life folks are against contraception, all my pro-life friends are all for condoms and knowing how to use them. Deviating to contraception seems to be avoiding the argument in my opinion. So again, it's not merely that they believe it, but how sound are their arguments? They rely heavily on the logic of their arguments as to why they believe the fetus is a person with rights. Yes, I enjoy playing devil's advocate on stuff like this.

[noiretextatique]

51. i know they really believe it...still doesn't make for good public policy

and what's with the compulsion to force everyone to adopt their beliefs? as i mentioned, the current law doesn't force anyone to have an abortion, so it protects even those who believe it is murder...they don't have to have abortions. what about those who don't believe it is murder, who have equally compelling arguments and statistics? what's the deal with forcing a particular belief as law vs. allowing people to decide for themselves? and of course, since there is no scientific consensus on the matter, the current law seems to be common ground in that it doesn't force those who believe abortion is murder to have abortions.
the KKK still believes "mud people" are inferior to white people, but america finally grew out of the belief, at least officially.

[bobedwards]

52. Agreed

I enjoy playing devil's advocate once in a while, so just don't get pissed at me if I act like a freeper troll once in a while. But I agree with you on this post.

[noiretextatique]

53. lol...i know you were playing the devil

i mean the devil's advocate :evilgrin:
it seems to me that all wedge issues are about control, in some way or another. i think politicians use these issues to capitialize on perceived loss of power, and use these issues to whip people in a frenzy over things that have absolutely nothing to do with their own lives. this issue is the granddaddy of all wedge issues in that respect.

[Yupster]

138. But nothing answers all the issues involved

When a law is made against murder, it doesn't take into account the availability of guns, or the poor inner-city education system, or illiteracy, or poverty, or boys growing up without dads, etc.

Still, there's a law against murder. Arguing that there shouldn't be until all those other issues are addressed to your satisfaction just doesn't seem like an argument that's going to convince a whole lot of reasonable people.

To me it's pretty simple.

When does the fetus become a person? At that point, it should be illegal to kill him/her unless there is a serious health concern and I don't mean the mother is depressed at carrying a baby she doesn't want.

Now the question of when does a fetus become a baby is a difficult one. Personally I'd go with viability, but I realize it's a difficult problem to be argued out, and compromised, but that's what we elect representatives to do on every subject - not just abortion.

[noiretextatique]

198. common sense protections already exist in the current law

but...one side is obsessed with the false belief that women are casually aborting viable fetuses, just for the heck of it.

[donheld]

150. So is a Wet dream

Involuntary Manslaughter?

[Yupster]

155. I don't know any pro-lifer

who believes in life before conception.

It's mentioned so many times on DU that I guess it's funny, but I admit I don't get it?

If you believe life begins at conception, why would you care about what happens before conception.

I guess the catholic church cares, but I'm not catholic.

[bobedwards]

38. Further...

For all of you who believe making abortion illegal will increase the amount of abortions, I'll assume you agree with the NRA on their stance about gun control. It's the same logic either way. Women want abortions that bad, they'll get them. Criminals want guns that bad, they'll get them. Not accusing anyone of anything, but just wanted to poin that out. If you do hold those contradictory beliefs, might want to do some rethinking of things.

[noiretextatique]

46. not beliefs...FACT

there was an article posted here some time ago from a medical examiner's office (boston, i believe) recounting the decrease in female bodies found from botched abortions after roe vs. wade. the abortion issue is about control, imho mores than "beliefs," since the current law doesn't FORCE anyone to have an aborttion. what the pro-control crowd wants is to force their "beliefs" on everyone, rather than give women the option of making a choice the controllers don't like.

[Razorback_Democrat]

82. That's a good rationalization, but if you believe that it is a life, not a

choice, then that's all just a bunch of words that make no sense to someone who is pro life

I'm pro life and have no interest in pushing abortion to be illegal as I think there are instances where someone's life is in danger or some other situation that makes abortion a real option.

Abortion should be rare

pro -lifers are not all "control" people as the feminist movement wants to espouse

and they are not all males as the same movement has pushed in that "control" argument.

I believe we need a culture change, to value ALL life, including abolishing capital punishment, taking better care of living children, making more options available for women who have children to have them, making adoption easier and affordable, making birth control widely available, etc.

[noiretextatique]

201. great

when all of that happens, please let me know...the culture change. i hear this argument all the time from people who call themselves pro-life, and of course it would be great if that was the current reality, but of course it isn't. it's quite the opposite, in fact.
i suppose the question is: how do we create the change? by giving the state control over women's reproductive decision-making?!?! that anyone who calls himself "liberal" can advocate such a position, before this grand cultural change, that is, is beyond me.

[Cheswick2.0]

265. Then make those societal changes and leave women alone

Women have abortions mostly for financial reasons. When you change society then less women will have abortions. Changing the laws however is unacceptable.

PS... Feminism is not a movement, it is the logical way for any intelligent woman to live. It's not moving, it's here.

[mitchtv]

39. My .02

dearest Cally and Heddi you are both gems and I agree completely. I however cannot use the term Pro life to describe the prohibitionists, I perfer anti choice. Additionally I see a crime greater than abortion, and that is bringing unwanted chidren into the world.

[Razorback_Democrat]

83. Make adoption easier, make it easier to raise kids, etc.

make abortion something that just isn't done except in rare cases.

pay people to have kids, I don't know, whatever it takes in my mind

[Cheswick2.0]

96. What makes you think there is anything "easy" about any adoption

for many women it is a terrible alternative.

Besides that you have said "make abortion something that just isn't done except in rare cases." But my man, that is exactly what abortion is now. Something that happens rarely in comparisson to natural abortion and child birth.

I think we need to stop romanticizing the state of pregnancy and motherhood and start valuing the lives of woman.

[Razorback_Democrat]

154. It should be rarer

and we need to start valuing the lives of the unborn as well!

no one is romanticizing pregnancy

and adoption isn't easy for those who want to adopt

simple solution, use birth control or don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant!

[Cheswick2.0]

269. MYOB

woman have the right not to be baby machines for those who want to adopt.
Birth control fails.

[IronLionZion]

43. Kucinich was pro-life before he ran for president

so was Al Gore. Trying to lump all pro-lifers together as fundies is as ridiculous as saying all white people are snobby liberal elitists. silly isn't it?

Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill O'Reilly, and Arnold Swarzeneggar are some of the most obnoxious Republicans ever, and they are all pro-CHOICE!!!

[bobedwards]

45. It's kinda

funny how political offices and positions can cause people to switch moral views and all, the kinds that people have very staunch opinions and beliefs over. And I agree, lumping them together as fundies is rediculous. Everyone I know that thinks abortion should be illegal are very reasonable, down to earth people. They just believe it's murder and want to see it made illegal in the same way that stabbing someone to death is illegal. And most people who are pro-life are not the types to show nasty images of dead babies to the masses. They believe in winning people over with logic and reason, not by disgusting them.

[drthais]

55. ah. me. bobedwards, bobedwards

whoever you are....

remember always
that just because pro-lifers 'believe that abortion is murder'
doesn't necessarily make it so
and this is the essence of the argument, after all

yes, murder is murder
plain to see
but whether or not 'abortion' is murder
is yet another discussion

this is not a fact
it is at this time, a belief
so
believe what you will
and I will believe what I choose to
lets not get belief mixed up with fact
and there is no bottom line here
no proven bottom line, scientifically

[noiretextatique]

47. pro-lifers hate all abortions, except their own

someone posted and article here about the pro-control women who show up at abortion clinics around the country seeking abortions. it was quite telling, so perhaps someone will repost it.

[bobedwards]

48. Never heard of that one

[Razorback_Democrat]

74. Tell me pray tell, WHO likes any abortions?

and that is the person whose parents should have had one!

[IronLionZion]

102. Yoko Ono is pro-abortion

I read that she purposely gets pregnant to "see what it's like" and then aborts the baby. I bet there are others. Some people even proudly wear t-shirts saying "I had an abortion". I think that is disgusting.

[Razorback_Democrat]

106. Case in point! n/t

[SemperEadem]

112. link..

I have to see that one before I'd believe it. Post the link for that.

[IronLionZion]

142. another DUer posted it

I don't remember which site it was but it seemed legit.

[Cheswick2.0]

270. nonsense

that never happened.

[Hippo_Tron]

284. So this describes MAYBE 1 in 10,000 abortions performed?

Making laws surrounding these people is unfair because they are such a small minority.

[noiretextatique]

192. really not the point

if an abortion saves a woman's life, and she "likes" being alive: did she deserve to be born? and you're supposedly "pro-life"...right? :eyes:

[Cheswick2.0]

98. I have no article, I can only post my experience

At the Woman's clinic I worked at some pro-life woman would come in about once a week and go on and on about how they thought abortion was wrong. They would say they didn't believe in abortion ......except in their case it was different because they HAD to have an abortion. GOD would forgive THEM because clearly they weren't like all these other women in the waiting room who were using abortion as birth control.

[Razorback_Democrat]

171. Good Lord, if they were using it as birth control

isn't that bad? I mean surely they weren't just using it as birth control. Tell me they weren't, please.

[Cheswick2.0]

272. who is using it as birth control?

That I is the ignorant selfish opinion of pro-life women who come in to get their own abortions. They are just as wrong as you are.

[dutchdoctor]

56. legalising abortion actually lowers abortion rates: example

The country that has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world (far lower than the U.S.) is the Netherlands, where any female, underage or not, can have a safe, anonymous abortion for free in special clinics that are paid for by the government.
Of course a lot may have to do with the fact that we also have universal health care that includes (at least until recently) free contraception and an educational system in which al schoolchildren are thought how to use a condom (usually by a rather embarassed biology teacher)
Ask your right wing friends: If you hate abortions so much, would you agree that we should adopt the policies of countries that have far lower abortion rates than the US?
By the way: This is my first post at DU, have been lurking here for months after being drawn here by Walt Starr's research into Bush's war medals. I come here to convince myself that there are still some sane people in the US.

[cags]

88. Its not that abortion is legal, Its the education that you have there

that lowers the abortion rate.
Its legal here to. But we don't have the same level of sex education and the availabilty of birth control for young people.

[Hippo_Tron]

285. RIGHT, which is why if the GOP were serious about being Pro-Life...

They'd be serious about education.

[wildeyed]

131. I had read that statistic, too.

The little I know about it, the Dutch are very common sense in their approach to health care.

What is the Dutch attitude toward single parenthood? I have wondered whether the stigma against it in this country might add to the abortion rate, as well as the lack of health care, affordable daycare and affordable housing.

Welcome! :hi:

[Mandate My Ass]

193. HI, dd

That's a wonderful first post, dutchdoctor.

I'm glad you're here and I hope you post some more. Greetings, to you and the rest of "Old Europe." :hi:

[DownNotOut]

57. The issue is

a diversion to keep our eyes off the ball. Talk about separation of church and state... sheesh!


DownNotOut

[AngryOldDem]

59. I totally agree with you on all points....

and I do consider myself to be pro-life. I also consider myself to be a rational person who sees and understands that sometimes there are a lot of gray areas in life that cannot make the question of whether to abort or not so cut-and-dried as many would like to make it.

I have asked the question numerous times of pro-lifers: If abortion is outlawed tomorrow, do you think it will go away? Never a straight answer, because they know what the answer is.

My stance on abortion is this: Safe, legal, rare. Access to and education on the proper use of contraceptives. Competent sex education that includes all aspects of sexuality, including abstinence. Give people the knowledge so they can have complete control over the choices they make about their bodies. Abortion should never be seen as another form of birth control, no matter how rarely that is the case -- proper education and access to conventional forms of birth control should/would/could make that even rarer.

But making abortion illegal across the board? No.

[dryan]

62. My 2 cents....

I am pro-life and that means all life; I am against capital punishment, euthenasia, and war for the same reasons. I don't think that a person should take another human life. And just for the record I am not crazy about hunting either. That said, I think that this is probably the hardest decision that a woman will ever have to make. It happened in my own family for medical reasons. I saw the agony that my cousin's wife had to go through before making the final decision to terminate her pregnancy and it was absolutely heartbreaking. I don't think her depression was anecdotal.

I am a lifelong Democratic activist and I am not going to become a Republican because I disagree with the party on one issue alone. Frankly, I think secretly the GOP doesn't want Roe vs. to be overturned because they can continue to use it against the Democrats. Think of the millions that will stop!

[AngryOldDem]

66. Agreed.

And, like you, I am a "womb to tomb" pro-life person (or, in the words of the late Cardinal Bernardin, a "seamless garment" person). I came a little late to my views on capital punishment, but I now feel there is really no need for it, and it serves no purpose. But as I said, there are times when the abortion procedure may be necessary, and for that reason alone it should remain legal.

I'd also like to point out in response to your thoughts about the GOP that I think it's in a lot of "pro-life" groups' self-interests to keep this issue alive and well, too. I don't really believe that they want to see abortion totally outlawed either -- this has been turned into a morbid cottage industry by a lot of people. That would mean they would all have to find another line of work.

A few years back on another board I got into a debate with Judie Brown of the American Life League. She helped me come to my conclusion by refusing to admit that the first step in reforming any kind of law -- especially in Washington -- is the willingness to compromise on BOTH sides of the issue. That unwillingness to initially compromise tells me all I need to know, and why I hold most "pro-life" groups in low regard. These groups, from where I sit, also do precious little to help mothers and babies after birth. If you are in this issue, you are in for a penny and in for a pound.

Cynical as hell, but there it is.

[LisaLL]

119. big differences between pro-life and pro-choice groups

I agree. People involved in the pro-life groups tend to also oppose all the things that make it easier for women to raise children.

People who are pro-choice and progressive tend to support all the things that help prevent abortions. In addition to contraceptive services and accurate education to prevent pregnancies, keeping abortion legal so it is a safe procedure, we support family care, welfare, prenatal care coverage, health care for children, after-school care programs, child care, raising the minimum wage, public schools--all the social safety nets and community assets that make it easier for women to raise their children in healthy, supportive environments so that women can choose to continue their pregnancies.

Planned Parenthood is often falsely discredited by pro-life groups. In actuality, If a pregnant woman presents to Planned Parenthood and wants to continue her pregnancy, she is examined for dating, started on prenatal vitamins, counseled on risk factors or warning signs and given a referral for prenatal care. If she wants to place a baby for adoption, she is given information and phone numbers for adoption agencies.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

156. Ding Ding Ding

You win the prize. I never could, and still don't understand the label taken of "Pro-Life" when all they seem to be concerned with is making sure there is a birth. After that birth occur rs there is not a damn one of them in sight. They raise hell, bomb clinics even shoot doctors (which is one hell of an irony since they are supposedly pro-life) and badger the hell out of the women visiting the clinics. But I have NEVER heard of a case where a pro-life person/organization talked a young mother to be out of abortion then followed through with the pregnancy and helped after the fact.

For the record, I am in no way directing this at EVERYONE who considers themselves pro-life. And I can not state 100% that NO ONE has ever actually helped a mother to be during pregnancy and afterward. I am simply stating that there has been no attention to it if it did/does happen thus giving the appearance that their pro-life stance goes no further than the abortion clinics.

[AngryOldDem]

180. There are groups that help

<<<For the record, I am in no way directing this at EVERYONE who considers themselves pro-life. And I can not state 100% that NO ONE has ever actually helped a mother to be during pregnancy and afterward. I am simply stating that there has been no attention to it if it did/does happen thus giving the appearance that their pro-life stance goes no further than the abortion clinics.<<

But yeah, I understand your concern, because there are groups that help women through crisis pregnancies, and they do wonderful work. I have supported one such group in my community, in fact.

It just seems that the ones that are shouting the loudest can be doing more to help on this issue. At least to my mind.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

213. Exactly

The ones that get all of the coverage and are the most vocal, in my experience are the same ones who are against any kind of "help" program. I truely don't get that.

[Razorback_Democrat]

75. Ding Ding, you hit the nail on the head!!!!

"Frankly, I think secretly the GOP doesn't want Roe vs. to be overturned because they can continue to use it against the Democrats. Think of the millions that will stop!"

Abortion is one of the only ways that the GOP has to lure the poor, but very religious, into voting for them.

[noiretextatique]

110. your cousin was able to make her own decision

as it should be, not politicians, internet posters, and rw religious pundits. it's a decision any woman is capable of making.

[wildeyed]

132. I don't think the corporate side GOP want roe v. wade

overturned, either. It is a great wedge issue to mobilize their zealot base, but most people in the US want abortion to remain legal. So if we actually make it illegal, those more mainstream voters will likely notice and vote accordingly.

Also, there are more and earlier test done for abnormalities in the fetus, now. When I was pregnant, you really couldn't get tested for much of anything until you were well into the second trimester. I would not have had a second trimester abortion, so I never even bothered to get tested. But now there are tests for the first trimester. So more educated middle class women will get tested, find out that the baby will have severe abnormalities and want to have the option of a first trimester abortion. These are women with money and political will. They will not like it if the government says no, you can't abort this 12 week fetus that will have severe medical problems if brought to term 'cause we think it is murder.

[Yupster]

140. You never get a straight answer to the question

if abortion was made illegal do you think it would go away?

You must know some really dopey pro-lifers.

When I ask that same question, I get a very straight answer. "No, of course abortions won't go away. -- Duh"

When you make murder illegal does it go away?

Geeze.

[AngryOldDem]

152. No, they do not answer the question

because they do not want to face the issues that make abortion an option to some women. They don't want to actually have to consider problems such as low income, no housing, poor health care, and the myriad other problems that face some women, and will take more than protests and showing cute baby pictures to fix. They don't want to admit that contraception is a common-sense answer to this problem.

Their mindset is, outlaw abortion and the rest of society will straighten itself out.

I don't consider these people "dumb," just misguided and unwilling to see society and its problems for what they truly are. Because those issues, pal, will take a lot of work to solve, and I'm not convinced that many in the "pro-life" cause are really up to doing that -- too much like work, y'know?

[Yupster]

159. You have no understanding of

these fundies that you disrespect so much.

No understanding of poverty?

These people, many of them are poor themselves. They should be good democratic voters except for two things. Their deep belief in the wrongness of abortion, and the contempt that democrats hold them in.

No willingness to work?

Many husbands work themselves to an early grave working three jobs low paying jobs. That so their wife can take care of the seven kids, five of their own and two adopted. The wife may also homeschool the kids, volunteer at the Crisis Pregnancy Center, have 3-4 church events a week and still find the time to protest. There is not much to many fundamentalist families lives except work. The church brings their best social interactions and pleasures. The husband may belong to a prayer group, be on the parrish-relations committee, and play on the basketball team. The kids are all in their youth groups. The woman is in the church woman's group, the worship committee, a prayer group, helps prepare the wednesday evening meal, and volunteers for the church's neighborhood charity.

People of DU. We must understand these people. They are our natural supporters. We offer much to them and they offer much to us. Can we try to not treat them with such hatred.

[AngryOldDem]

179. Say what?

Maybe we're talking past each other here, but I think you totally misunderstood my post.

I said that some in those "pro-life" groups do not, as a rule, want to address the underlying societal issues that make abortion an option for some women. Finding a way to make abortion as rare and safe as we all want will take more than the eqivalents of hissy-fits outside of clinics and digging in the legislative heels so that no discussion or compromise on the issue can be brooked.

Both pro-choice and pro-life -- more so pro-life, I think -- have to find some common ground on this issue if abortion is ever to be as safe, legal, and rare as everyone wants it to be. And I'm convinced, again, that there are some in the pro-life camp who never want to see this issue resolved because they would be neutralized politically. They mask their own self-interests behind their piety, which further discredits them as a force working to end abortion.

Those who are in the forefront about the abortion issue such as the American Life Leagues and the Judie Browns of this world -- seem to not want to address issues such as wages, housing, health care, safe and reliable child care, etc., that would ALL lead to an economic climate where women could be free to weigh ALL their options with a pregnancy, not just feel like there is no other way but abortion. All these groups want is an end to abortion. Period. Everything will fall into place once that happens. That's an unrealistic approach to the problem, and in fact, only guarantees that it will make things worse.

In my opinion, to shout "pro-life" and yet do nothing to foster an atmosphere that supports that life, is the height of hypocrisy.

ON EDIT: An additional thought: What I meant by "work" in my last post is, it is FAR easier to stand on a street corner and shout rhetoric, and to set up an organization that spouts rhetoric and does little else. However, it takes time, effort, resources, and the will to take a long step back and look at the underlying societal causes for abortion, and then come up with possible solutions (policy and otherwise). Large-scale pro-life groups should be doing this as well as getting their points across about how they feel about abortion as a procedure.

Hope that clears things up.

[LisaLL]

204. fundies

Yupster,

>These people, many of them are poor themselves. They should be good >democratic voters except for two things. Their deep belief in the >wrongness of abortion, and the contempt that democrats hold them in.

So, do you think that by

1) showing them that our goals and our policies are about preventing abortions (and are effective in doing so) while keeping them legal
2) Presenting our politics in terms of our values (responsibility, empathy, fairness, and honesty)
3) Working on the contempt thing

many of them would be Democrats?

[Yupster]

243. To answer LisaLL

1. Stressing the goals that we want fewer abortions and have good plans to accomplish that is a very good start. But there will have to be compromises. The opinion that is common on DU is that the right to an abortion should be absolute for any woman at any time in pregnancy for any reason. If that's the opinion seen at the march or on TV of the party, then nothing else will matter. That position is a non-starter.

2. This needs more explanation so it can be more than words. To a deeply religious pro-lifer, empathy may mean something very different than to a typical DU'er, though they both have much empathy.

3. The contempt thing is really a serious problem. DU is really at its worst when stereotyping and insulting people, and pro-lifers seem to be one of the biggest targets. Darts are thrown in complete ignorance, and it really makes us all look bad. "If pro-lifers care so much about kids, why don't they adopt them," I've read 100 times on DU which is completely ignorant. Go to a fundamentalist church and you'll be amazed that you will have never seen so many adopted kids. "All they care about is the fetus. They don't care about the mother or the child." This to a group of people that volunteers as much or more than any other group in America. They don't support Planned Pregnancy, but they voluntarily run the Crisis Pregnancy Center down the block from it. And the home for unwed mothers and the adoption agency, and the church food bank. Many people think if they don't want to help the way you think is right, then they don't want to help at all. That's just so short-sighted and closed minded.

Anyway, this group of people is talked down to and held in contempt by many people on the left. They vote Republican though they probably could do better voting Democratic. However, as of now, the Democratic Party certainly in my opinion does not deserve their votes because they belittle their views and values. There's another thread right now on DU making fun of the virgin birth during the holy days. What's up with that? We can't have a little respect for other people's most important beliefs anymore? Are we that smart and good that we can just trash those below us?

No, the contempt issue is a very big one, and as of now, a poor, rural family whose life is centered around the church has no reason at all to look favorably on groups like us. We don't deserve their votes.

[AngryOldDem]

286. On this, we agree

<<<Anyway, this group of people is talked down to and held in contempt by many people on the left. They vote Republican though they probably could do better voting Democratic. However, as of now, the Democratic Party certainly in my opinion does not deserve their votes because they belittle their views and values. There's another thread right now on DU making fun of the virgin birth during the holy days. What's up with that? We can't have a little respect for other people's most important beliefs anymore? Are we that smart and good that we can just trash those below us?

No, the contempt issue is a very big one, and as of now, a poor, rural family whose life is centered around the church has no reason at all to look favorably on groups like us. We don't deserve their votes.>>>

[shockra]

60. It's once again about trying to have it both ways.

I've never heard this admitted to, but science is being used to justify (primarily) religious beliefs about abortion.

Anything with two sets of human chromosomes is considered a human being -- even if it's just a fertilized egg. So we didn't evolve genetically, but genetics are good enough when used to justify the pro-life argument?

And if you're pro-life, but not for religious reasons, then how can a fetus or embryo be considered sacred? That's a contradiction in terms.

Funny how when we describe someone as human that tends to mean "flawed." As in "he's only human." But when it's used to describe a fetus, OR man on the evolutionary scale it suddenly has an exalted meaning.

[Razorback_Democrat]

80. I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic n/t

[cags]

85. This doesn't make any sense

Are you saying you have to be religious to consider life sacred? That doesn't even make sense.

"He's only human" implies someone making mistakes. It doesn't devalue the fact that they are alive.

[Nadienne]

61. I agree, and furthermore,

if the mother may die, who has the right to decide who should die and who should live? If the mother does not consent to die, isn't that murder?

[Tikki]

64. The redefinition of a child....

Let's look at a scenario, with possible peripheries, that might lie within legislation that ends legal abortion.

As soon as a woman finds out she is pregnant she should obtain a Social Security number for the fetus. She (her family) will have a tax write-off for this dependent for the year her pregnancy began. This should not be predicated on whether the pregnancy ends in a live birth.

If a woman should lose the fetus, at any stage in the pregnancy, she (her family) should be able to receive Social Security burial and a lump sum survivor benefit.

If a woman loses the pregnancy while under the care of a physician, the State should investigate whether the doctor's actions caused the death and whether the doctor should be charged with murder.

If a woman loses the pregnancy, the State should investigate the mother's life-style to determine cause of death and charge her with murder if they deem it appropriate.

In expectation of a degree of living; a child conceived into a family should have the right to sue the family if the family's financial means change downward. There would be an expectation of a guaranteed life-style from conception forward.

There are many other possible scenarios that address legal and financial issues, not just the moral or ethical.

These scenarios may seem 'far-fetched', yet if a fetus is redefined as a child, then our government should afford 'this child' the legal status of any other American citizen.

[Razorback_Democrat]

77. Except that children don't have the same legal rights as "any other"

American.

They can't enter into contracts, etc.

"If a woman should lose the fetus, at any stage in the pregnancy, she (her family) should be able to receive Social Security burial and a lump sum survivor benefit."

perhaps burial, but no one gets social security benefits (or even burial benefits) for children because social security is predicated on having paid into it.

"If a woman loses the pregnancy while under the care of a physician, the State should investigate whether the doctor's actions caused the death and whether the doctor should be charged with murder."

possibly so, certainly it should be reviewed

"If a woman loses the pregnancy, the State should investigate the mother's life-style to determine cause of death and charge her with murder if they deem it appropriate"

possibly so, especially if she was using drugs, I doubt murder, but if the intent was to destroy the life, then why not?

as for the tax write off, it should be the case.

[cags]

73. Here's how I see it

I am pro-life, except in the cases of rape or incest, or for the life of the mother, or severe defects where the baby would not live.

First off my belief does not come from any religious view.

I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and the word "fetus" to me is just a way to dehumanize the baby.

I think the argument that life would be harder for someone or thier child because they are poor is ridiculous.

Who determines quality of life, if your life isn't going to be perfect then you shouldn't be born? That's ridiculous.

For me the choice is if you cannot deal with the consequences of sex then don't freaking do it until you can.

What is it with this mentality that we "must" have sex, and deal with the consequences later.

You are taking a risk , freaking own up to it.

I also believe birth control should be available to teenagers without parental permission. And "real" sex education should be taught in schools. For me that is what we should be fighting for.

[Razorback_Democrat]

79. Yes!

and we should also be pushing for more and better support for mothers to be, and young mothers trying to make it in the world.

[noiretextatique]

107. should be, but NOT...rw politicians

those who wrap themselves in teh bible and "morality," are the same ones against "social welfare." the pro-control crowd makes for some strange bedfellows. when bush and his ilk start offering support for mothers, then i will take their "pro-life" pronoucements seriously. and pushing "abstinence-only" sex education proves to me they are full of :hurts:
what is the problem with SEX in america? we seem to be the most prudish folks and screwed up folks on the earth when it comes to this subject.

[Cheswick2.0]

100. so you have made a decision about abortion based on your own ethics

yet you refuse women the right to do the same thing?
What makes your judgment better than mine?

[cags]

174. I'm not claiming better judgement, I'm giving my opinion on this subject.

[Heddi]

101. "If you cannot deal with the consequences of sex, then don't freaking do

it til you can"

My husband and I have been together for 8 years. Let's say we had a baby within a year of being married. We were fine with that. We had another baby a year later, and we felt it was time to stop. So I got on the pill or depo and for the last 6 years, we've had two children and are happy with that.

Are you telling me that if I'm not ABSOLUTELY Ready to have a 3rd or 4th child...not ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that I would want more than 2 children, that my husband and I should abstain from sex for the rest of our relationship? Because we *MAY* not be 100% ready to have another child?

Because, you know, birth control fails. Mistakes happen. Pills are skipped. Condoms can break. LIFE happens.


What about people who have X children and may want to have more, but suddenly suffer a major setback, like one parent dying, or loss of income, medical truama, something like that----should the surviving parent be a goddam NUN for the rest of their life until they're ready to be parents again?

But we should all be good little eunichs until we're absolutely ready. Yeah. See, that's not the way it's gonna work. It's never worked that way, and no matter how much you wish it to be so, people are going to have sex when and wehre they want to, and sometimes, people are going to find themselves in less than desirable situations. Maybe they suddenly lose their job. Maybe they suddenly get sick. Maybe they suddenly get pregnant. You can "wish" unplanned pregnancies away all you want, but they're here, they're a reality, and because of that, abortions will ALWAYS take place, just like they always have. Make it illegal as you want---they'll still be going on.

[noiretextatique]

113. utopian aboslutes do not make for good public policy

this is not a perfect or a particularly just world. these exception folks piss me off more than the zero tolerance controllers. let's assume abortion is outlawed, except in the case of rape or incest...what hoops would a woman have to jump through to PROVE RAPE? a medical examination? a police report? a trial? would she need written persmission to have an abortion from a judge? or from her local city council? or the state's attorney general? it's still a violation of her privacy, so this supposed largesse of the pro-control set is just as insulting as those who support no exceptions.

[Nobody]

139. It's a way for someone else to decide for a woman

It's still a choice being made, but somehow some people seem to think it's OK if someone other than the woman whose body it is gets to decide.

Take these exceptions for life of mother. What percentage chance of dying is good enough to allow for the exception? 10% might be fine for one woman, but too much of a risk for someone else. So who decides? Not the woman who is facing a 10% chance of dying. Somebody else who doesn't know her or her family is telling her that 10% is not enough of a risk when she's scared to death. Or maybe someone is telling her that yes it is enough of a risk to justify aborting this time.

Let's trust a woman to have weighed the options and make her own decision. Let's trust her to involve her family, but don't get all paternalistic and make her get approvals and signatures and prove she isn't the one choosing.

As I see it, if it's my body, I get veto power.

[noiretextatique]

203. "if it's my body, I get veto power"

what a concept, huh? who else SHOULD decide what happens to your body? here's another twist on the life of the mother exception. what if the husband or partner doesn't "believe" a woman's life is really at risk and sucessfully sues to stop her from having the abortion? what if she, and the fetus, die as a result of his "beliefs" and those of the court...is he now guilty of murder? double murder? or even worse, not guilty of anything at all?

[Nobody]

219. In a short story a man murdered his wife that way

I can't remember which anthology of domestic murder mysteries it was in, maybe one of the Malice Domestic series, but don't quote me...

A woman was in the hospital having had a difficult birth and a stillborn baby. Her husband was talking to the doctor and the doctor told him, not the woman who had just given birth, that another baby was certain to result in her dying.

The man went to his wife and soothed her while she was barely conscious by telling her. "It's all right honey, we can try again as soon as possible." The story ended here.

Since no one else was present for that conversation, the man can easily convince the doctor that his wife wouldn't listen and insisted on trying again. The doctor was also wrong in not dicussing this with the woman herself, no matter what her husband said.

An illustration of yet another reason why the person whose body is at risk should be the one to decide.

Fortunately this is fiction. Most hospitals do check for potential abusive situations and act on them. They also discuss a condition with the person whose condition it is.

Making exceptions for any reason is a choice being made by someone other than the woman herself. For some reason, if the woman is not the one choosing, that makes it OK.

I am a woman. I am also a trustworthy human being. I am not an incubator. My personhood doesn't vanish because I haven't gone through menopause yet. You can lobby all you want, but it's my body and it's my vote.

[noiretextatique]

289. yet when the "m" word is raised

people get all bent out of shape. i still say this entire "debate" has more to do with misogyny than reverance for the unborn. i don't doubt that people who are pro-life are sincere in their beliefs; i imagine there are even some how truly do value all life. however, as you mention, if it's MY body, then it should be MY choice, not the choice of whatever group has the power to take that choice away from me.

[cags]

169. No I'm not saying be "good little eunichs" I am saying to accept the

responsibility for your actions.

[cags]

178. No. I'm not saying abstain, I'm saying be ready

to accept the consequences if it happens.

For me abortion is not my backup plan.

[Undercover Owl]

233. I agree,

and, what about people who are too mentally impaired to make responsible decisions? Some people just aren't bright or mature enough to consistently make good choices.

[noiretextatique]

104. a fetus is not a "baby"

and it is a legitimate biological term...whether people "like it" or not. biology 101.

[SemperEadem]

116. uh huh.. just tell me what man is going to go without sex

for his whole life until he's ready to afford children? And who is going to tell him that he can't have sex? You?

You're dreaming.

[cags]

183. I'm not saying don't have sex, again I'm saying accept the consequences

if you want to take the risk of getting pregnant.

[wildeyed]

133. So it is less of a baby because it is the product of rape or incest?

That stance has never made sense to me. It is either a baby or it isn't, regardless of its parentage.

"For me the choice is if you cannot deal with the consequences of sex then don't freaking do it until you can." Wise counsel, but hardly enforceable.

[cags]

182. No its not less of a baby

But in those cases the mothers didn't take the risk.

Being someone who was never in that situation I would never presume to tell them what to do. Whether I agree with it or not

[wildeyed]

189. It's either a baby or it isn't.

What you are saying is it is ok to murder babies if they result from rape or incest. Makes no sense. It's not the baby's fault that mommy got raped. And women who 'take the risk' should be punished by being forced to bear children they don't want. Seems to me that you are more interested in punishing women for their sexuality than actually saving babies.

[cags]

191. I'm not saying its OK

I don't think this issue is black and white. I still think any abortion is murder. If only we lived in a perfect world

And yes if you are willing to take the risk then be willing to accept the consequences

"Seems to me that you are more interested in punishing women for their sexuality than actually saving babies."

Thats ridiculous. Just be responsible for your actions.

[Mandate My Ass]

199. Having an abortion *is* being responsible

Having a child (a permanently life altering event with high medical and social risks) one is unprepared for or unequipped to deal with is being highly irresponsible.

[wildeyed]

205. I don't think the issues is black and white, either.

That's why I advocate allowing each woman to make her own choice in each situation. You're the one who is making black and white judgments here by advocating forcing women to bear children they don't want or don't feel equipped to raise because YOU think they were irresponsible.

[cags]

206. If this is the choice

And this is the way I see it,

1. Have an unwanted baby, that you struggle to raise or give up for adoption.

2. Kill the baby, go on with your life as planned.

I don't see it as a valid choice, and unless you see it as murder I don't think you can understand my opinion on this issue.

[noiretextatique]

216. who are you to decide what is and is not valid for other people?

really? if someone doesn't agree with you that abortion = murder, then why should your beliefs trump her own beliefs when it comes to HER decision-making? this is what i never get...why some people think their beliefs should extend beyond themselves and their lives. the current law gives everyone a choice. don't like abortion? don't have one. want or need and abortion? have an abortion. believe abortion is murder? don't have an abortion? don't believe abortion is murder? have an abortion. simple.

[cally]

218. Back to my original post....do you want to decrease abortions?

My whole point was how does making it illegal reduce abortions? All it does is increase the risk to women and cause more deaths. So you see it as murder, why don't you support policies to decrease it?

I want to promote policies that support children and families. I want children to be raised in loving homes. I want to reduce or eliminate unwanted pregnancies. I also don't believe that sex is bad and should be punished.

[cags]

230. I do support policies to decrease it

If you've read my other posts you would know that.
I never said sex is bad and should be punished. I do it all the time, but I know that with sex comes responsibility,

[wildeyed]

221. I understand that some people believe that abortion is murder.

I also understand that other people don't believe abortion is murder. So we are talking about personal beliefs. Why do your beliefs trump mine?

And back to my original point. Either you believe abortion is murder or you don't. If you believe that abortion is murder, then I don't see how you can make exceptions for rape and incest. If it was solely about the baby, then it shouldn't make any difference. But what you are saying is there are some circumstances that warrant giving a woman a choice, and you are the one to decide which circumstances are acceptable.

So here are some common scenarios:

Woman raped by an acquaintance. For whatever reason, she does not wish to involve the police. But now she is pregnant. Does she get an abortion? According to you, yes. But how does she prove she was raped? She would have to file a police report and go to court, which would further compromise her fragile state of mind. Or maybe she should just commit suicide, which is what she was contemplating anyway.

19 yr. old drug addict/alcoholic gets pregnant. She is unable to stop using, will be unable to raise the baby and the baby will likely be unadoptable due to addition, developmental problems and health problems. Will you raise the baby for her?

24 year old married woman. Has three kids already. She and hubby both work full time, they have no health insurance, no savings and her husband abuses her. According to you, she should just not have sex if she feels unable to raise another baby. But her husband beats her if she says no, so no is not an option. Due to birth control malfunction, she finds herself pregnant with her fourth child. Should she bring a child she can't support into an abusive situation? What about the well being of her existing children? Having a fourth will compromise their well being, too.

I won't decide for these women. The situations are too complicated. And I don't think you are qualified to decide, either.

[cags]

231. Its more than personal beliefs

Its part of the laws in our country. People fight for the issues they believe in. If pro-life people think abortion is murder, than how can they just sit back and say to each his own,

There are people who believe in female circumcision, do you think they should have the right to do that because of thier personal beliefs? No one should at least say to them "Hey I think thats wrong"?

And none of your situations above I believe is a good enough reason to kill a baby.

[wildeyed]

250. But you said that there should be exceptions in the case of

rape and incest. And are you volunteering to raise drug addicted babies? I have a friend who does that. She is a saint. It is not easy to be up night after night with a sick baby that is not even your own.

I actually respect that pro-life people think that abortion is murder. If I thought it was murder, I would be moved to do something, too. But what I would do would be to provide support to woman on the edge to give them a real choice not to abort. Drug treatment, affordable daycare and housing, whatever seems to help. Also, better care and love for babies who are born and not wanted.

What I don't respect are people who stomp around and call women who have abortions murders and then don't do anything to alleviate the situations that led to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Now what you need to understand. People who are pro-choice are equally enraged and upset by the idea of an abortion ban. To us, who don't believe that abortion is murder, what you are proposing is equivalent to reproductive slavery.

Here is what I know. Banning abortion doesn't make it stop. The lowest abortion rate in the world is the Netherlands, where abortion is legal and easily available. The highest abortion rate is in a few Latin American countries where the procedure is banned. Clearly banning the procedure does nothing to stop people from getting one.

So find out what they do in Netherlands to keep the abortion rate so low, start advocating those policies in the US, and then we can talk. But your advocating for an inconsistent ban leaves me cold. Clearly you are more interested in making moral judgments about people's lives than actually decreasing the abortion rate.

[cags]

254. MandateMyAss has made me rethink that position

on an exception for rape.

Many of you here confuse someone like myself who is against abortion, with fundie pro-lifers and I don't think its fair. If I was a fundie I wouldn't be here

I support:
"real" sex education in schools
contraceptives for teens without parental consent
better support for young and single parents

Abortion is legal here too but our rates are not as low as the Netherlands because they have the education and easy access to contraceptives, its not because abortion is legal. I do advocate all those policies.

And I have provided free and low cost daycare to young single mothers, so they could afford to work. There are also programs out there that help that I do support

[wildeyed]

255. I am not confusing you with a fundie.

I would not be bothering to have this discussion if I thought you were.

But the legality of the procedure doesn't seem to have any effect on the overall rate of abortions in a country, so why even bother to legislate it? Besides, most people in the US are pro-choice, so legislating behavior that most people don't see as wrong or immoral won't work. Just look at our drug policy. And many of us 'feel', just as strongly as you do, that abortion is not murder. But we can work together to decrease abortion, which we all agree is good aim.

Once we manage to get comprehensive programs in this country to support young and poor parents, and to decrease the unwanted pregnancy rate overall, I will be much more open to at least talking about a ban. Won't guarantee that I will ever agree to it, but I will be willing to talk.

You know what I think is immoral? Warehousing unwanted drug babies in hospital nurseries because we have no reasonable place to put them where they will get the love and attention that they need to develop properly. Our foster care system. Homelessness, especially when it involves families and children. These are the things that break my heart. I just can't start feeling for the un-born, with so much misery out there for kids who are already here. I need to focus on making their lives better, first.

[cags]

256. I agree mostly except for

Most people in the US are pro-choice.
If this issue was put to the people right now I'm not so sure what the outcome would be. I've seen polls go both ways

[Nobody]

295. Actually I do

and you are choosing for someone else whether or not "murder" is acceptable.

If it is acceptable in certain cases, why not allow the person who is most involved do the deciding?

Suppose that I walk into your home and, armed with a knife, attempt to rob your home and attack you when you wake up and interrupt the robbery. Suppose that someone who lives in some other city tells you that you must not raise a hand to me and let me rob your home. After all, you forgot to lock your front door. After all, killing me in self defense is murder.

But what if you did lock your front door and I broke in, taking out your living room window? After all you took precautions to keep me out and they didn't work. Now this wise person who doesn't even know you is telling you that yes, you can defend yourself and if you kill me in a struggle whereupon you get my knife away from me and stab me with it, it's OK.

The upshot is, you don't get to decide whether or not to fight back. Someone else does. And if you don't like it, I agree completely. You're the one being robbed at knifepoint.

Right now the law is on my side. If I'm pregnant and I don't want to be, I can abort. And the law is on the side of the homeowner defending against a robber armed with a knife. In your definition, murder has taken place. But one instance is justifiable homicide and not criminal. And abortion isn't homicide at all.

[secedeeconomically]

76. Partial birth abortion is a right wing term not a medical procedure

[Razorback_Democrat]

78. This is true, and the ban on partial birth abortions would still have had

wider support if it had included provisions for the mother's life!

[mitchtv]

118. you must mean "Late term abortions"

no such thing as partial birth abortions

[nascarblue]

164. Do you want to specify what you mean by ban on partial birth abortions?

There really is no such thing. A "partial birth" would mean the last trimester or during labor. and you cannot get an abortion in those circumstances. That is a myth. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION!! THis is a political terminology made to further the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade. God, I can't believe I see this term used on a Dem board!

[Razorback_Democrat]

172. I'm talking about the damned law that congress passed last year

and Kerry opposed

he opposed it (he said) because it gave no exceptions for the life of the mother

[Dob Bole]

84. I really think Kerry would have won if he hadn't FUBARED abortion question

Wrong way to answer the abortion question:

"I respect the morality behind your question. (implied: but I do not share it)"

Correct way to answer the abortion question:

"For four years President Bush has claimed to be pro-life while the abortion rate has increased. I have a plan to reduce abortions in our country without banning access for the people who need them."

[wildeyed]

134. That is a good reply.

I know people who are uncomfortable with abortion, without being fully anti-choice. Example; one friend, who had unprotected sex on a semi-regular basis with an unreliable boyfriend said to me, I am not really pro-choice. So I asked her, if you got pregnant with x boyfriend, you would have had the baby? She says, no, I probably would have had an abortion. So that answer would be comforting to someone like her, who is uncomfortable with abortion but clueless about what pro-choice actually means.

[LisaLL]

111. preventing pregnancies is the most effective way to reduce abortion

The most effective way to reduce abortions is by preventing unintended pregnancies. Making abortion illegal doesn't eliminate abortions it just makes it more likely that women will die.


The abortion debate is not about "choice" or "life". It is not even about being "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion". This debate is how we approach the issue of unintended pregnancy: Prevention or Punishment. The Prevention Approach (espoused by the pro-choice side) is about supporting policies that prevent unwanted pregnancies and decrease abortions while the Punishment Approach (espoused by many in the pro-life movement) is about supporting policies that increase unintended pregnancies and increase abortions in order to punish people for having sex.

Contrary to what Punishment proponents use as justification for making abortion illegal, international experience shows that the legality of abortion is *not* correlated with the frequency of the procedure. Many countries with the lowest abortion rates have the most liberal abortion laws while countries with the highest rates often have restrictive laws. The Netherlands, which maximizes preventive measures and has liberal abortion laws has one of the lowest abortion rates of any industrialized nation in the world. Extensive international data also confirms that the legal status of abortion is correlated with safety. When women experience unwanted pregnancies, they will turn to abortion whether it is legal or not . The consequence of the illegality is that far more women die from the procedure and maternal mortality is greatly increased.

If our common goals are reducing abortions and reducing the number of women dying from pregnancy related causes, the data clearly show that Preventing unintended pregnancies is effective, Making abortion illegal is not.

I would hope that anyone who feels so strongly opposed to abortion would put in the effort to examine the evidence about what is most effective in reducing abortion rates. I encourage them to look into the policies and abortion rates of Peru and Chile and compare it to the Netherlands. Another useful country to look at is Romania.

[noiretextatique]

114. prevention vs. punishment...exactly

:toast: great post, and welcome.

[Az]

117. But its not about preventing unwanted pregnancies

It is a political tool. Always has been always will be. Because the notion of life and identity are at the heart of many belief systems this issue will forever be at the beck and call of those that are willing to manipulate people's beliefs for political clout. Those that do wish to address the real issues involved will always be swamped by those that are willing to twist the issue to gain the moral high ground.

[cally]

145. Great post

Welcome. Prevention vs. Punishment is exactly what the debate is about.

[LisaLL]

115. a missed opportunity

Making emergency contraception available over the counter has the potential to eliminate the need for half of all the abortions that occur in this country. I would think that those most strongly opposed to abortion would jump for joy at the chance to safely eliminate 600,000 abortion a year. Unfortunately, the "pro-lifers" were the ones who stood in the way.

[TO Kid]

127. That's a presumptive question

There are a lot of us "soft" pro-lifers who oppose a ban on abortion because criminal law cannot resolve the issue. To assume that all pro-lifers want to criminalize abortion is like assuming all non-drug users support drug prohibition.

[superconnected]

128. the argument I remember was does it have a soul.

I always thought yeah, it does have a soul.

I'm totally for someone else aborting their own child if they want to though. I just don't think I could do it to my own. It's sort of vain I guess.. I like my dna, I won't be offing anyone that springs from me.

Like I said, I'm totally for people who want too, to kill their own. That's their business.

[evolvenow]

129. Controlling Women's reproductive rights decreases their POWER!!

[evolvenow]

130. My baby's heart stopped at 3 months, I had to have an abortion or DIE!!

I wanted this baby, but Nature had other plans. My body would not abort my dead baby. By many new suggested rulings...I would not have been given any option other than DYING!!!

THe right of a woman to her BODY IS THE ONLY person who has any authority to decide what is the healthiest choice for her and her baby!!

With so many orphans in the world...How about these rightous people adopting and caring for these already born children and leave our rights @#$%% alone!!!

[DemBones DemBones]

235. If your baby was dead, it was NOT an abortion to remove

his or her little body from your womb. An abortion is performed to kill an embryo or fetus; a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is the death of the embryo or fetus, usually due to major abnormalities.

You experienced a fetal or embryonic death, not an abortion or miscarriage. It's a tragic thing; I know because I had something similar happen in my second pregnancy.

Back when abortion was illegal, it was still permissible to remove a dead baby or an ectopic pregnancy. Abortions were even sometimes performed to protect the mother's health.

[Cheswick2.0]

274. Yes it was an abortion Dembones

Abortion is simply the term for the end of a pregnancy resulting in something other than a living child. When women have abortion in the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy it is often because the fetus died.

[nascarblue]

161. What about the myth of partial birth abortion?

How come everyone has swallowed this partial birth abortion myth? I would get so frustrated that Kerry never cleared up that myth. Why are people led to believe that women are getting these abortions where they're on the verge of giving birth? I heard Bush make these crazy statements during the campaign describing these abortions where the mother was days from birth. That doesn't happen.

To me, that's the biggest crime that's arisen about abortion. It's like every single thing the republicans stand for IS A LIE... War, Social Security, Abortion, all of it. And the MSM backs them up.

[RUDUing2]

168. Question to ask *pro-life* women:

Did you have an abortion just because they are legal?

If you didn't then why do you feel that others will? Doesn't that mean that you are elitist and look down on others? That you believe you have to make abortion illegal, because even though *you* can be trusted with a choice, others can't, so you get to make the choice for them?

[cags]

186. No I didn't

And yes I have known people who used abortion as a form of birth control.

Rules and Laws are made based on the judgement, morals and values of people and what they feel is right and wrong.

[noiretextatique]

200. rules and laws are often based on power

as in which group has the most power to make rules and laws, and the privilege to force their judgement, and their version of morals and values on the rest of us. bush, inc is a perfect example a group of people using power and privilege in a way that does not serve the interests of the majority of americans. sometimes rules and laws are based on little more than arrogance, greed, and control, and have little with do what morals, values or what people feel is right or wrong.

[cags]

208. If we put this issue to the people what do you think the majority would

rule.
At this point I'm not sure. I've seen polls go both ways.

[noiretextatique]

215. the majority supports choice

not that it really matters. the majority also voted for gore, and possibly kerry too.

[cags]

232. Do you have any links to back that up?

[Cheswick2.0]

276. why, is your google broken?

type a few words into google and find out for yourself.

[DemBones DemBones]

239. It depends on what surveys ask. A majority support

abortion to save the life of the mother, but many of them do not support abortion on demand and would support more restrictions.

[Cheswick2.0]

277. not true

the majority thinks the government should mind it's own business.

[Yupster]

244. The majority is in the middle

Just guessing of course, but I'd guess that the majority would support abortion until viability, then only for life or health exceptions.

The majority opposes partial birth abortion.

The majority would support parental notification.

It's not a black or white issue. Most people are somewhere in the middle because they can see the points of both sides.

It's an issue that calls out for compromise.

[noiretextatique]

273. partial birth abortion is a meaningless term

which is why opinion on that non-issue is telling. it reflects how rampant ignorance and disinformation shapes opinion on this issue.

[Yupster]

294. Okay noiretblu, help me out then

I'm talking about the type of abortion where the fetus/baby is almost delivered, but then scissors are rammed into its skull and its brains are sucked out before full delivery.

What am I supposed to call this type of abortion if not partial birth.

Late term abortion isn't accurate because these are also done in second term. Also late term abortion could be through saline or emergency c-section, so help me out please.

What's the right name for the one with the scissors in the brain?

[noiretextatique]

297. this is why polticians need to stop trying to practice medicine

please check the DISINFORMATION section of this site...thanks.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

Description of the D&X Procedure:
These are generally called:

"D&X" procedures, an abbreviation of "dilate and extract," or
"Intact D&E," or
"Intrauterine Cranial Decompression" procedures.

They are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public.


Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?
This is a topic that is rarely discussed during public debates:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

[Yupster]

300. So the correct name for the scissors in the brain abortion

is not partial birth, but D&X?

Okay, s I amend my above post to say that I believe the majority of voters are against D&X abortions.

I guess that makes a difference.

[noiretextatique]

305. the majority of voters don't know as much as you do now

and your lack of concern for the lives of women is telling...at least you are more honest than most. if you bothered to read the article, you would know that this procedure is done mainly to save the life of the mother. "pro-life" is a misnomer if there ever was one.

[Cheswick2.0]

275. sorry, not buying

the phrase "using abortion as birth control" is right wing propaganda. It is meaningless.

[LWolf]

181. I'm prolife.

But not in the way that you mean.

I value life. Period. All life. I do not value human life above the rest of the living planet, or below it. I treat life with respect; I honor it, protect it, and nurture it.

That doesn't mean that I can't take life. Life feeds on life; there is no way to live without taking life. It means that when I take life, I do so with respect and care, and as quickly and painlessly as possible. I don't take life without cause.

I believe in choice. Responsible choice. That means I don't take life, or make choices that bring harm to other living things, without cause, and without taking responsibility for my choices.

Responsible choice means, to me:

*people who are not ready to nurture and raise children themselves, and give their lives over to that as their primary responsibility, should not choose to have children.

*unwanted, or unplanned pregnancy is prevented with responsible sexual/birth control choices.

*People who make irresponsible choices should lose their right to choose.

*unwanted or unplanned pregnancies can be terminated. Adoption would be better; all the resources poured into fertility clinics would be better spent on those already conceived and/or born, imo.

*pregnancies that involve health risks to mother or fetus can be terminated.

*a woman's choice about her pregnancy should be respected. I don't have to respect irresponsible choices.

*a man's choice should be respected, as well. While he can't make a choice about whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term, his voice should be heard. When the father's choice is different than the mother's, both should be honored when ever possible.

*biological parents' rights should not supercede the right of the child to be safe, loved, healthy, nurtured, and secure.

*post-natal life should be valued as highly as pre-natal life.

How do you get a planet full of over-breeding humans to make responsible choices? I'd start with a heavy-duty public ed campaign. I'd back it up with social programs that support responsible choice. I'd enact penalties for irresponsible choice. I'd give it plenty of time, and look for making a long-term difference.

[cags]

187. Beautifully said nt

[Telly Savalas]

195. Oops. Sorry for being kind of redundant...

with my post below, but I started typing it up before yours appeared.

[Pithlet]

224. Babies as Punishment for Sex You Do Not Approve Of.

Really, this is one of the lamest arguments against choice there is.

[LWolf]

247. ???

I'm sorry, Pithlet, but I think you've misread or misinterpreted something somewhere. For clarification:

I disapprove of some sex; that would be sex that involves a child, an animal, a disabled, elderly, or otherwise incapacitated individual; sex as a weapon of power used against the weaker. Or sex that involves cheating; dishonoring your word to someone. What I don't approve of as far as this thread is concerned is irresponsible sex; sex that does not prevent unwanted pregnancy (or the spread of STDs, although that isn't the topic of the thread.)

Babies aren't punishment. If you didn't understand, I don't think most people who are having babies these days should have them. I sure don't advocate them as weapons against irresponsible people.

And, lastly, I'm not arguing against choice here.

I honestly don't know where you got that. :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

278. you are either for choice or you are not

all the rest is moralistic commentary.

[LWolf]

287. No.

My definitions of "choice" and "life" are different than the conventional in political discourse. Nothing is ever that black and white to a thinking person; that's what separates thinkers from fundamentalists of any belief system or cause.

A true "either/or" literalist won't see any validity in a point of view that comes from outside the black/white left/right right/wrong perspective; that doesn't make it any less valid. I freely and cheerfully admit that my points of view, on any subject, are shaped by my values and my experiences. If I couldn't connect issues to real life, there might be no point, for me, in addressing them at all. I believe that you can see beyond labels and rhetoric to the points I made, if you so choose. Acknowledge them, or not; the choice is yours. But don't attempt to redefine them for me.

[Pithlet]

291. It was this comment:

"I'd enact penalties for irresponsible choice." above all others. What penalties are you talking about, exactly? And what do youjudge irresponsibility to be? Do you get to be the arbiter? If not, who?

The "Take responsibility" mantra is almost always a code word for banning abortion. Which boils down to "You have to have that baby whether you want to or not, because you shouldn't have had sex". Babies as punishment for having sex.

[LWolf]

296. Ok.

I tend to respond to other democrats and progressives who use what I consider to be right-wing code about my profession (education) in the same manner.

I wasn't focused on banning abortion. I wouldn't.

Here is what I was trying to say about responsibility: I don't think you can divorce responsibility from rights. I think they are inevitably interconnected. I understand why our constitution doesn't link them; until all those other questions you asked can be appropriately addressed, I wouldn't link them. But I see the results of separation daily, and it grieves me. I don't think we'll be done with issues about rights until we've found a way to balance them with responsibility in a way that respects all concerned. And that is an issue larger than the abortion battle; it reaches all rights.

What kind of penalties? I'm not sure. I'm typing as I think, so this is obviously not well thought out. I'd focus more on the incentives than penalties. Because the penalties I can think of are pretty draconian and limit certain rights. I don't need to get into a public wrangle over them; I know that my perspective is colored by seeing too many innocent victims of adult irresponsibility. That makes me angry; so I'd like to remove some rights from those who have crossed the line into hurting children, to prevent further harm.

In the abstract, I've often wished I could sterilize the mother of my grandson so that she couldn't produce, and harm, more babies. She has 3, by 3 different men. In 36 months. She wasn't interested in staying with any of the men; that was her decision. She was just released from jail after serving time for publicly abusing and endangering the children. My grandson in particular. I'm not real supportive of her right to choose to have more children, or to parent those she already gave birth to. That's my outrage speaking.

In reality, I just spent an hour on the phone with her, discussing what she is doing to show us that she will be able to see her kids again. We discussed the process of reconnecting, and what kinds of things she would have to accomplish to regain partial custody. I was supportive. We're working with her. The real penalty? To complete another year's worth of counseling and parenting classes before partial custody is returned to her.

You can see that my focus is not on whether or not people have the right to terminate a pregnancy; I've never disputed that. It would be better, of course, to prevent pregnancy, but I'd rather that they terminate a pregnancy than bring a baby into the world before they are ready to parent it. My focus is on whether or not people have the right to have, or keep, children that they don't nurture and keep safe. Because, aside from my personal stake, I see and work with kids whose parents don't nurture them or keep them safe; I see them in stark contrast to their more fortunate peers. It's the other side of "choice." The side concerned with those who are born, not those who are not born. Abortion foes never seem to care what happens to babies that are actually born. I do. "Pro-choice" people never seem to want to address the "dark" side of reproductive choice. I do. I'd restrict the "choice" to have children when someone has demonstrated inability to parent in a healthy way.

[Pithlet]

299. Since this was a thread on abortion

That was the context with which I took your post. I think that those who would do harm to babies or children should be punished. I do believe that children should be removed from their parents if their parents endanger and abuse them. Absolutely.

[RawMaterials]

234. i agree but

*a man's choice should be respected, as well. While he can't make a choice about whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term, his voice should be heard. When the father's choice is different than the mother's, both should be honored when ever possible.

the mans voice is mostly overshadowed, and a man should have more rights, like if a man doesn't want the child but the woman does the man should not be responsible for child care or support.

[Yupster]

245. The man's right to choose is an interesting idea Rawmaterials

, but it should probably be on its own thread.

This has been discussed many times on DU and the prevailing opinion seems to be that the man makes his choice when he unzips his zipper, and therefore is responsible for any result. Yet the woman should not be held to a similar standard.

The reason for the double standard is explained as simple biology. That's just the way the bodies are made so live with it.

Always an interesting discussion.

[noiretextatique]

282. biology IS the double standard

that influence cultural attitudes about women. if men could get pregnant...

[LWolf]

304. Men can't get pregnant.

They also can't, currently, say things like:

"I don't think either one of us is ready to be a parent. It would be better to finish school, start a career, and get established before we become parents. I want to 1. terminate the pregnancy or 2. give the child up for adoption." If the woman doesn't agree with him, he doesn't have a "choice." It's one thing to walk away from children you "chose" to have. It's another thing to be denied that reproductive "choice." Again, prevention is the obvious answer here. But who, male or female, is most likely to end up with an unwanted pregnancy? Established adults, or teens/young men and women who don't think it will happen to them; boys who think with the wrong head and girls who think babies will fill the holes in their lives, until they get the reality?

At the least, sex education should explicitly point this out to young men; that once conception occurs, their choices are over and they should be exercising choice when they reach for their zipper.

[noiretextatique]

309. sure he can say that...and anything else

but preganancy doesn't give him any rights of "ownership" to the woman's choice, since her body is the item in question. and of course it is the woman who most often has to deal with an unwanted pregnancy...men can and do exercise the choice to walk away, AND not pay child support. and since that happens all the time, it's clearly a choice more than a few men make, contrary to popular opinion here. that, who don't support their children, unwanted or planned, is an epidemic that should be discussed more often in these debates.

[LWolf]

310. You are right;

he should have no right of "ownership" over the woman's choice about her body. Perhaps what decisions are made about a child resulting from a woman's choice about her body should be subject to both involved.

I am more than aware of men who don't support their children; I only met my father a few times, and he never paid my mother child support. The father of my 2 sons never paid child support. And my son, who wanted the child resulting from his own poor "choice" to be given up for adoption and was turned down, has paid child support since the boy was born, and supported the woman throughout the pregnancy and after the birth, until she moved in with the father of her next child, who was not the father of the child after that. All in 36 months. They are all paying her child support. And she is still living in single rooms in friend's apartments, partying her life away. And we're holding our breaths for the next "birth" announcement.

Here's an honest question:

Pregnancy occurs in the woman's body. Decisions about the pregnancy are entirely hers. But does control of her "body" automatically mean control of the child after birth, when she chooses to give birth? If she chooses to give birth and keep the child, is that choice about her body, or her social/emotional/cultural needs?

I don't have an answer. I could argue from both sides; easily, because I've lived both sides. I do think it's ok to let the wholeiceberg see the light of day. Pregnancy and the choices involved don't happen in a vacuum; the choices affect more than one person, often for a lifetime. I think all of the consequences of our choices matter, and should be part of the conversation.

[Pithlet]

290. No.

It isn't that women shouldn't be held to a similar standard. It is that by holding them to that standard, it is forcing them physically and taking away the choice of what happens to their own bodies away from them. Men are NEVER to be held to that standard, are they? Because they can't get pregnant. It isn't a double standard. It is the way it is.

[LWolf]

249. I agree with this, in a limited way.

The limits are because, in the end, the man can't make decisions that involve the woman's body. I have, unfortunately, seen some unhappy situations where the man's choice was not given a place at the table.

[Telly Savalas]

194. I'm pro-life.

I oppose the death penalty, think military action is only warranted by extraordinary circumstances like the prevention of genocide, and believe that everybody should have access to healthcare regardless of how rich they are. By any sane definition of the term, this would make me "pro-life". While I'm not fond of the idea of abortion, it's not my place to deny a woman her reproductive rights, especially since I'm personally not equipped with a uterus. As many have said before, "legal and rare" should be the goal.

In contrast, most anti-choicers are being dishonest when they lay claim to the term "pro-life". As far as they are concerned, life begins at conception, then ends at birth, at which point they quick showing any concern for a person's well-being. It's time we on the Left wrestle this term from them. If the Right are going to label themselves as being supportive of human life, they better damn well start advocating policies to back it up.

[nascarblue]

197. I guess I should stop eating eggs then?

Just kidding. Look, both sides has some validity, but these restrictions mentioned won't work because of what the opposition is trying to really do...and that's ban it all together. It's similar to their social security tactic...sell you that it's just a portion of your check, sell you that it's money in your hand...etc. I mean theyve already shown their hand by passing that law allowing doctors to turn away abortions by not covering it on insurance.

Plus, there is so many other things going on right now. We've dropped 500,000 times more radioactive nuclear waste on Iraq than was dropped on Nagasaki. If that doesn't stop, none of us will have to worry about having kids.

[DemBones DemBones]

241. I'm pro-life but I don't want to make abortion illegal.

I prefer for people's hearts and minds to change so that their behaviors change and abortion can become rare, while remaining safe and legal.

I, too, advocate for improved sex education, better access to contraceptives, real economic rights for women, government funding of universal health care and programs to help women and children with financial needs.

I think more restrictions on abortion could make people change their behavior and be more dedicated to contraception; they could be motivated to be more careful if they knew abortion would be more difficult to obtain. I doubt this would work for everyone, though. One size does NOT fit all, whether it's ideas or pantyhose.

I would ban all third-trimester abortions. Women experiencing medical difficulties in late pregnancy can be delivered early by Cesarean section. Some babies will still die that way but they'll have a chance they don't have when mom chooses a saline abortion or the infamous "partial-birth" abortion in which their brains are suctioned out of their skulls so that mom can have an easier delivery. I think women have a right to excellent medical care during pregnancy and I accept the fact that treatment of the mother sometimes involves risk for the child. But unborn children also have the right not to be killed in a gruesome and painful manner.

[Cheswick2.0]

279. Women who can deliver a live birth by cesarean

and the fetus is consistant with life , do so now.

Woman who have late term abortions do so because it is the best option for them. The fetus is dead or will die at birth, or has no brain or any one of many reasons there is no hope to bring that child home from the hospital.
To force a woman who can not expect to end up with a living child is cruel and stupid since the cesarean is more dangerous to her health.

Putting more restrictions on women? Are you kidding me? That is just a way of forcing women to jump through hoops to do what should be her right to do, control her own body. There are already enough restrictions.

You know, it is possible to be a woman and be anti woman. Certain churches seem to be champions at producing that phenomenon.

[noiretextatique]

281. how can you be careful when no birth control is 100% effective?

so, should we punish women who use birth control consistently and still get preganant just because some PEOPLE are irresponsible?
banning all third trimester abortions is putting women's lives at risk...that just doesn't make any sense. as it stand now, third trimester abortions are rare and sufficiently regulated.

[DemBones DemBones]

303. In the Depression, couples practiced contraception very effectively

because the alternatives were a child they couldn't afford or a dangerous, illegal abortion. They practiced effective contraception with only the barrier methods (condoms, diaphragms) available, with the contraceptive pill and the IUD years in the future. They knew that "just one time" without contraceptives was a huge risk.

Even then, and in the decades after, there were unplanned pregnancies. But in a period when contraception was not publicly discussed and both information and the contraceptives themselves could be difficult to get (and illegal in some states), people very often managed to get what they needed. When an unplanned pregnancy occurred, couples adapted to the reality of having a child they hadn't planned on.

It's tragic that we've gone from accepting the unplanned child into our lives to aborting the unplanned child. If women were only aborting when their own lives were in danger, when the pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest, or when the baby is seriously deformed, abortion would be rare today.

[Nightwing]

248. I am pro life

But it is not for me nor anyone else to tell others how to live their lives. As far as the government making laws to stop abortion, I feel that is a move of futility. The government cannot and must not ever legislate morality.

The Almighty saw fit to give mankind the right to free will; So who are these people that believe they should take free will away? Hypocrites, that's who!!

[brainshrub]

258. I'm pro-life, not pro-birth.

There's a difference. I am also against the death penalty and militarism.

Abortion may be wrong, but to make it illegal would make the problem worse by forcing the entire practice underground. Another consequence of prohibiting abortions is that it would create a legal framework that would make a womans body the property of the state.

The whole issue of abortion is a moral conundrum for me; And precisely for this reason I have to stay on the "Pro-choice" side of the fence.

[proudbluestater]

268. I think the debate should be changed to different terms

It's not whether you are for or against, but WHO DECIDES.

I am a grown woman. I will decide. Not some white-haired 60 year old stranger sitting in Washington. I've been making my own decisions for my entire life. I do not need the government's assistance when it comes to my body.

[Name removed]

288. Deleted message

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

[noiretextatique]

298. those words excluded women when they were written eom

[stuartmill]

301. those words excluded women when they were written eom

Thank God those "excluded women" had children,or we may not be here to discuss it.

[noiretextatique]

306. fear of being aborted?

it seems to be a common theme among pro-contollers.

[Sparkly]

302. Also excluded fetuses

and fertilized embryos.