Abortion: I feel terrible for women who have to have them....

[DoNotRefill]

Today, I went to my wife's OB/GYN for the first ultrasound for my wife's pregnancy. The Z/E/F was tiny, but we could clearly see it's heart beating, along with the egg-sac. This visit was a time of some trepidation for us (we've got birth-defect indicators in the bloodline) but we were trying to get pregnant, so it was largely a very joyful visit.

The emotions my wife and I went through were terrifically strong. We wouldn't abort this baby-to-be unless there was something terribly wrong. On the way home, I got to thinking under what circumstances my wife would abort the Z/E/F, and how doing so would emotionally devastate her (on a sidenote, it would devastate me, too, but that's pretty irrelevant to the topic). This got me thinking about people who end up having abortions, and how their reactions and feelings are undoubtedly as strong as ours were, but how it could be a response of terror instead of joy as it was in our case. To me, that's a pretty powerful thought, the idea of somebody being as terrified as we were happy at such a visit. It was also scary to think that there are people out there who would restrict access to abortion, causing an already bad situation to become even more tragic.

I've always been pro-choice. I still am, 100%. But I wish (in my dream-world) that there wasn't so much of a demand for abortion services, because every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy. The option needs to be there and be legal, I just wish humanity didn't need to use it so much.

Flame away.

[REP]

1. Nobody "Wants" An Abortion

Women who choose to terminate unwanted pregnancies do not have the same expectations and hopes invested in a pregnancy that a woman with a wanted pregnancy does. Most women who have abortions of choice do not regret their decision (Koop Report, Guttmacher Institute, etc). Women who terminate wanterd pregnancies due to their health or the health of their fetuses aren't having abortions of choice, and their experiences are different.

I think everyone wishes women only got pregnant when they wanted to be pregnant. Until birth control is safe and 100% effective, rape doesn't exist, no pregnancy is ever a threat to a woman's health or life, birth defects are eliminated and poverty is unheard of, abortion will be a needed health care service.

[DoNotRefill]

5. I'm NOT saying it will not be needed....

and I know that women who have unexpected pregnancies don't have the same expectations as my wife and I do. Even with different expectations, I'd imagine that finding out that you've got an unwanted pregnancy would still be traumatic, even moreso if abortion was illegal. I'm sure that most women that choose to have an abortion don't regret their decision since the other option at that point was to carry the Z/E/F to term, but at the same time I'm pretty sure that those same women wish that they hadn't gotten pregnant in the first place.

What can we do (besides the obvious, like donate to PP) to help cut down on unexpected and unwanted pregnancies? There's got to be SOMETHING....

[iverglas]

16. don't fall over

I appreciate your insight.

"I'm sure that most women that choose to have an abortion don't regret their decision since the other option at that point was to carry the Z/E/F to term, but at the same time I'm pretty sure that those same women wish that they hadn't gotten pregnant in the first place."

Yuppers, and that's pretty much exactly it. Unwanted pregnancy can indeed be traumatic. And it really is the pregnancy, and not whatever decision is made about it, that is each woman's problem. The "choice" that women with unwanted pregnancies would *like* to make is "not be pregnant". Dealing with an unwanted pregnancy involves a choice that most women would rather choose not to make.

And certainly I agree with you that women who want to be able to avoid pregnancy should be offered every assistance to do that.

Unwanted pregnancy, however, is pretty much a fact of life for women. With estimates that 43% of USAmerican women will have at least one abortion in their lifetime ... and adding in all the women who have unwanted pregnancies that they do not terminate ... and considering that huge numbers of women in the world have very little access to pregnancy-prevention information and resources ... it's something that's going to happen to an awful lot of us, even the informed and careful ones.

It has always seemed to me that *this* should be a focus of more attention. First, to try to overcome some of that "it can't happen to me" syndrome that young people especially are so vulnerable to: it can and even probably will, and it is seldom easy to deal with -- and knowing this might be an incentive for individuals to put more effort into preventing it. And second, to reduce the trauma (and shame, and isolation, and fear) that women suffer when it does happen. Unwanted pregnancy is, in fact, a fact of life for women, and it's unlikely to stop being one in the near future, despite our best efforts, even if we made them.

How much better to help girls and women be prepared to deal with unwanted pregnancy when it happens, as there are excellent odds that it will, rather than to wait until it happens and leave them to deal with it as some sort of private catastrophe of their own.

That's why I have a bit of a problem with "sex ed" that focuses solely on pregnancy-prevention (whether through delaying sexual activity or through practising contraception). It both creates a false sense of invulnerability (both "abstinence" and birth control do and foreseeably will fail) and sets women up for trauma: if they practice pregnancy-prevention, and it fails, they are unprepared to deal with the resulting pregnancy; if they don't, and they get pregnant, they're left with shame and blame, from both themselves and others.

Unwanted pregnancy is a social and health problem for girls and women. It should be dealt with as such, just like any other social/health problem.

We need to address the problem openly and honestly (as we do with the flu when flu season rolls around), take effective collective action to assist individuals to take as much preventive action as possible (in the same way as we offer flu vaccine to prevent illness and also encourage practices that don't spread contagion), accept that nothing that we collectively, or individuals privately, can do will eliminate the problem (people will get the flu despite our and their best efforts), and treat "failures" of our and individuals' efforts as normal and as deserving of effective and appropriate assistance so that the affected individuals can deal with them as they determine is in their own best interests, as we do in respect of any other common social or health problem that individuals encounter.

.

[DoNotRefill]

29. Holy shit....

and entire post by Iverglas that I agree with 100%, and can find NO fault with at all. Whodathunkit???? :evilgrin:

[OKNancy]

92. Tell you what

Let's ask your wife when she is say...45 years old and has grown children, maybe a bad back. Then see if you might think abortion is a blessing. I bet she would think so.

[DoNotRefill]

95. Ouch....

sounds like there are some issues there....

[Woodstock]

113. What about REP's reasons? You bypassed them

You seem to be focusing on "unwanted" and "unexpected" - isn't that a bit simplistic? This is a multi-faceted issue, and to reduce it to those terms is what the right wing would like. You said your wife felt joy - you say another women might feel terror. Please continue on that topic, instead of going back to the "unwanted" and "unexpected" theme. Why might the other woman feel terror? Aren't there a lot of other issues that come into play? Some involving financial hardship due to social inequities, the inability to provide for existing children or possibly lose one's job during a pregnancy, mental health, physical health, rape, incest, serious birth defects, a decision of what is best for the fetus ... - there are many reasons why a woman might consider abortion as the best option for herself and her family. At this point, with the recent bill that our fearless leader Tom Daschle voted for, doctors are faced with jailtime for performing abortions across trimesters and procedures, because the procedure was not named with a real name, and it was not clearly defined - whether doctors are jailed and face financial ruin for trying to help a woman is all in John Ashcroft's hands, if this law stands. And women are faced with financial ruin - if they manage to stay alive and well, since their doctors will likely be too afraid to help them. I think yours and all the other postings by men on DU agonizing about abortion, without talking about all of these other layers of the issue, is quite self-indulgent. A lot of us had to come on board and bring up these issues that weren't addressed. This is an extremely crucial time - if we don't succeed in maintaining our reproductive rights, MANY WOMEN WILL DIE.

[Paladin]

125. Well Said, Woodstock

n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. No flame here

Your decisions are based on your personal situation. That's what pro-choice is really all about.

When I was in high school, my best friend got an abortion. She made the choice (and here boyfriend was with her and shared in the decision). Not to get into all of it, but they made the decision they thought was best. Some might ask what 17 year old has the maturity to make such a decision. But even 25 years later, I know they had the maturity and foresight to make the best decision for them. Maybe they were an exception to the norm in that way, but such as it is, they accept and live with it and I support them for it.

And congratulations to you and your wife. Parenting is the hardest job you'll ever have. It's a lifelong commitment, but well worth it. Best wishes and good luck!!!

[DoNotRefill]

9. Thanks!

:hi:

[Punkingal]

3. The fact that it can be so traumatic....

maks the politicization of it all the more reprehensible. Imagine how someone feels when it is the ONLY thing they could do, and they are made to feel like a criminal, or worse. (I guess this is a mini-rant.)

[DoNotRefill]

6. I agree...

politicization of this issue sucks.

[funkyflathead]

4. No flames here either

Kill it or keep it- your choice.

[jbm]

7. No flame...

just wanted to congratulate you!:toast:

[DoNotRefill]

8. thanks!

I'll pass that on to Mrs. DoNotRefill! :hi:

[wtmusic]

10. Totally agree

I've been there too. You can't completely understand unless you have.

[pansypoo53219]

11. unfortunately in Bush's B/W world

women are only fetus incubators.

[otohara]

12. Don't Feel Terrible

an unwanted pregnancy doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

[Kanary]

13. terrible conflicts.... also for those of us who are pro-choice

As I'm sure many women have, I've thought of myself in that position, and what I would do. I know it would be an extremely difficult decision.

What I've also thought about it how horrible it would be to have made that tough decision, then pushing yourself to get to the clinic, steeling yourself for what you're going to go through, and to be met at such an emotional time with one of those crowds of screaming, pushing and shoving anti-abortion hate groups that seem to love to crowd around clinics. I really don't know how women make it through something like that. Those mobs deserve more than I can even come up with, to put a human being through that kind of hell.

Kanary

[shimmergal]

99. Even more terrible

was the situation before Roe v Wade. Imagine seeing abortion as the only way out of an intolerable situation, then having to go to an underground "provider". Knowing that if anything went wrong, you'd probably end up an anonymous body, dumped in the river. And your children would have no idea why you disappeared. I came vry close to being in this situation in the late 60s.

Keeping abortion safe and legal is the only way to avoid such tragedies.

[Kanary]

104. Are you replying to me?

At the risk of being even more misunderstood, I'm going to ask you why you seem to think that I'm saying something against Roe v Wade? I'm thinking you didn't read what I actually said.

I simply said that being confronted with screaming, hateful crowds when you are seeking a medical treatment which should be your own decision and your own business, is traumatic.

I've never in my life been confused with an anti-abortion person, so this would be humorous if it wasn't so sad that there is so much confrontation on this board directed at people with essentially the same beliefs and commitments.

I don't know whether you actually read what I said, or whether you posted your reply in the wrong place, but I can guarantee you that being confronted in this way doesn't do me a whole lot of good. I have a hard enough time dealing with so many people in this world who *are* anti-abortion, and think they should make decisions for everyone else.

I'm on your side. I hope you're on my side, too.

Kanary

[cally]

14. First, Congrats

I know what it's like to have a wanted child. The joy is profound and life altering.

I have also struggled with this but to me it comes down to when the thinking, soul, begins. I believe that every woman, with her advisers, deserves the chance to determine this. I know that abortion has been practiced for all of humanity. So, should our government decide who gives birth?

[DoNotRefill]

25. Not only no, but...

HELL NO.

"So, should our government decide who gives birth?"

It's never been any of their damned business.

[George_Bonanza]

15. The term "pro-abortion" is crap, just saying

It's a direct attempt to mislead pro-choicers as those who like abortions or want them to happen as much as possible. That is simply not true. Not many people view abortion as a good thing. Nobody views unwanted pregnancies as a good thing either. I often hear the argument that because a woman gets depressed after abortion, it means its wrong. Well guess what? Tragedies like unwanted abortions will do that to you! If that woman gave it up for adoption, she'd spend the rest of her life haunted by the little time she had with her child. If she raised it, she'd have her moments of despair and resentment. Unwanted pregnancies spawn all sorts of negativity. There's no way out of it.

[RandomUser]

17. "pro-choice" is not "pro-abortion"

I agree, "pro-abortion" is a misleading label used by the right wing. The people who are pro-choice are exactly that -- pro-choice -- whether that choice ends up being to continue or abort the pregnancy. Hardly anyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. No sane human being can not feel sorrow at the thought of an abortion. Abortion is a terrible thing, but we should safeguard a woman's choice nonetheless. Choices are difficult things in life.

[outinforce]

24. Help Me To Understand

"Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion"

"Hardly anyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion."

Help me to understand something here.

In discussions I sometimes have with people who describe themselves as "pro-choice", I often ask questions or point out things that are contrary to the notions they have.

Frequently, a pro-choice person, sensing that I am one of those sane people who feels sorrow as the thought of an abortion, will ask me whether I "support" abortion or whether I am "in favor of" abortion or not.

I am never quite sure how to answer this question.

I take from your post that although you describe yourself as pro-choice, you are also anti-abortion. By that I mean that you think that abortion is a terrible thing and that we should all do what we can to ensure that abortions are safe, legal, and most of all rare.

Is there anything wrong with being anti-abortion?

[hippiechick]

30. The Key Word is CHOICE

I am Pro-Choice because I don't feel that a decision of that magnitude is anyone's business but the woman and her health care provider.

I was an unwed college student 12 years ago who found herself pregnant from a one-night stand. I had an appointment for an abortion but chickened out (as if raising a child on my own was going to be easier ??).

I would NEVER, EVER assume that I am capable of deciding for another person what their best course of action is, nor would I want some religious zealot or politician to decide for me ... and for that reason am thankful that I had the CHOICE to make up my own mind.

People who are staunchly 'anti-abortion' from the religious sense seem to not realize that women do not have abortions because they are fun, or that it is NOT their choice to cast judgement on another human being's circumstances or actions.

That, to me is the difference between Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice.


:hippie:


edit: can't spell

[outinforce]

32. So,,,,

Are You Pro-abortion or anti-abortion?

[hippiechick]

34. I am pro CHOICE

... it is up to any and every woman to make her own decision.

I chose not to abort, but in hindsight, wish I would have gone through with it because both] of our lives have been hell.

I had a choice.
I made a bad choice.
I have owned up to the consequences of that choice every day for the last 12 years.
But I thank Goddess that the choice was mine to make.

Abortion should remain legal and the current 'notification statutes' and 'waiting periods' should be repealed, IMO.


:hippie:

[outinforce]

39. OK...One More Time

I am totally pro-choice when it comes to the consumption of tobacco products. Adults should be able to choose whether to smoke or chew or not (as long, of course, as no other human lives are affected or damaged in any way).

But I am anti-smoking.

I think smoking is a vile and disgusting habit, and I do all I can to see that the number of smokers descreases.

That, to me, means that someone can be pro-choice but anti one of those choices.

So, are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion? And, if it is difficult to say that you are anti-abortion, why is that?

[hippiechick]

62. I have stated my position.

I'm not going to be drawn into a pissing contest with you.

Have a nice holiday.


:hippie:

[maha]

100. It's a bad question.

Framing the abortion issue in absolute terms -- are you fer 'em or agin' 'em -- distorts the reality of abortion. Demanding a yes or not answer to a multifaceted issue forces people into lies.

I am neither for nor against. I may disagree with some decisions to abortion, especially in the case of a healthy pregnancy. I also may disagree with some decisions not to abort. But the rightness or wrongness of the decision rests with the woman, her life, her associations and responsibilities, her health (physical and mental), the condition of the z/e/f, the circumstances of the conception, etc. etc. etc.

[Kanary]

98. I appreciate your honesty!

Life is incredibly complex, and you have spoken to that eloquently. I have admiration for your words, and your awareness.

This is what is soooo wrong about people making decisions for others.

Thank you for making that very clear!

Kanary

[iverglas]

33. logic, logic

"I take from your post that although you describe yourself as pro-choice, you are also anti-abortion. By that I mean that you think that abortion is a terrible thing and that we should all do what we can to ensure that abortions are safe, legal, and most of all rare."

I am anti-religion. I think that religion is a terrible thing.

But no, you may not state that I am anti-religion and "mean by that" that I think that we should all do what we can to ensure that religion is safe, legal and most of all rare.

What you may state is that I believe that other people's religion, or lack thereof, is none of my business.

Of course, "anti-religion" doesn't actually MEAN either of those things. It means opposed to religion. Just as "anti-abortion" means opposed to abortion. Not "I think that I should do something about other people's religion/abortion decisions/actions".

YOU may mean whatever you like when you say "anti-abortion", or "anti-religion", or anything else at all. You'd do well to make it clear, if YOU mean things like you've said here, of course, since you would be using words to "mean" things that they do not mean at all and that no one else could possibly be expected to understand you as meaning.

And you may certainly not "take" anyone to mean something that the words s/he uses do not mean, even if s/he might agree with what you purport to take his/her words to mean.


"Is there anything wrong with being anti-abortion?"

No more than there is anything wrong with being anti-religion. A matter of personal preference, ain't it?

.

[Book Lover]

61. Well, you *can* be anti-abortion and pro-choice

The reasoning going something like, "I would never intentionally abort a fetus inside me, but I understand how other women can and do make that choice for themselves."

The only thing "wrong" with being anti-abortion that I can see is that if you take your position to mean that on-demand abortions must never happen, the end result is a kind of medical police state for fertile women.

As you might have guessed, I am pro-choice. In a sense, it logically follows that I am also pro-abortion: if I carried a fetus with no brain above the brain stem, guarenteed to have only a few short days of suffering life, I would be pro whatever medical procedure is to be done to end the suffering for everyone concerned.

[MojoKrunch]

84. Abortion is a medical procedure.

I don't give a flying flip about medical procedures.
I'm not "anti-bone marrow transplant".
I'm not "pro quadruple bipass".
Such a thing is ridiculous.

Reproductive choice is a Constitutional right.
Until either Congress gets the balls to change that fact or the ReichWingers succeed in packing the SCOTUS to overturn Roe.

I support the individuals right to reproductive freedom.
Mine.
Yours.
Hers.
His.
You wanna have 27 kids.
Go to town.
You wanna abort 15 time.
Step right this way.

I don't want the FREAKING GOVERNMENT telling me what I can or cannot do with *MY* reproductive organs or *YOUR* reproductive organs.

The only responsibility the Government has in this case is that of Public Health issues... what happens to those 27 children and can you raise them properly?
Are you being provided with adequately safe medical facilities and trained personnel so that on your 15th abortion you won't immediately bleed to death.
Y'know?
Stuff like that.

Mojo

[Woodstock]

114. Doctors no longer have the ability to save womens' health and lives

Doctors are now faced with a ban on an unnamed procedure that has not been clearly defined - that reaches across procedures and trimesters - & faced with jailtime if they use it when Ashcroft doesn't want them to (& the women are faced with financial ruin, if they manage to stay alive.)

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Speeches/womens-right-to-choose1.htm

Dear Senator Feinstein: I write to provide examples of the need for a ``medical exemption'' to the proposed restriction of use of the so-called ``partial birth abortion'' technique which is now before the Senate. The medical term for the technique is ``intact D&E''. I am Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology at San Francisco General Hospital, SFGH, where my department provides about 2,000 abortions yearly to poor women from throughout Northern California. Patients who are in the second trimester and who have special medical problems are referred to SFGH for treatment because our staff has special competence in second trimester abortion and because we can provide specialized care for women who are more likely to have a complicated pregnancy termination. Although I have not reviewed medical records in order to count the number of times we have employed intact D&E, I will provide examples of cases in which the technique was critical to safe conduct of our surgery:

A 25 year old with two previous vaginal deliveries and bleeding placenta previa and a clotting disorder at 20 weeks was referred for termination of pregnancy. After checking her coagulation parameters and making blood available for transfusion, we dilated the cervix overnight with Laminaria and planned uterine evacuation when adequate dilation was achieved or bleeding became too heavy to replace. Within 12 hours cervical dilation was 3 cm and heavy bleeding had begun. We removed the placenta quickly and used the ``intact D&E'' approach to complete the abortion and accomplish quick control of blood loss. The patient required a transfusion of two units of whole blood and was discharged the next day in good health.

A 38 year old with three previous caesarean deliveries and evidence of placenta accreta was referred for pregnancy termination at 22 weeks because her risk of massive hemorrhage and hysterectomy at the time of delivery was correctly estimated at about 75 percent. After SFGH sonographic studies confirmed placenta previa and likely accreta we undertook cervical dilation with laminaria and made blood available in case transfusion was required. To reduce the 75 percent probability of emergency hysterectomy in the situation of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC is quite likely with accreta) we decided to empty the uterus as quickly as possible with the intact D&E procedure and treat hemorrhage, if it occurred, with uterine artery embolization before our patient lost too much blood and hysterectomy was our only option. This approach succeeded and she was discharged in good health two days later.

These two patients provide examples from my memory of situations in which the ``intact D&E'' technique was critical to providing optimal care. I am certain that a review of our hospital records would identify cases of sever pre-eclampsia, for example, in which ``intact D&E'' was the safest technique of pregnancy termination, I hope the law will not deny our patients the best treatment we can provide them under life-threatening circumstances...

[MojoKrunch]

135. Anyone know how the challenges are going?

I'm kinda hoping the decision to render that "PBA" ban Unconstitutional will come up sometime next year.
That way all the Anti-choicers can whine about it.

Mojo

[Hep]

18. They don't need your pity.

They just need your support.

[veganwitch]

35. exactly...

i took a buddhism class in college and they talked about the differences between sympathy and empathy.

sympathy (ergo pity) comes from an "im here, you are there and i am sorry for that" mindset.

where as

empathy comes from a "we are in the same place" mindset and for that you feel the same thing the person is feeling.

that said, i dont think donotrefill was necessarily expressing pity. but the abortion experience is something that you really dont know how you are going to feel, what you are going to do etc. until that route is in front of you.

[Hep]

46. My anecdote

It was weird for my friend. She felt guilty not for having the abortion, but for not feeling more guilty about it. Does that make sense?

[bicentennial_baby]

49. Wow that was me...

"She felt guilty not for having the abortion, but for not feeling more guilty about it"


Exactly...

[veganwitch]

51. there are women who really are relieved

i wasnt one of them only because i felt really pressured to have one.

im not sorry for what i did. i am sorry that i didnt tell my parents to shove it up their ass.

[MojoKrunch]

19. And that is the key... "every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy".

I've known several women for whom the abortion process was a *relief* because they were unwanted.

On the way home, I got to thinking under what circumstances my wife would abort the Z/E/F, and how doing so would emotionally devastate her...
It was also scary to think that there are people out there who would restrict access to abortion, causing an already bad situation to become even more tragic.
And this is the true crime against women that fascist laws like the recent Federal "PBA" ban cause.
Making *necerssary* hard decisions dangerous for the women involved.
So women like your wife, who might have to make the heart-breaking decision to abort a wanted pregnancy has to face greater risk because the old white guys on Capital Hill are pandering to voters.

The option needs to be there and be legal, I just wish humanity didn't need to use it so much.
We have drivers ed to teach kids to drive safely, don't we?
Effective sex ed is the only feasible answer and while a 100% effective, side-effect-free form of BC isn't currently available, I'm of the opinion that making *all* BC totally and completely free(and while we're at it, STD testing, too) will do quite a bit in cutting down the number of abortions.

But I must point out that abortion/infanticide has been with humanity from since before there was a humanity.
Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species
by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is an excellent look at dispelling some of those quaint notions we have about motherhood.

I'm happy for you and your wife and I hope things go well.

Flame away.
Nah... nothing to flame about.
I'm right there with ya.

:)
Mojo

[Ilsa]

20. Don't the anti-choice people know it's what I LIVE FOR?

You know, getting pregnant, morning sickness, getting needles for blood tests, have an ultrasound probe in my vagina to check everything out, possibly an long, large bore needle in the abdomen for amniocentesis, everyone trying to maintain dignity when it's my legs spread.

And then the big treat: more needles, pain, bleeding, vigilance for infection or rare complications.

Yep, anti-choice people are out to ruin my quarterly abortion parties. (A figment of my imagination.)

Sarcasm off. (I'm not trying to flame you, but compliment you on your sensitivity of the emotions and physical reactions involved in abortion. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.)

Yeah, I wish women didn't have to go through them also. As a nurse, I recommend having as few invasive procedures as possible.

And btw, I hope all of your wife's testing goes great. It's a scary but wonderful time in your lives. Try not to let the scary stuff take more of your thoughts than the happy stuff.

[Jane Roe]

21. The things you saw at the doctor . . .

is indeed relevant information for any woman considering her abortion choice. Hopefully most women have this information at the time they decide. Responsible choices can only be made in light of the relevant information.

On the other hand, a choice made through refusing to acknowledge or consider relevant information is an irresponsible choice and can come back to haunt one.

All of this applies especially to tough choices like a woman's decision about whether to continue her Z/E/F.

[iverglas]

22. "responsible"

To whom is the duty that you suggest exists owed?

I thought you didn't think this was an appropriate forum for the discussion of "abortion restrictions", Mr. Roe. If you're suggesting that a duty is owed to someone else by a pregnant woman, it seems like you're suggesting that some restriction is needed.

If you're not, then you might want to avoid loaded and inappropriate words like "responsible" and "irresponsible".

The "relevant information", for a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be, is that she is pregnant. Most women don't need ultrasounds to figure that out.

.

[Jane Roe]

23. Z/E/F dis/continuation choices should be made responsibly.

I stand by this belief.

[iverglas]

27. "responsibly"

I.e. "in a responsible manner" -- in a manner that is "responsible" to whom? for what?

Standing by any belief you like is one thing. Stating that you stand by it, and then refusing to state what it is in an intelligible manner, is quite a different matter.

.

[Jane Roe]

37. Responsible

in this case means that all relevant facts are considered by the pregnant woman before a dis/continuation decision is made.

Far be it from me to say what specific conclusion each individual should come to in each case -- that is not for me to decide.

Responsibility to whom? to the fetus, to society and especially to anybody who believes that abortion should be rare.

[iverglas]

44. more private thesauruses

"Responsible
in this case means that all relevant facts are considered by
the pregnant woman before a dis/continuation decision is made."

I gotta wonder what dictionary you're using.

I use the Oxford Concise. Here's what it says:

responsible
1. liable to be called to account (to a person or for a thing)
2. morally accountable for one's actions, capable of rational conduct
3. of good credit, position or repute; respectable; evidently trustworthy
4. being the primary cause
5. (of a ruler or government) not autocratic
6. involving responsiiblity ("a responsible job")

3, 5 and 6 are obviously irrelevant.

2 is interesting: is a pregnant woman "responsible" in the sense of being capable of rational conduct? Surely no more or less than anyone else. Is she morally accountable for her actions? Certainly to the same extent that we all are. Not relevant, again.

4 is obvious; yup, a pregnant woman is "responsible" for her decision -- is the primary cause of it. Was this what you meant? Why state the obvious, if so?

And that leaves us with 1: liable to be called to account TO ___ or FOR ___. What I've been asking about.


Responsibility to whom? to the fetus, to society and
especially to anybody who believes that abortion should be rare.

Whew.

Responsibility to the fetus? Really? Who has assigned that responsibility? Who has imposed a duty on a pregnant woman that results in it being possible to require her to account for her fulfilment or non-fulfilment of it? You? How is it possible to have a responsibility to something not capable of having the rights that necessarily accompany obligations? Do you regard yourself as responsible to the grass in your garden?

Responsibility to society? Same questions, of course. What is the nature of the responsibility that a pregnant woman has to society in respect of whether or not to terminate her pregnancy? Where did it come from? When did she agree to assume it? What entitlement does society have to impose it on her if she does not agree to assume it?

Responsibility to anybody who believes that abortion should be rare??? Y'know, sometimes you appear to be capable of making sense. This isn't one of those times.

I'll bet that if I tell you that I believe that people who oppose abortion should shut up, you will agree that you now have a responsibility to me to be quiet.

.

[Jane Roe]

53. Responsibility to whom?

An analogy:

You have a responsibility not to beat your dog. To whom is this responsibility owed?

To the dog, to society and especially those who are against dog beatings.


Of course abortion is not the same thing as beating a dog and of course the abortion laws are and should be different than the dog beating laws. Still, as far as *to whom* some degree of responsible choice-making is owed, the answer is the same in both areas, and I believe the law has a valid role to play in both areas.

[iverglas]

54. sez who?

"You have a responsibility not to beat your dog."

Really? When did I acquire that responsibility?

Oh. Maybe when a law was passed making it illegal for me to beat my dog. Yup, that would be when. That makes me responsible to society, indeed. Accountable to society for violating the duty it has imposed on me not to beat my dog. Okey dokey.

Prior to that law being passed, did I have that responsibility? Nope.

Maybe I had a "moral" responsibility. Beating a dog is, by some moral codes, "bad". I'd be "morally" accountable for that act. Not to anybody, of course. Just one of those non-meaningful statements, that one.

Maybe even some kind of nebulous "responsibility" for not doing things that aren't good for society. Not one that is imposed by law, but that exists by virtue of the individual-society relationship. I'm fairly cool with that, too. Responsibility to society not to do things that are bad for society. Of course, I haven't a clue what that would have to do with women's choices about the outcomes of their pregnancies.

Responsible to the dog? Well, no. Not unless I've expressly assumed that responsibility. And since dogs aren't much able to enter into bargains in which each side has rights and responsibilities, I don't see how I could have done that. I could assume responsibility *for* a dog, but not *to* a dog. Really. The dog just doesn't have the wherewithal to hold me accountable for my acts. (And no, retaliating as a dog might do just isn't "holding accountable".)

But I'm just not getting this "and especially those who are against dog beatings". You say you're making an analogy, but all you're doing is repeating the same utterly meaningless things, only about something else.

Where on earth do you get the notion that I am responsible for things I do to people who dislike the things I do?? And why haven't you agreed that, since *I* dislike the expression of anti-choice opinion, *you* must now be quiet?

How is it that you can complain about anti-intellectualism one minute, and come up with these ridiculously anti-intellectual clangers the next? A fatal flaw in the programming, it seems.

"Still, as far as *to whom* some degree of responsible choice-making is owed, the answer is the same in both areas, and I believe the law has a valid role to play in both areas."

Yup, the answer is the same in both areas: IF there is a law imposing a duty, THEN there is a responsibility (to society) not to do things that violate the duty.

IF society can demonstrate that it has JUSTIFICATION for imposing that duty, THEN it may make such a law. Unless and until it makes such a law, and demonstrates such justification for it, there is no such duty and no responsibility.

And nobody's "<belief> that the law has a valid role to play" in any area at all is of any consequence, if there is no justification for the law playing that role.

Here's my analogy. I believe that people who advocate interfering with women's exercise of their right to choose the outcomes of their pregnancies should be quiet. I believe that the law has a valid role to play in that area. Applying your logic, my belief trumps your free speech rights.

Aren't you grateful that I don't apply your logic?

.

[Jane Roe]

56. So if I understand your post correctly . . .

You are saying that *if* some state passed a law requiring a requiring a woman to be presented with ultrasound images before discontinuing a pregnancy, then you would:

1. Probably disagree with the wisdom of the regulation, but

2. at least understand *to whom* the duty of responsible choice-making was owed (through my useful analogy to the dog beating regulations).

[veganwitch]

57. i believe some states already have the regulations...

or they are in the works.

and they are akin to making women watch abortion propaganda videos before they get the pregnancy test results from "pregnancy crisis centres."

its cruel. they are meant to stop abortions from a guilt or gross-out factor. so you visually tramatise someone one and then dont give them any really help in maintaining their pregnancy (attending bible study for diaper vouchers is bullshit) or make them feel horrible if they have an abortion.

or maybe give pro-fetus fucks a hard-on.

[Jane Roe]

60. yes

If ultrasound images are to be shown at all, they should be fair and balanced -- preferably of the woman's own fetus and preferably without narration.

[veganwitch]

63. so are we going to have a law saying...

you have to see the ultrasound? can women opt-out?

i think women can make that choice by themselves without having a law for it.

and those who want those regulations for ultrasound viewing are those pro-fetus fucks that i was talking about.

[Jane Roe]

65. Is there a moral responsibility to look?

Regardless of what the law says.

[veganwitch]

66. that would depend on the woman

therefore your question is a red herring.

i dont know your backround, but can only go on your screenname. ms. roe, to whom the roe v. wade decision is named, is now an out-spoken anti-abortion activist.

so cheers and have a good holiday.

[iverglas]

75. hint

Despite the name, the profile indicates that it's Mr. Roe.

Despite the flag, my understanding is that he's Mr. Roe, US citizen.

Apparently he's moving to Canada this week, so he'll miss that holiday. But he can console himself with the knowledge that he is now residing in the land of the truly free, where there are no laws that tell women what to do about their own pregnancies. ;)

.

[iverglas]

74. why do you ask?

"Is there a moral responsibility to look?
Regardless of what the law says."

What interest could anyone's opinion about that issue possibly hold for you?

If the entire population of a jurisdiction, except one pregnant woman, agreed that pregnant women had "a moral responsibility to look", what then?

If the entire population of a jurisdiction, except one anti-choicer, agreed that anti-choicers had a moral responsibility to shut up, what then?

You'll note how similar your question is to the question I repeatedly asked you over at Civil Rights: do you approve of anti-choice attempts to prevent Planned Parenthood from opening/operating facilities by pressuring contractors not to do business with PP? The one you repeatedly declined to answer. It could be rephrased as "do the anti-choice, in your opinion, have a moral responsibility to shut up?"

You repeatedly replied as if I were in favour of imposing a legal responsibility on the anti-choice to shut up, which of course I was not. And I have no difficulty at all in saying that I am not in favour of doing so. I don't support interfering with the exercise of fundamental rights like free speech unless very serious justification is demonstrated.

Perhaps you'll have no difficulty telling us that you are not in favour of imposing a legal responsibility on pregnant women to "look" (more accurately, a legal responsibility on providers of services to pregnant women to compel them to look, eh?). I'm sure you don't support interfering with the exercise of fundamental rights like life and liberty unless very serious justification is demonstrated, right?

The implication of my belief that the anti-choice have a moral responsibility to shut up, to my mind, is that I have a moral responsibility to advise them to shut up. It is *not* that I have any entitlement to compel them to shut up, even if I wished to do so, which I don't.

What is the implication of a belief that pregnant women have "a moral responsibility to look", to your mind? What would you advise people who hold that belief to do? What connection does this have, if any, to the issue of legislative restrictions on access to abortion?

.

[DoNotRefill]

85. Absolutely NOT.

There's NO moral responsibility to look. It's tough enough already, without forcing the woman to watch an ultrasound, unless your goal is to punish the woman, which is absolute bullshit.

Let me ask you this. Suppose you needed open heart surgery. Should you be forced to watch a video of the operation? Of course not, it'd in all likeliness traumatize you further. There IS such a thing as too much information.

I'm wondering if you used to pull the wings off of flies when you were younger....

[Jane Roe]

121. Disagree

When a woman chooses to discontinue a pregnancy, she needs to decide whether her Z/E/F is far enough developed to be considered as a human being or something akin to a human being. This is a difficult decision, but it is irresponsible for the pregnant woman to ignore this issue.

What the Z/E/F looks like is highly relevant to an informed decision about whether the pregnant woman ultimately decides that she thinks the Z/E/F deserves to be continued. Of course, the appearance of the Z/E/F is not the only factor in this difficult choice, but it should be a factor when choice is made responsibly by the pregnant woman.

As far as the heart operation analogy:

We do not show people videos of the surgery because it is not relevant to their decision generally. Nobody thinks that the walls of the heart are even possibly entitled to any dignity or consideration separate from the person who owns the heart, so there is no "choice" to be made on this issue. Of course, heart patients and other patients (eg, kidney donors) always do get scary and (and sometimes yucky) medical information prior to the surgery under informed consent law. However, the information is determined by what would be reasonably relevant to their medical choice.

Furthermore, there is nothing traumatizing about the ultrasound image of a Z/E/F in the uterus. I am *not* suggesting that abortion videos be shown to pregnant women. The Z/E/F images are not gruesome -- they are more akin to an xray images (which heart patients are shown)than to a surgery video.

Z/E/F ultrasound images are only disturbing to the extent that they suggest to the pregnant mother that this Z/E/F should be considered by her as a human being or something akin to a human being. If the pregnant woman strongly believes that a Z/E/F is never akin to a human being, then she will be unperturbed, categorically. If she believes that a Z/E/F is sometimes entitled to consideration depending upon its degree of development, then she should do the responsible thing and see what the degree of development actually is as part of her responsibility that comes with her right to choice. Prochoice, to me, shouldn't mean pro-easy-choice -- it should mean pro-responsible-choice.

As far as pulling the wings off flies:

No, I never did that that I can recall. There never seemed to be a good, relevant reason to do that.

[iverglas]

126. Mr. Roe says it is "relevant"

... therefore it is relevant.

Mr. Roe apparently does not think that the availability of childcare, the health risks of pregnancy and childbirth, the long-term and short-term effects of childbearing and childrearing on women's physical and mental and social and economic well-being, and I could go on, are "relevant" to women's decisions regarding their pregnancies -- or surely he'd be advocating that women be compelled to accept information about those, right??

So those of us who are not as deluded or wilfully blind to reality as Mr. Roe would care what his opinion about the matter is ... why?

"When a woman chooses to discontinue a pregnancy, she needs to decide whether her Z/E/F is far enough developed to be considered as a human being or something akin to a human being."

Uh oh. Somebody forgot to add "in my humble opinion".

Me, I'd be sure to do that when I suggested that someone else should do something utterly nonsensical in respect of something that was none of my business. Oops. I wouldn't do that.

"Prochoice, to me, shouldn't mean pro-easy-choice -- it should mean pro-responsible-choice."

Again with the private dictionaries.

"Young", to me, shouldn't mean "under 50", it should mean "between 45 and 90". But, like, who cares?

.

[Jane Roe]

128. Agree in part

You suggest that other information be included as part of informed consent. I wholeheartedly agree. I am for consideration of all the relevant factors, both pro and con.

In fact, yesterday I was thinking of starting a new thread suggesting that the government be mandated to provide a definitive statement on the availibility of adoption -- with provisions that the goverment pay heavy fines (to the mother) and provide foster care if the government decided to guarantee adoption and the adoption didn't occur somehow. I didn't post my proposal because I think it is a bit complicated and I was busy with my family for US Thanksgiving. Maybe I will post my suggestion in full if there is interest. Could be a way to strike some fear into the hearts of supposedly "pro-life" Republicans.

[outinforce]

68. I'm Afraid I Don't Understand

I am having a difficult time understanding something here.

I have no problem at all with the Government requiring me to wear a seat belt if I want to drive my own car.

I have no problem at all with the Government requiring adults to use Government-approved safety seats for children under a certain age, if the want those children to ride in cars they are operating.

I have no problem at all with the Government requiring adults who choose to smoke cigarettes to see, prior to consuming cigarettes, information that the Government has deemed important for them to know.

So how is it, exactly, that requiring women who may want to exercise their choice, to receive information that the Government deems relevant and important in making such a decision cruel?

Or how is it any different from the Government allowing commercials on TV which make smokers feel stupid or guilty?

[veganwitch]

70. because the use of images...

are somehow supposed to spark some emotion within women to make them not want to abort. the people pushing ultrasound images are of the same mindset that women should be provided with information that abortion might have some relation to breast cancer. they used to intimidate, scare, gross-out etc. woman and have no function otherwise.

the ultrsound equpiment is there. if a woman wants to look, she can. forcing her to look or view aborted fetus is assinine.

[outinforce]

73. And What is Wrong with that?

"because the use of images are somehow supposed to spark some emotion within women to make them not want to abort."

Wait a minute.

I thought most of us agreed that abortion was a terrible thing. And I thought most of us agreed that it should be safe, legal, and (because it is so terrible) rare.

So what is so terribly wrong with providing women with visual information that is totally accurate that induces women not to have abortions?

Are you suggesting that you are in favor of not providing women with factual visual information, if withholding that information increases the number of abortions?

I, too have problems with people who use inaccurate information (such as a supposed link betweebn breast cancer an abortion).

[veganwitch]

78. read this and come back to me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=778538#780509

ive noticed that you have ignored this, or atleast chosen not respond.

and your use of the world "terrible" is fairly judgmental. how so is it terrible? morally, physically, emotionally? and once again how would you know. sympathy v empathy. i am here, you are there v i am coming to you.

but in all seriousness (being the masochist that i am) women who want, for what ever reason, to look at the ultrasound will. they find closure (i knew women who got their records back so that they could have the ultrasound of "their baby"), they may look out of curiousity, or to confirm that they are making the right decision.

if they do not want to look at it, they shouldnt be forced to. to force them to is cruel. to force anyone to do what they do not want to do is cruel as it goes against their personal soveriegnty.

[iverglas]

80. yer a funny fella

I thought most of us agreed that abortion was a terrible thing. And I thought most of us agreed that it should be safe, legal, and (because it is so terrible) rare.

Where you get these notions from, I just never know.

Can you quote somebody? Anybody at all?

Has anybody in this thread said anything that even resembles what you've concocted here and attributed to "most of us"? Not that I've seen. Really. And certainly not I.

Are you suggesting that you are in favor of not providing women with factual visual information, if withholding that information increases the number of abortions?

I see you remembered the question mark this time. Congratulations! There've been a couple of times when you've slipped, and actually made a statement attributing a belief to someone that was, in reality, just a twisted figment of your own imagination. Like this one.

If I inferred the things from what people say that you so very often seem to think might be inferred, I'd be doing some really intensive meta-cognitive skills improvement. Or retaking some of those ethics courses.

Nobody forced me to accept the local Konrad Black daily rag this morning. Was the newspaper therefore withheld from me?

If I advocate not compelling people to accept subscriptions to said rag, am I suggesting that I am not in favour of providing people with newspapers? Oh, damn, I can't even construct an analogous question, because yours just doesn't stand up to scrutiny for sense, *again*, does it?

The problem of course is that NOBODY said ANYTHING about "not providing women with information". Nobody except you. And NOBODY said ANYTHING about "withholding that information". Nobody except you.

The issue here, as you and everybody else knows, is COMPELLING women to accept information, and specifically compelling women to accept incomplete information. (You know: nobody's talking about compelling women to accept information about the lack of adequate childcare for working women, reduced average life expectancies of women who have children in certain circumstances like being young and having minimal education, post partum depression, etc. etc.)

It's really a very clear and simple one. How come you can't seem to stick to it?

.

[put out]

87. I did not have to make that choice.

DoNotRefill, yipee for you and your loved woman. You will find many hours of fun for the whole family!

Now, to you, outinforce, I have a comment. Let us have all pregnant women look at every potential outcome of pregnancy, whether the pregnancy is intended or not. I have seen things happen before, during, and after birthing a child. Some of those images still can make my hair rise. That sort of factual visual information might just convince an uncertain woman to opt for abortion. Do you think this would be a good education also?

[Jane Roe]

124. Ultrasound images . . .

are not the same thing as images of aborted fetuses. Ultrasound images of fetuses in utero are not gross.

[MojoKrunch]

136. Why not just show them medical illustrations?

What exactly is the point?
To "inform" them?
Then an accurate medical illustration is far clearer than an ultrasound.

But that wouldn't be as *immediate* and visceral would it?
That wouldn't make the *connection* folks like you would like to see be made, would it?

Dude, just stop dancing around the issue.
Or at least acknowledge that viewing ultrasounds isn't going to make your point.

Mojo

[iverglas]

77. not at all!

"So how is it, exactly, that requiring women who may want to exercise their choice, to receive information that the Government deems relevant and important in making such a decision cruel?"

No more cruel than requiring you to sit through a movie about the ills and evils of homosexuality every time you wanted to kiss your partner!

I'd offer to trade women's rights for yours, if that would make you happy: you get to compel women to submit to propaganda activities aimed at them by the state in an attempt to influence their decision about a matter that is none of the state's business, I get to make you do the same.

I can't do that, though. Because

(a) I really, really don't want to be complicit in the violatation of your fundamental rights; and
(b) other women's rights aren't mine to trade away for anything, of course.


And of course we all know that you can tell the difference between mandatory seatbelt-wearing laws and mandatory submit-to-propaganda before doing something that is none of anyone else's business laws, right?

.

[shimmergal]

103. Ah, but the smokers don't have to

read the warnings or watch/hear the commercials about the dangers of cigarettes.

[Jane Roe]

127. If there was a law requiring presentation of ultrasound images . . .

the law would only require presentation. The preganant woman would still have the option of turning her head or closing her eyes as irresponsible smokers do when the government warning is presented them.

Clarification: most of my responses on this thread deal with the moral responsibilities of the pregnant woman, rather than advocating changes in the law. I am undecided as to what the law should be with respect to *mandatory* informed-consent-type presentation of ultrasound images.

[iverglas]

134. fascinating

"most of my responses on this thread deal with the moral responsibilities of the pregnant woman, rather than advocating changes in the law. I am undecided as to what the law should be with respect to *mandatory* informed-consent-type presentation of ultrasound images."

Leaving us to wonder how that "moral responsibility" <read: Mr. Roe's opinion> is met by compelling someone else to compel pregnant women to acknowledge do anything at all -- be it even sign a form that they have refused to accept information offered. Surely "moral responsibilities" must be assumed by the people on whom they rest, no? When did the rest of us get a say in how and whether they do that? Why is there even an ISSUE as to the law?

Let alone in how much they oughta pay (ta, REP, hadn't thought of that part) for the privilege.

This is truly fascinating: "informed consent" as a way of enforcing "moral responsibility". Such a telling dog's breakfast we have here.

This "informed consent" crap is normally presented as being essential in the pregnant woman's interests: we don't want her making decisions she'll be unhappy about later, right?

But "moral responsibility" is usually something that we ascribe whether or not it makes the person on whom it then rests happy to fulfil it.

So here we seem to be considering applying a mechanism that is properly used only in the interests of the patient -- "informed consent" -- for the purpose of compelling the patient to assume a duty that we want to ascribe to her -- that "moral responsibility to the fetus".

If that duty is enforceable (let us assume we are living through the looking glass, and it exists), it is properly a subject of law, and individuals may be compelled to fulfil it or punished for not fulfilling it. Enforceable duties are simply not something that we inform people about and then let them do whatever they feel like with impunity.

If that duty is not enforceable (whether or not it exists), it is not properly a subject of law, any law, and no individual may be compelled to do anything at all to acknowledge it or fulfil it, or punished for failing to do so. Unenforceable "duties" are not something that we get to interfere in people's lives to even tell them about. Unenforceable "duties" are really just opinions, and those are things that we get to keep to ourselves when we aren't asked for them by people making decisions that are none of our business.

(And Mr. Roe -- if it *is* our business, then it is an enforceable duty: if it is our business, we are justified in interfering. There ain't a third option.)

Like I say, though ... interesting that Mr. Roe isn't pretending that this "informed consent" bullshit is actually "informed consent" at all, and is making it quite clear that its real purpose is to shame and bully women into making decisions that he approves of. I mean, obviously he wouldn't approve of a woman not fulfilling their "duty" to that z/e/f on the monitor, I must assume.

.

[Cheswick2.0]

130. and yet you still have no uterus..... so, still none of your business

weird how that works. So watch all the fetus videos you want, abortion still has nothing to do with you.

[Jane Roe]

132. It is my business.

I used to be a fetus, so I can relate to them and sympathize with them to some degree.

[veganwitch]

140. funny that you can relate to them better...

than a grown women.

good job.

[Jane Roe]

142. I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. nt

[iverglas]

67. but you don't

"You are saying that *if* some state passed a law requiring a requiring a woman to be presented with ultrasound images before discontinuing a pregnancy, then you would:

1. Probably disagree with the wisdom of the regulation, but

2. at least understand *to whom* the duty of responsible choice-making was owed (through my useful analogy to the dog beating regulations)."

Because you have asked me to respond to what, in my considered opinion, is an impossible hypothetical.

IF wishes were horses, then could beggars fly?

A better formulation would be:

IF some jurisdiction (I don't concern myself entirely with US states) passed a law requiring a woman to be presented with ultrasound images before discontinuing a pregnancy and the legislative branch of that jurisdiction demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the judicial branch which has authority to make such determinations, that it had justification for passing the law according to the rules that apply in the jurisdiction for assessing justification, where that judicial branch was not poisoned by misogyny and/or religious fanaticism and/or disrespect for fundamental human rights or any other corrupt influence, then I would:

1. believe that wishes were horses

or

2. understand that some catastrophe had befallen the human race, or the society in question, that made women's pregnancies a matter of compelling interest to the society/state (in the broad sense) in question and resulted in women having a duty to that society/state in respect of their pregnancies ... or perhaps that some dark age had fallen over the human race/society in question that gave the society/state a duty, as part of its general duty to protect its members, to make women look at pictures in order for them to understand that they were pregnant (although why they'd be wanting abortions if they didn't understand that, I dunno) ...


You see, you really can't just postulate a nonsense and expect me to accept your conclusion from that nonsense. Loaded questions, y'know. ;)

I can imagine no circumstance other than a corrupt judiciary, a world in which wishes are horses, a world in which catastrophic circumstances make women's pregnancies matters of public interest or a world in which women are waaay stupider than they are now, in which I would understand that women had a duty to do anything in respect of their pregnancies that they did not wish to do, i.e. could be compelled to do any such thing.

.

(edited to fix editing error)

[REP]

96. You've Missed The Point of the Sonograms

If the motive was to melt the heart of the hard-hearted murderess-to-be, why not use full color, highly idealized illustrations instead the of blurry, hard to read sonograms? The point of the pre-procedure sonograms is to raise the price of the procedure and add more delays before the procedure is done. The goal is to make the abortion too difficult to obtain, more expensive, and and later into the pregnancy, further adding to the cost and complications. Only the truly naive would believe the sonograms have anything to do with the precious preborn poppet.

[MojoKrunch]

106. I liken it to selling Amway.

You have to really act like you believe.

But come on... it's *AMWAY* for heavens sake.

They know the "waiting period" rule is all about appealing to guilt and emotion and has nothing at all to do with making "informed" decisions.

How many women are truly so ignorant they don't know what it is they are aborting?

Mojo

[iverglas]

107. you're behind the times, friend ;)

http://www.expectantmothercare.org/EMC_in_the_news.html

Life Saver: New 3-D "window to the womb" seen helping turn women from abortion

by Brian Caulfield, Catholic New York (Nov. 23, 2000)

As a picture is worth a thousand words, so a new 3-D ultrasound machine will help save a thousand babies from abortion, said Christopher T. Slattery, the head of six crisis pregnancy centers in New York City.

Slattery, president of Expectant Mother Care, demonstrated the ultrasound machine at a fundraiser Nov. 15 in his midtown center. The machine showed stored images from an exam of a pregnant woman in which a 10-week-old unborn baby is visible from all sides in lifelike dimensions.

Slattery predicted that when women who are considering abortion come to one of his centers and see the images on the ultrasound screen, the majority will decide to keep their babies. Conventional two-dimensional sonograms are effective, he added, but in three-dimensional technology the child in the womb looks much more like a baby and will allow the mother to "bond" immediately.

Somehow I don't think they show the images actual size. Ten weeks LMP? Wazzat, 1.25 inches?

That's a fun site. "Expectant Mother Care" is the outfit that Elliot Spitzer (NY state Attorney General ... next governor?) went after last year, in respect of its, uh, questionable practices. Like informing the husband and clergyperson of a woman whom they weren't able to, uh, persuade to keep her pregnancy that she was pregnant.

.

(html edited)

[REP]

120. Oooh, Those Are *Very* Expensive!

I'm sure there will be someone pushing to make these mandatory at the woman's expense.

[shimmergal]

102. Logic/schmogic,

you have a responsibility to not beat your dog from the moment the dog came into your care or power.

Just because you don't claim that responsibility doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[MojoKrunch]

105. Why?

Based on what?
The assumption by some folks is the morality they were taught as children, typically derived from religious beliefs.

Assume that not everyone follows your moral rules.
What is the basis for your statement of enforced responsibility?

Mojo

[iverglas]

108. and amazingly

"you have a responsibility to not beat your dog from the moment the dog came into your care or power.
Just because you don't claim that responsibility doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

... the mere fact that you say something doesn't make it true.

Funny how that works, eh?

.

[Jane Roe]

119. So true

see post #65 and replies thereto.

[iverglas]

123. the quest for truth

"see post #65 and replies thereto."

Interesting how there are replies to your post, and others of yours. Interesting how you don't reply to what's said to you or asked of you.

A quickie search shows six threads that you have posted in since your arrival (I know there was a post in the Lounge, but it seems to have disappeared into archives or something). By thread title, they are:

in General Discussion:

Abortion: I feel terrible for women who have to have them....
- a thread about abortion

Why ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments?
- a thread in which *you* raised the issue of abortion

in Civil Liberties:

Anti-Abortion Boycott of Planned Parenthood Scores Success
- a thread about abortion-related issues

More Women Forego Motherhood
- a thread about women's reproductive practices

"men's rights" site calls feminists "Nazis"
- a thread in which you assert that men suffer inequality and use that assertion to attack the straw fella that "men control everything"

A sad day for women.
- a thread about the most recent violation of women's reproductive rights by the US government in which you say "So how do you feel about late term abortion law? nt"


In the thread about anti-PP activities, you repeatedly said what is expressed in this post of yours:

"I don't feel like this board is the place for a detailed discussion of abortion restrictions. There are readers who are sensitive on this topic and could become inflamed. Simply will not discuss the topic in detail here, sorry."

... in response to my repeated request that you stop reframing the question I asked and answering a different question, ignoring the question I asked and talking about something else, etc. etc. YOU made assertions, YOU espoused policies, for which I requested that you offer justification, and YOU declined to do so.

It seems to me that the only reason you are here, MR. Roe wrapped in a Canadian flag that is not his own, is TO DISCUSS ABORTION. Actually, it seems to me that you are interested only in making inflammatory assertions about abortion, and not at all in discussing any issues relating to it.

Now mind, that is just how it seems to me. You can always ask outinforce what it seems like to him; I'm sure the response would be entertaining.

Maybe you can help me out here. Why would someone come to a political discussion board, adopt a name that identifies him as interested in abortion issues (and that is identified with a particular position on those issues, by which I don't mean the one adopted in the US Supreme Court decision of the same name) but fails to identify him as a man (although his profile does), post virtually nothing but negative commentary on abortion, and then assert that this forum is not appropriate for a discussion of "abortion restrictions"?

Why would someone who says "this board is probably not an appropriate place to discuss abortion restrictions in any detail" write a post that consists of nothing but a question about someone else's opinion of "late term abortion law"? What exactly is "late term abortion law" if not "abortion restrictions"? What exactly is your question except an invitation to engage in a discussion you have said you wish to eschew?

I would not wish this post to be perceived as one of those following-somebody-around thingies. There is a single issue here, that can only be properly illustrated by considering the poster's limited body of work. The post I am responding to is one example to illustrate the point I am making and one opportunity to ask the question I am asking, and the point/question had to be made/asked somewhere.

How can a post that consists of the comment "how true" in response to another post -- neither adding anything to the discussion nor responding to anything said by anyone else -- be characterized as either participating in a discussion (the presumed reason why people post on discussion boards) or declining to participate in a discussion (which is not normally done by posting on discussion boards)?

Surely you, Mr. Roe, have some policy objectives that you would like to further by offering them up here for discussion, and advocating for them, in the hope of influencing hearts and minds. Or perhaps you would even just like to influence individuals, rather than public policy, in respect of their personal choices, by advocating for the adoption of certain beliefs or values that you hold dear. I can't think of much of any other reason for posting on a discussion board about an issue. Your own oeuvre shows you to be singularly reluctant to engage in either kind of discussion of that issue, though.

Can you enlighten me? What is it that you would like to convey to us, that you would like to persuade us of? My curiosity is burning a hole in my head, I have to tell you. (Okay, if anybody saw a ghostly sarcasm tag in there, I beg you to understand that it was involuntary.)

And why do you think that your current approach is a productive one to that end?

.

[DoNotRefill]

28. Let me make this perfectly clear:

We saw the heart beating. That does NOT mean that we think of the Z/E/F as a child as it exists now. It has the potential to become a child in another 7 3/4 months, but there's no way that it could be considered a child at this point. It's basically still just a germinating seed that we hope will grow into a child.

[outinforce]

31. Sorry to Be Confused Here...

"It's basically still just a germinating seed that we hope will grow into a child."

"Just a Germinating Seed".

I am having just a bit of difficulty here understanding what you mean. Do you see any difference between what is in your wife's womb and a acorn that has been planted in the ground and has started to germinate?

[MojoKrunch]

58. The journey *to* Miami isn't the same thing as being in Miami.

The trip isn't the destination.
Travel takes time.
Gestation takes time.
Things change along the way.

Seeds become seedlings become saplings become mighty oaks.
Acorns aren't mighty oak trees.

Prenates aren't squirming new-borns.

The trip to Miami starts in Seattle in the back of a funky van with Mojo Nixon & SkidRoper bumper stickers crowding the Peace Now stickers.

Mojo

[veganwitch]

59. i think outinforce's question comes from the flowerpot metaphor...

that was used by aristotle who essentially said that women are simply the dirt and the flowerpot, but the seed (and subsequent child) is the man's alone. aristotle also thought that a female child was a deformed male child. and that deformity came from something wrong with the dirt or the flowerpot, not a defective seed.

but i digress. i think the issue with the metaphor is that is renders the woman invisible.

[outinforce]

76. Gee...You MIssed My Point ENTIRELY

I would NEVER imply that women are mere dirt.

No, my question was to ask if there was anything different between a "germinating seed" that is alive and growing in a woman and a germinating acorn in some dirt.

I happen to think that there is a great deal of difference.

I asked the question because of how donotrefill stated what he considered to be growing inside his wife -- a "mere germinating seed".

If you think about it, there is a great deal of difference.

[MojoKrunch]

83. One of these things is not like the other.

No, my question was to ask if there was anything different between a "germinating seed" that is alive and growing in a woman and a germinating acorn in some dirt.
In a the very broadest sense, no, not really.
A germinating seed is one that is akin to an implanted zygote.
Given the proper nourishment and environment it will continue to grow.
The germinating seed is not yet a plant, just as prenate is not yet a child.

I happen to think that there is a great deal of difference.
Why do you think this?
What are you basing this thought on?
What do you perceive to be these many differences?

I asked the question because of how donotrefill stated what he considered to be growing inside his wife -- a "mere germinating seed".
As opposed to what?
It was clear to me he meant "as opposed to" a full term newborn. A child.

If you think about it, there is a great deal of difference.
Help us with these differences.
I'm not seeing them.

Mojo

[MojoKrunch]

82. Oh man, I hope not.

Because that would just be silly.
Poor Aristotle... if only he knew how useless we men really are to the equation.
lol

i think the issue with the metaphor is that is renders the woman invisible.
You mean you wouldn't want to be a pretty flower pot?
;)

Mojo

[outinforce]

69. But When Do You Arrive in Miami?

Do you arrive in Miami when you actually get within the city limits? Would someone who lives in Coral Springs be incorrect when she says that she lives in Miami?

Do you arrive in Miami when you arrive in Dade County?

Do you arrive in Miami when you can pick up the radio stations on the radio in the funky van?

Of course, prenates aren't squriming infants, but then, children aren't adults either -- they are just "potential adults", whose development "takes time, before they become "actual adults".

[veganwitch]

79. sorry, im getting my anti-choicers confused.

whoops, meant to reply to your other post.

but regardless, why is it up to you to determine how they feel about their pregnancy, or the metaphors they use?

or do you wanna throw that in with the "Forcable Ultrasound Viewing Bill" you are currently drafting?

[MojoKrunch]

81. Last time I checked, cities are defined by their city limits.

Do you arrive in Miami when you actually get within the city limits? Would someone who lives in Coral Springs be incorrect when she says that she lives in Miami?
Did anyone say they were going to Coral Springs?
Coral Springs is not Miami.

Do you arrive in Miami when you arrive in Dade County?
No, because then your journey would be to Dade County.
Dade County is not Miami.

Do you arrive in Miami when you can pick up the radio stations on the radio in the funky van?
Perhaps for you Miami was reached in Seattle before the parking brake was disengaged.
Perhaps you are now sitting in the van in Seattle thinking you are in Miami?
The vast majority of trips from Seattle to Miami never make it.
For most the van simply does not run.
For others, the van breaks down along the way.
For a relative few, the van is forced off the road and crashes.
For all of these, the trip is not the destination.

Perhaps for you the journey is over before it even began.
In which case, how can you sit on the beach in Miami when you are in Seattle?

Of course, prenates aren't squriming infants, but then, children aren't adults either
Children are more like adults than prenates are like infants.
Acorns are not Oak trees.

they are just "potential adults", whose development "takes time, before they become "actual adults".
And when are they "actual adults"?
Puberty?
Driving age?
Voting age?
Drinking age?

Are you aware of the fallacy of the beard?

Something is a thing until it is not a thing.
Before it is that thing, it is not that thing.
"Potential" to be that thing does not make it that thing.
It is that thing when it is that thing.
And not a moment before.

Mojo

[DoNotRefill]

86. "if you ain't got Mojo Nixon then your store....

could use some fixin!!!"

[MojoKrunch]

93. Amen Brutha!

Way back in 1987 I ran out and bought the entire collection after I saw them play at a little club in New Haven called The Grotto.

::quick google search::
http://www.artrocity.com/rockshots/grovelling_at_the_grotto.htm
And holy smoke!
Someone actually *recorded* that show and posted it online!
Too cool.

Surprisingly enough I never saw him play when he was around Chapel Hill in the 90's(apparently he'd spent time here in his wayward youth).

Ok, excuse me whilst I download this guys website.
:D

Mojo

[Jane Roe]

131. Fans of Dead Milkmen and prochoice will also want to hear . . .

Live "Bitchin Camaro" from "Chaos Rules LP." Rodney A-M tells off antichoice activist Steven Friend.

[DoNotRefill]

89. Don't pick at the metaphor, it'll leave a nasty scar if you do.

The Z/E/F is a bit of tissue. It has the potential to turn into a child. Just as a germinating seed has the potential to turn into a plant. By itself, neither is either yet.

As for the difference between a Z/E/F and a germinating acorn, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two except the obvious species difference. In both cases, it's a fertilized egg that has fallen on the required "fertile ground". The mechanisms are different, but the idea is the same. And a germinated seed is NOT a tree, just as a Z/E/F is not a child. This does not mean that I view women as "dirt". Instead I veiw them as people who have a really cool ability that I don't have, to be able to nurture and care for a speck of tissue to the point that it becomes a child. For that matter, I don't see my ability to "pollinate the acorn" as being some kind of super-duper de-luxe special ability. My biological contribution to the future child is necessary but small. I try to make up for the fact that the woman does the vast majority of the "heavy lifting" in the process by other methods, like scooping the kitty litter, cooking, carrying the laundry, and anything else I can do to remove strain on my wife and risk from the pregnancy.

As for the other "differences" that you allude to, I have no clue as to what you're talking about, unless it's some kind of specist rant. Frankly, I've never really thought to put humanity above other species on a widespread basis outside of the context of the food chain.

[Jane Roe]

36. Yes, you are adjudging in a responsible way . . .

based on the photographic evidence. That is a good thing and a responsible judgment which I respect (unless your wife disagrees).

The key to responsible choice-making here is to look at ultrasound pictures of the Z/E/F to potentially be discontinued around the time it is to be discontinued. These things grow and change, so a contemporaneous picture is the only way to fully understand the implications of one's dis/continuation decision on a case-by-case basis.

Of course very few people will be intellectually impacted by pictures of a zygotic cell cluster or even of a mere seed. As things get closer to birth people's individual judgments of their own individual responsibilities begin to diverge a bit more.

Edit: for clarity

[iverglas]

38. "responsible choice-making"

"The key to responsible choice-making here is to look at
ultrasound pictures of the Z/E/F to potentially be discontinued
around the time it is to be discontinued."

To whom is this choice to be "responsible"? For what is this choice to be "responsible"? To whom and for what is the person making it allegedly responsible?

Mr. Roe seems to be able to make the allegation -- that a woman making a decision in respect of her pregnancy is responsible for something, to someone -- but to be unable or unwilling to tell us what that means. Maybe someone else can help him out?

It always reminds me of when I was in Cuba 25 years ago ... there was a publicity campaign underway that consisted of posters and billboards bearing the exhortation "¡EMULACION!" Um, I asked my Cuban English-teacher friend: Emulate whom? what? Well, he said, just "emulate". But no, I said, you can't just "emulate"; you have to emulate someone or something!

That was probably just me and my imperfect Spanish (although the memory let me get the joke when I watched Death of a Bureaucrat years later, and attracted turned heads when I burst out in guffaws at the shot of a drunk holding a bottle of rum sitting on the sidewalk under an EMULACION poster). Here, I'm confident of my grasp of English.

One is responsible for something, and/or to someone. One cannot be "responsible" without there being an object, direct or indirect, of one's responsibility. And I really wanna know to whom, and for what, a pregnant woman is responsible.

"As things get closer to birth people's individual judgments
of their own individual responsibilities begin to diverge a bit more.
Edit: for clarity"

Uh, yeah. Edit doesn't seem to have worked. All ya gotta do now is this:

As things get closer to birth people's individual judgments of their own individual responsibilities
for . . . . . . ./to . . . . . . . begin to diverge a bit more.

... and then tell us what the point of that statement is, of course.

.

Edit: for clarity
oops, edited just once, to remove stray quoted bit, for clarity ;)

[outinforce]

26. And So Do I....

Who in the world would not feel sorry for any women who has to have an abortion?

"Has to have", to me at least, means that there are no other meaningful options available.

From your post, though, it seems as though you are suggesting that extreme fear -- or terror -- is the major thing that makes an abortion a "has-to-have" thing for many women.

I am not a woman, so I want to be careful when I suggest that I can understand the fear that a woman has upon discovering an unplanned pregnancy.

What I do not understand is why this fear necessarily makes an abortion necessary (a "has-to-have" thing).

[veganwitch]

50. a couple of things

Who in the world would not feel sorry for any women who has to have an abortion?

read the "they dont need your pity" reply.

you feel "sorry" for "them" because of your inability to empathise how an unplanned pregnancy would make a woman feel.

for the record. the prospect of an unplanned pregnancy is terrifying. my heart sank to my feet when i saw that second line. i did not have health insurance. i did not have a job. i was terrorified of telling my parents (i was one of those girls thats "not supposed" to get pregnant) and i was 22 and already graduated college.

so from there it didnt take much for my parents to convince me that continuing the pregnancy would ruin my life and that i would be living out of my car (i would have to get one as i didnt have a car) and that my partner and the BD could not be trusted to support me/the future child ("and we like him. we really do.") so from where i stood, abortion was my only option.

so imagine youre still in high school/college, or already have children and funds are short, or are in an abusive relationship, or dont know who the BD is or...

[Zomby Woof]

40. I favor retroactive abortions myself

Starting with the loser in the White House.

Which reminds me, my favorite term for Ronald Reagan: "A missed abortion".

Hey, I have a million of 'em! Thank you ladies and germs...

Personally, I am kind of reviled by men who moralize about something they will never, ever experience because it is being done by a woman.

[outinforce]

43. How, Exactly, Would That Work?

A "retoractive abortion"??

How would that work, exactly?

Whose choice would it be? The mother's? Suppose she is dead or incapacitated? Could someone else make the choice on her behalf? And, if so, would it have to be a woman, or could it be a man?

Is there an age at which a z/e/f/i/c/t/ya/maa/ea/rea (that's zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child/teenager/youngadult/middleagedadult/elderlyadult/reallyelderly adult) would have some right to his or her own life that could not be taken away? (I assume from you post that since * is somewhere in his mid-50's, that a z/e/f/i/c/t/ya/maa/ea/rea does not gain a right to life until sometime later in life than it's/her/his mid-50's).

[veganwitch]

45. this is zomby...

hes being sarcastic.

hi zomby!!!!

[outinforce]

48. Thanks.

Oh, I am sooooo relieved.

I caught the sarcasm in this statement of his: "Personally, I am kind of reviled by men who moralize about something they will never, ever experience because it is being done by a woman."

But I thought the rest of his post was serious.

Live and learn.

[Zomby Woof]

90. Hey there!

Of course, where I am being sarcastic is open for debate. It's a fine line. :evilgrin:

[Mandate My Ass]

47. are you truly pro-retroactive abortion

or in the camp of anti-post-natal-organism-unanimators?

If you only saw a picture of a loser in the White House, maybe your heart would melt like soft caramel on a scorching radiator and you'd be overwhelmed with irresistible fluttering urges to croon lullabies into his ear.

[greatauntoftriplets]

64. As in the old Vietnam era antiwar slogan:

"Nixon, pull out like your father should have".

[outinforce]

71. Hmmmm...Not Exactly

"Nixon, pull out like your father should have"

Not quite the same thing there.

Had Nixon's dad puilled out, there would never have been any need for Nixon to have been aborted -- either before he was born, or, in the case of a "retroactive abortion", after he was born.

[veganwitch]

72. but lets go back to the idea that

retroactive abortion was a fucking joke.

[Zomby Woof]

91. humor is hard to come by in GD, isn't it?

:D

[Cheswick2.0]

133. If I sent you five bucks would you buy yourself a sense of humor?

!

[LeahMira]

41. Thoughts...

For starters, let's talk about the option... adoption. Please don't tell a young woman that she is selfless and loving and doing the best thing for her baby to be if she relinquishes it for adoption and then turn around after she has and tell her that she has proved herself an unfit mother and a selfish person because she gave away her own child just so she could have fun. Young girls know that's what social workers and adoption lawyers do by now... word has spread... and they know they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Then, how about we start saving the mothers along with the babies. For instance, it's legal in many states for a young woman to leave her newborn off at a hospital, police station or fire station with no questions asked. These "baby dump" laws are all for saving babies lives, but what happens to the mother? Is her life less valuable just because she is not a newborn for heaven's sake? Shouldn't we be helping her through whatever struggles she is dealing with? Sure, there's a "market" for a healthy newborn and there's not much of a market for a mixed-up teenager, but even if it's going to cost the taxpayers a few dollars to get her straightened out, is it therefore OK to just let her slip through the cracks? Maybe the baby will grow up to be a confused teenager one day. Will we dump the baby that's grown up then?

Finally, let's talk about the young woman who really wants to have her baby and raise that baby herself. Are some folks going to call her a "welfare queen" and accuse her of having a child just to get money? Are we going to give her and her child health insurance so she can take care of her child when the child is sick and stay healthy enough herself to take care of that child all the time? Or are we going to cut her benefits down below subsistence and tell her to get a job?

I could go on about the young men involved and some of their parents who advise them to refuse to admit paternity, who tell him that the young woman must be loose, and if she put out to him there must be others who are probably the baby's father and who fight tooth and nail so their sons don't get "stuck" with a kid for the next eighteen years. But you get the idea.

I understand why you wish there weren't so many abortions, and we all know how well admonishments to abstinence have worked out throughout time with young folks, don't we? But these young people are scared. They have no idea how on earth they will get through this thing and go on... that is unless they get rid of the problem asap. And, in some situations, abortion is the only merciful solution, really. But if you have a woman who would really like to keep her baby and raise that baby herself, then people should be bending over backwards to help her do just that. And people aren't.

Sign me... an adult who was adopted and who loves her birthmother a lot.

[bloom]

52. You made some very good points n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. Great post

The main problem with discussing this issue is it only addresses life up to the point of birth.

It is as though life begins at conception and ends at birth!

[Nobody]

97. What excellent points

And to add to your point about how teenage girls are damned if they do and damned if they don't, there are groups trying to bring back shame for certain things. Teenage pregnancy was one.

Newspaper article several years ago.

Nowhere was there any discussion of solutions, only tsk tsking and finger wagging.

Have a happy feasting today!

[LittleApple81]

42. AMERICANS ARE HYPOCRITES! If you study the rate of unwanted

pregnancies in Western countries (for example Europe) they are a lot lower than here in the states. Why? because they provide a much healthier view of what sex is all about. Young people do get involved in sex but they use proper protection and there is no stigma associated with it. Here we bombard people with sexual "entertainment" and then propound the theory of "say no" be a virgin, etc. etc. It is so inconsistent it hurts.
I am 100% pro-availability-of-abortion. But in order to NOT NEED it, you have to educate people and be consistent about attitudes.

[karlschneider]

88. I respect your position. But don't forget that for every "induced"

abortion, there are thousands of spontaneous ones. Often before pregnancy is detected. I will not venture an opinion about who to
"blame" for those. Hope you have a healthy child!
K

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

94. No flame, just praise

I don't think anyone ever WANTS an abortion. The fact that they are there is good though, which is what pro-choice is. I'd like to see us live in world where we didn't need to exercise the option of abortion so much as well, I think everyone would. Nobody necessarily wants to see people have abortions left and right, but appreciate that they have to the right to choose what they feel is best for their situation. I believe in some cases abortion is indeed necessary, in cases of rape or what have you.

[onebigbadwulf]

101. Why don't you adopt instead of risking the birth of a child witih defects?

[INTELBYTES]

109. This Dem for Life!

Democrat to the bone, but I believe the only choice should be on the side of the child. I have not been shown when the "spark" of life begins. If it begins at conception, which is up for debate, then killing the baby is not a choice, it's murder.

[MojoKrunch]

110. Have you notified your local Dem representative?

Or at least the police?

Murder is illegal you know.

Mojo

[REP]

129. They Don't Realize That "Murder" Is a Legal Term

and more telling, while admitting to not knowing if a z/e/f is a person, is willing to give it the 'benefit of doubt,' rather than the woman, who is demonstratably a person.

I always wonder about these people who are so willing to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will. I wonder how they can treat a woman like nothing more than a container; I wonder how they can look at themselves in the mirror.

[MojoKrunch]

146. "Benefit of the doubt"? What about a *trial*?

When did *that* Constitutional right go by the wayside?

I always wonder about these people who are so willing to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will. I wonder how they can treat a woman like nothing more than a container; I wonder how they can look at themselves in the mirror.
The human mind is an amazingly flexible thing.
I discovered just a few short months ago that there were Jews actively serving in Hitlers Nazi army.
Disconcerting for me because at one point I referred to the Anti-choice illogical position as like being a "Jewish Nazi".
Well, lo and behold, there actually *were* Jewish Nazi's.
Shit.

What can I say?
We are just one fucked up hairless beach ape.

:D
Mojo

[jason_sanchez]

111. get ready for incoming...

LOL get ready for incoming...

[Pastiche423]

116. Have you ever lived in an orphange?

[bicentennial_baby]

137. KMA

It's not a baby, as much as you would like it to be. I'm glad you have so little concern for the health and well-being of women.

[Woodstock]

112. Another guy posting an "agony of abortion" thread - what a surprise

Gee, we almost didn't go by one day without one.

[SharonAnn]

115. Make birth-control cheap and easy to get.

That will help a lot.

Since poor women and those without health care have a hard time affording birth control and it requires time and money for doctor visit(s) and time and money for the prescription(s), they're more likely to get pregnant when they don't want to. Help them avoid unwanted pregnancies.

[iverglas]

117. I think DoNotRefill is getting a bum rap

First, let me say that I am not a diehard DoNotRefill fan, to understate the matter somewhat, and that the vicey versa is equally true. Anyone interested in further details may visit the gun dungeon.

There has been one other occasion, quite recently, when DNR and I enjoyed a mutual-respect fest, and I offered a 21 firearm salute to mark it. We had an exchange of thoughts about the rather arcane issue of how the self-defence justification for assault/homicide might apply to pregnant women. "Fetal homicide" laws came into the discussion, and he indicated his disagreement with them. I did not doubt his adherence to the principle that pregnancy is a phenomenon of a woman's body and life, and a matter in respect of which decision-making authority belongs to her alone. I am less sanguine about some gun nuts who plainly proclaim their allegiance to "choice" only as a self-serving preface to their opposition to restrictions on access to firearms.

I don't think that DNR was intending to write the complete statement of why women must not be denied the exercise of reproductive rights. I think he was simply expressing an insight he'd had into the importance of those rights -- possibly something that had heretofore been a matter of mere "intellectual" understanding, and that he had now had a somewhat more visceral contact with. Wanted pregnancy is a source of great happiness; unwanted pregnancy can be a source of equally great unhappiness.

"We" often assert that men cannot understand this fact, or anything else about pregnancy, because they cannot experience it. But empathy does not require that we have, or be capable of having, an identical experience. We human beings are capable of analogizing and inferring. I can feel empathy for people subject to discrimination that I will never be subject to because I am not black or lesbian, or for people with disabilities when I have no disability, for the old when I am young, and so on.

Empathy is fundamental to our survival as individuals and as a species; it is an inborn part of our hard-wiring, and it is a crucial part of our subsequent personality development. We have it thrust upon us as part of what the species needs in order to survive and thrive, and we cultivate it as part of what we as individuals need in order to survive and prosper. I think that DNR was actually experiencing and expressing empathy, not "pity" as some perceived it.

So when DNR said:

"This got me thinking about people who end up having abortions, and how their reactions and feelings are undoubtedly as strong as ours were, but how it could be a response of terror instead of joy as it was in our case. To me, that's a pretty powerful thought, the idea of somebody being as terrified as we were happy at such a visit."

... I don't think it's fair to address that as if it were the only thing he might think, or have to say, about reproductive rights.

I think that he'd had an experience that reinforced what he already believed, and that's what he was talking about. Remember, this is the first pregnancy DNR has been personally involved in, and his first personal experience with all of the minutiae of the actual phenomenon and the emotions that accompany it. I might react somewhat the same if, although already firmly believing in the value of cultural diversity, I found myself experiencing happiness in some expression of my culture and it hit me that I lived in a society where people of other cultures could not experience that happiness because of fear of stigma, or fear of violence. If I chose to say "celebrating christmas makes me happy, and it's just occurred to me how public celebrations of christmas might make a devout follower of another religion feel sad and afraid", when I had never advocated public celebrations of christmas and in fact had opposed them, I would hope that no one would leap on me for trivializing freedom of religion.

I mean, others might feel like saying "well duh, this just occurred to you?" Because after all, empathy is one of the foundational underpinning of "rights" -- the concept of rights involves demanding not only that our own ability to act in our own interests be protected, but also that others' ability to do so be protected. So surely it's obvious that freedom of religion is important because that is one way we ensure that others are not made to feel sad or afraid, right? Well yes, of course. But the visceral understanding of what that actually means isn't something that everyone is exposed to all the time. Freedom of religion is good, well, because it's good; reproductive freedom is good because it's good. That's how we think about those things on a day-to-day basis.

People who do not support things like freedom of religion and reproductive freedom are sometimes told "well I just hope that something horrible never happens to you, so you never have to know how it feels" (or does happen to you, so you know how it feels). Or are just told "you don't know how it feels, so shut up".

I don't think that the latter response is productive. I think we need to encourage empathy. Without it, commitment to rights can be jeopardized. Freedom of religion and reproductive freedom aren't good just because they're good; memorizing that isn't going to make someone want to defend them.

When DNR said:

"I've always been pro-choice. I still am, 100%. But I wish (in my dream-world) that there wasn't so much of a demand for abortion services, because every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy. The option needs to be there and be legal, I just wish humanity didn't need to use it so much."

... he may have expressed himself a little awkwardly. It sounds a little like that "safe, legal and rare" bullshit when the phrase is heard in the mouths of the anti-choice -- like abortion should be "rare" because it's bad. But I don't think that's what DNR meant.

I think that DNR was more trying to express what I'd say myself -- that abortion "should be" rare in the same way that kidney transplants "should be" rare: because life would be just peachy if nobody's kidneys ever failed, and if nobody who didn't want to be pregnant was ever pregnant. Not because either abortion or kidney transplants are bad.

If DNR had a scary health problem and the tests showed that it wasn't kidney failure after all, just a urinary tract infection, he'd likely be very happy. He might also have a sudden insight into how it must feel to learn instead that one's kidneys had failed and one needed a transplant. If he knew that the right to have organ transplant surgery was under threat, he might feel an urge to speak out in favour of the right to that surgery, even though he didn't know how it felt to need it. I'd hope that people who did need transplants wouldn't say "you don't know how it feels, so shut up". (I'm not saying that anyone has actually said this to DNR, just hyperbolizing for effect.)

He might even say how he wished that no one ever needed a kidney transplant. And it might indeed be understandable for people who did need kidney transplants to be a little irked by that statement, especially if there were people in the world telling them that their kidney failure was all their own damned fault and they should have just lived a healthier lifestyle and they wouldn't be needing kidney transplants. (Then there'd be the anti-transplant people who made an exception for people whose kidneys were destroyed in car crashes ...) But he really isn't one of those people, I don't think.

Up at the top of the thread, he said he agreed with everything I'd said about unwanted pregnancy being a fact of life and a matter for women to deal with as they determine to be in their own best interests, and that it should be dealt with as such by public policy. I don't think that recognizing that fact *precludes* agreement that the "lot of other issues" that Woodstock mentions (post 113) are indeed in play, for instance that some pregnancies are "unwanted" because of inequities that some women suffer, or what the real-life effects of compelling women to continue pregnancies against their will, or of imposing ever more fascistic restrictions on their ability to make choices, might be.

I don't think DNR was "agonizing about abortion" at all. He really was not saying anything about his approval or disapproval of women's decisions about the outcomes of their pregnancies, or whether his feelings on that matter should play a role in public policy. That's what I'd see as "agonizing about abortion" -- the annoying urge that some people have to express their feelings about other people's personal choices in this matter, and maunder on about them a while before concluding "but don't let me stop you" ... if that's what they conclude.

I think he was doing pretty much the opposite. He was saddened that some women have to make choices they don't want to have to make: are pregnant when they don't want to be. If I may offer another analogy: it's sad that my family had to cremate my father's remains last spring -- not because it would have been better if we'd buried his body, but because he died. It's sad that some women have to have abortions -- not because it would be better if they continued their pregnancies, but because they were pregnant when they did not want to be. But death and unwanted pregnancy, sad as they may be for the individuals affected and for whatever reasons they happen, are facts of life, and things that force us to make choices we'd rather not have to make.

Not the world's best analogy, granted: death cannot be fixed and is always sad; unwanted pregnancy can be fixed by terminating it or creating conditions in which it is wanted, and so is not always sad, if those options are available. I think DNR was speaking to the sadness and fear that women who had neither of those options would experience, and that some women certainly experience even when the option of termination is available.

Who knows, maybe I've read far too much into what DNR said, and he'll just come back with another complaint about verbosity (or decide to just wipe his brow in gratitude for avoiding the guillotine this time). Given that I do read what he says with a pretty jaundiced eye, and make a habit of both not reading in what isn't there *and* not letting obnoxious subtext pass unremarked, I don't think I have.

Empathy isn't always expressed articulately and people who feel it may still be naive and underdeveloped in terms of understanding and accepting where their duty to the people with whom they empathize lies. Yes, empathy could be subverted into pity on the part of people who don't understand or accept that duty; yes, "they don't need your pity, they just need your support", exactly. But I don't think we oughta thrash them, right out of the starting gate, when what they've done is more likely experience, and try to express, empathy.

.

[trumad]

118. Abortion's not a terrible thing

I'm a man and if I got pregnant I'd love it.... I couldn't imagine men getting by in life if 1: Women told them what to do with their bodies, 2: they didn't have the opportunity to use the wonderful procedure know as abortion... As I've said many times....If Men got Pregnant, we'd have abortion stations in every Texaco and Jiffy Lube....

And trust me...If a bunch of women politicos got together like the idiots below and signed a bill that told us men what to do with our body, we'd put a militia together and overthrow them so fast they wouldn't know what hit them!

[REP]

122. Since I Was The First Out of the Gate

I can see how it could be read as "it must suck for women who don't want to be pregnant to find out they are pregnant," but if that is what was meant, it wasn't clear in the wording used. In fact, when I reread it just now, it took work to see it as that instead of no doubt well-meant handwringing, but handwringing nonetheless.

While not speaking of DNR in particular, it does seem as though nowadays some no doubt well-meaning people want to feel bad about abortions of choice that occur in the first trimester, and imagine that such an abortion is a traumatic experience. While fighting the hoarde of ill-intentioned protesters to get into a clinic may indeed be traumatic, I wonder why some are trying to ascribe an emotion to a medical procedure when the majority of women who have the procedure do not.

[bleedingheart]

138. Your being idealistic not realistic

Don't you wish that most people didn't drive drunk?
Don't you wish that people wouldn't beat their kids to death?
Don't you wish that people would think before speaking?
Don't you wish that all men wore condoms before having sex with women they did not intend on starting a family with?
Don't you wish that people saved more money for a rainy day?
Don't you wish that people didn't say hurtful mean things?

It ain't a perfect world... there is readily available birth control...and yet...we error.... we make mistakes....

Be happy you are rejoicing in your choice... and remember that one day you may not want someone to be so judgemental about one of your choices/behaviors whatever it might be...

Let's just be thankful that abortion is safe and legal for those who need it...

[Jane Roe]

139. Are you suggesting . . .

that we repeal drunk driving laws, child abuse laws and laws against hate speech?

[bleedingheart]

141. no what I am saying is that people still make mistakes inspite

of all our best efforts... .

The world is not perfect. Right this very minute there are people having sex and conceiving children they have no intention of bringing into this world....sad but true.

So my post is more about the fact that we all wish someone thinks before they act...but yet that isn't something we can really control.... The initial poster was wondering what we could do to reduce the number of abortions...but life is far more complicated...Birth control is readily available today for those who can get it from PP or other services. Hell my 70 year old mother loaned a kid money at the local store for a box of condoms... but yet not everyone thinks before they act...its just part of that crazy thing we call life.

Sometimes the mistakes are small..sometimes very large ...

[iverglas]

144. But he didn't!

"The initial poster was wondering what we could do to reduce the number of abortions"

That really isn't what he said -- although I know that's how virtually everyone has interpreted what he said; I just don't know *why*.

What he said was this:

But I wish (in my dream-world) that there wasn't so much of a demand for abortion services, because every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy.

Not "so many abortions" -- "so much of a demand for abortion services". (Here's another clue as to his potential bona fides: the expression "abortion services" is not one commonly used on the anti-choice side.) "Demand" is economics-speak, of course; it's just an expressed perceived need -- just people wanting to obtain something. He wishes that there were not so many women wanting to obtain abortions, because he wishes they didn't need them.

I might wish there wasn't so much of a demand for kidney transplant services -- because I wish that people didn't need them. I really wouldn't mean that I think people should be more careful not to need kidney transplants. My wish might be silly, but probably people wouldn't jump on me for saying that people shouldn't need kidney transplants.

I guess that, if I were going to express that wish, I've learned the lesson here that I should be very careful to say out loud that this is not what I mean. I imagine that DNR has learned the same lesson about abortion services now.

.

[bleedingheart]

145. You know what I really think?

The poster knew what he was saying....he knew it would be a flame fest... in fact invited flames!!!

"I've always been pro-choice. I still am, 100%. But I wish (in my dream-world) that there wasn't so much of a demand for abortion services, because every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy. The option needs to be there and be legal, I just wish humanity didn't need to use it so much.

Flame away."

All I stated was the fact that people make mistakes! His post was idealistic! He knows it, you know it! So why post it? Why invite a flamefest? Why not just post something in the Lounge about how wonderful it was to go to the appointment? I remember those heady days of early pregnancy and the desire to share the experience...but why post it in GD?

In closing I wish DNR and his spouse all the best as stated many time..a wanted pregnancy is a wonderful thing.

[iverglas]

143. I feel compelled to keep defending DNR

"Be happy you are rejoicing in your choice... and remember that one day you may not want someone to be so judgemental about one of your choices/behaviors whatever it might be..."

I am at a complete loss to see how anyone could interpret his initial post as "judgmental". And I'm the one in this thread who probably already knew him best (at DU, that is) and liked him least, I'd venture to say, so believe me when I say I was looking for such traces.

Please read my reply to him up top, "don't fall over", and his reply to that. Please read my post just above yours, in which I say I think he's getting a bum rap.

I think there's an awful lot of leaping to conclusions going on in this thread. DNR sees wife's ultrasound, DNR is happy, DNR must think bad things about women who have abortions. But he didn't say that.

He really didn't say he wished that fewer women had abortions. He said, rather clumsily perhaps, that he wished that fewer women had to have abortions -- that fewer women had the experience of unwanted pregnancy.

"Let's just be thankful that abortion is safe and legal for those who need it..."

Actually, he not only said he was thankful things are that way, he said he was committed to keeping them that way.

I'm not sure whether he commits to voting for a pro-choice, pro-firearms control candidate over an anti-choice, anti-firearms control candidate. If not, I still wouldn't like him much, and I might indeed question his commitment to women's reproductive freedom. But then I might just decide that there are things on which sincere people of good will can honestly disagree, and that this was one of them. Perhaps not highly likely, but possible.

.