"I'm pro-choice, but abortion should only take place if the mothers life is in danger"

[SemiCharmedQuark]

I am doing a speech on emergency contraception. One of the questions I asked was about abortion and I cannot believe the number of people who say abortion is only acceptable in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother but consider themselves to be pro-choice. Not only that, about 3/4 of the class say that life begins at fertilization. how do I prepare a persausive speech going into this? Any ideas?

[niyad]

1. I would start at the NARAL site.

http://www.naral.org/

[movonne]

2. I think that every woman has the right to an abortion...but again

I think that we should teach about how to prevent pregancy..Then maybe everyone would get their way...

[Skinner]

3. My impression is that the "opposite" phenomenon is more common.

That is to say: It is my impression that there is a large number of people in the country who consider themselves to be pro-life because they are personally opposed to abortion, but who believe that abortion should be legal in most circumstances. I see it on DU fairly often. They'll say "I'm pro-life, but I think abortion should be legal."

It irks me somewhat, because I'm one of those people who thinks words have meaning. But at the same time, it seems like there might be an opening for a savvy canddiate to capitalize on it.

As for your speech: I might suggest focusing in on the question of what would happen if abortion were only permitted in cases of rape.

Ask women: Would a you have to wait months for a conviction in a court of law before you could abort? And what happens if you are raped, but the jury does not convict? In rape cases, it's often one person's word against the other.

Ask men: Would you find yourself falsely accused of rape because a woman wants to abort? Even if you are found not guilty, you will have that stigma following you for the rest of your life.

My impression is that most people -- even the most hard-core anti-abortion people -- do not like to consider either possibility.

[omega minimo]

17. That's called being Pro-Choice

"That is to say: It is my impression that there is a large number of people in the country who consider themselves to be pro-life because they are personally opposed to abortion, but who believe that abortion should be legal in most circumstances."

[Skinner]

20. Yeah, I know.

I think if you'll re-read my post, it should be apparent that I agree with you.

[omega minimo]

91. How do ya get THEM to understand that?

:hi:

[hughee99]

39. I don't see the conflict in the "I'm pro-life, but..." argument.

There are many issues that people personally disagree with, but aren't looking for government intervention on. Whether it's gun ownership, getting your newborn son circumcised, smoking, drinking, watching pornography, etc... there are a lot of people out there with they attitude that they would never do "X", and think that "X" is wrong, but certainly wouldn't support a law to ban "X".

[omega minimo]

94. That's what it means to be Pro-Choice; the right to do something you might not do yourself

It's wrong to replace "Pro Choice" with "Pro Life, But..." because the Pro Life Movement waged a domestic terrorism campaign of bombings, harrassment and assassinations against women's clinics, staff, doctors, patients and bystanders.

If people want to come up with a new slogan, let it NOT be one that has such a vicious, bloody history.

[question everything]

48. I really do not like the term "pro-life," it implies that the rest of us

are pro-death.

I, too, believe that words have meaning. And I agree with someone who said that we need to move from the term "choice" which has a consumer meaning, while the term "life" is so visceral.

On DU I have started using the term privacy which, I think, has more visceral meaning than choice.

[omega minimo]

95. "Choice" as in "Freedom of _____," the Freedom to Choose. Freedom visceral enough?

:bounce:

[question everything]

129. Ah. But we don't use the word freedom

we say "pro choice."

And intuitively, choice is often associated with choosing of a brand of a car, or TV. Or even the church and our representatives. More on a cerebral level than the word life.

[omega minimo]

131. People know what "Pro Choice" really means just like they know what "Pro Life"really means

Let's get this Frank Luntz focus group framing consultant bullshit out of our dialogue. :thumbsup:

[librechik]

4. Legal, Safe--AND RARE

so must improve delivery of family planning services as well.

That's the Democratic Plan.

Try telling them that "a person's" life begins when God breathes the first breath into the born baby. Before that, a fetus is not a baby or a person, according to God.


Let them argue with themselves about that, from a religious point of view.

[PistolSteve]

13. Why rare?

My attitude is that if you think some abortions are OK, then all should be OK - even as a method of birth control.

I believe that abortions are not wrong and could care less if they are rare.

[REP]

18. Beat Me To It

Other than reducing the need for any surgery, no matter how minor (as in the case of a first-trimester abortion), there's no need to make abortion rare because of the type of surgery it is. There's nothing wrong with, no more than there's anything wrong with open-heart surgery - but most people would rather avoid it.

All current birth control methods have some failure rate and almost all reversible methods have side-effects. There's not enough love, money, support, government programs, etc etc etc to make some women want to have a(nother) child; there will always be genetic anomalies and severe health problems that affect women and the fetuses they carry. Wishing won't make abortion go away, and all the hand-wringing in the world - by liberals, no less! - won't make abortions shameful.

[Iris]

36. me, too. I literally cringe every time I see the word rare used

to qualify a woman's decision.

[kestrel91316]

64. "Rarely necessary" might be a better term.

[Iris]

74. No. Not better at all. Because who's going to decide which

women are "one abortion over the line" of rare?

[REP]

78. I Read It As "Rarely Necessary, Like Root Canals"

Like a goal - let's make our dental health is so good, root canals are rarely necessary; let's make our reproductive health care and contraception is so safe, reliable and available that abortions are available without stigma, but not needed as often.

But I am an optimist!

[Iris]

82. I'm still uncomfortable with even the hint of the idea that there

are a certain number of "acceptable" abortions b/c once we get beyond that number, then who decides? Plus, I just don't think we'll ever find a completely reliable form of contraception.

[novalib]

105. THEY SHOULD NOT BE RARE!!!!!

Abortions should be available AS OFTEN AS THEY ARE NEEDED!!!!!!

And no one -- NO ONE!!!! -- can say how often abortions will be needed.

EACH AND EVERY abortion is done because a woman decides along with her doctor that IT IS NECESSARY for her to have one!!

NO ONE SHOULD TRY TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS, any more than anyone should try to limit the number of open-heart surgeries!!!

[CTyankee]

118. Exactly! If one is OK, why is two not OK? n/t

[CTyankee]

117. "Rare" is a sop to hypocrisy, IMHO.

It's just a cover, because you know and I know that when a woman needs an abortion, "rare" doesn't come into it, it just doesn't.

Having said that, I do believe some women are brainwashed enough to feel guilt about their decision. So we go around mouthing "rare" and that gets us off the hook, so to speak.

As far as I am concerned, if it means we get to keep choice then I'm willing to go with the "rare" terminology. In our heart of hearts we know it is BS. But we need it for political cover.

[Clark2008]

59. I think when people use the term "rare," they mean that they

want women to have better access to birth control and a better understanding of pregnancy prevention so that they don't HAVE to make that decision as often as it seems they have to do now.

Think: pharmacists that won't prescribe birth control.

That sort of thing.

[ecstatic]

73. Rare because it is an invasive procedure?

That could result in a host of issues, including cervical cancer? Not trying to be funny here. I am absolutely pro choice but abortion IS surgery that has physical as well as psychological ramifications. I don't wish to see a bunch of women going through that due to lack of other options (at the birth control level, i.e., emergency contraceptive, etc.)

Legal, safe... rare... Clinton and them have it absolutely right!

[librechik]

124. exactly--abortion is hard on the woman physically, and if she had early options

it would be a lot less painful and emotionally harrowing. I'll put aside the shudder factor of a more mature zygote to deal with.

With good, timely birth control, unintentional pregnancy could be rare. And therefore abortion would be rare. Both outcomes are suoerior, IMO, than so called "convenience" abortions. Anyone who has either had one or watched someone have an abortion should know that "conveneince" is the OPPOSITE of the abortion experience. After that, NO ONE could ever call themselves "pro-abortion."
Choice, however, is your business and yours alone.

I also like omega minimo's point below is valid--safe, legal and "none of your business"

[Perky]

114. Because in certainly a portion of the cases,

abortion is a matter of convenience rather than either a medical necessity or economic realities.

I am not saying that we should make any aboortion illegal.

I am simply saying that a happily married woman who elects to abort solely because it was a "surprise" or hubby already had a vasectomy (oops) might be considered selfish (though not in all cases).

No one should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world. but if we argue that war and capital punishment are immoral because it devalues human life, then at a minimum we ought to allow that abortion for selfish reason ought to be rare.

I support a woman's right to choose in all instances, but if someone chooses to have unprotected sex, they should understand the they can get pregnant. To use abortion solely as a means of contraception can be ssen as selfish.

That is why I support RU-486 and to the extent it is sefe "the patch".

[novalib]

120. "A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE"????!!!!! WTF???!!!!

I DEFY you to provide A SINGLE INSTANCE where a woman has had an abortion "FOR CONVENIENCE"!!!!!

WOMEN DO NOT HAVE ABORTIONS FOR CONVENIENCE!!!

Women have abortions BECAUSE THEY ARE NECESSARY FOR THEIR LIFE OR HEALTH!!!

PERIOD!!!!!

(And, by the way, I do NOT APPRECIATE your snide little statement that implies that women do not understand the pregnancy can result from unprotected sex!!!! GEEEEEZZZZZZ!)

[Perky]

127. And in instances in which it it not for life or health?

For instance a 19 year old College Sophomore who is completely healthy and hooks up with a frat boy...Like those instances never happen...oh come on....

[novalib]

141. It is ALWAYS Life or Health!!!!!!

So what if a 19-year-old college sophomore who is completely healthy hooks up with a frat boy????!!!!!

WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY THE AN ABORTION IN SUCH A CASE IS NOT FOR THE HEALTH OR LIFE OF THE MOTHER????!!!

You are aware, of course, that PREGNANCY ITSELF is a threat to a woman's health???!!!!!

[Perky]

By that logic all women should always have abortion

Or at a minimm women who carry their child to term are being selfish, by risking their own lifes to ecperience he joy of a child or child birth itself

[Perky]

154. By that logic all women should always have abortion

Or at a minimm women who carry their child to term are being selfish, by risking their own lifes to ecperience he joy of a child or child birth itself

[Perky]

155. By that logic all women should always have abortion

Or at a minimm women who carry their child to term are being selfish, by risking their own lifes to ecperience he joy of a child or child birth itself

[omega minimo]

128. You are confusing (total strangers') personal opinion with individual rights

I understand your point, you've thought it through.

However, this points up the trap of thinking we have the right to judge others.

"I am simply saying that a happily married woman who elects to abort solely because it was a "surprise" or hubby already had a vasectomy (oops) might be considered selfish (though not in all cases)."

"...might be considered selfish..." by whom? Whose business is it?

"No one should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world. but if we argue that war and capital punishment are immoral because it devalues human life, then at a minimum we ought to allow that abortion for selfish reason ought to be rare."

Again with the judgement. "we ought to allow that abortion for selfish reason ought to be rare." "To use abortion solely as a means of contraception can be ssen as selfish."

That may be a valid personal opinion for one's own life or even others' hypothetical behavior, but it is TOTALLY OUT OF PLACE in terms of the rights of others and private decisions that have nothing to to with the opinionated.



"I support a woman's right to choose in all instances..."

If we really mean that, we will keep our opinions seperate from acknowledging and supporting that right. Permanently.

[JerseygirlCT]

144. Rare because they don't need to happen nearly so often

if better contraception and education were easily available.

Rare because a potential life *is* involved, and if there's a way to avoid that conflict, better to avoid it.

I don't see any difficulty with that position. I'm fervently pro-choice. My personal choice would be not to abort. But just as I'd never want anyone making that choice for me, I don't think I have the right to make it for anyone else.

[Xithras]

147. Abortion is a surgical procedure, and as such is a risk to a womans health.

The risks resulting from abortion include sterilization, uterine perforation, hemmoraging, infection, and in rare cases, death. What often gets lost in the pro-choice argument is the fact that abortion is a surgical excision of material from within the female body, and as such is just as risky as any other invasive surgical procedure. Any time a doctor performs any type of surgical procedure on the body, no matter how skilled the doctor or how healthy the patient, there is a fairly small risk that an adverse reaction can occur. While the statistical odds of this happening are tiny, they are FAR larger than the statistical odds of a comparable reaction happening as the result of using the pill, an IUD, condoms, or other birth control devices which prevent implantation or fertilization in the first place.

Abortion is the most dangerous form of birth control a woman can practice, and it should be rare for that reason alone. Safe, legal, and rare. The safest course of action for ANY woman is to prevent implantation in the first place. This isn't a judgement on the "morality" of the procedure, but a simple evaluation of the comparative risks present in each form of birth control.

Should a woman have the right to get an abortion once a month as her preferred method of birth control? Sure. She'd be an absolute idiot to do so, but it should be her right.

[omega minimo]

96. Safe, Legal and None Of Your Business

:hi:

[Megahurtz]

100. Here! Here!

:applause:

[omega minimo]

104. Here Here Ya Go!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2729021

[Megahurtz]

107. Excellent Post!

We should not have any less rights to our bodies than men do to theirs!
And why people even have the gall to impose themselves on anyone else's Abortion Rights at all
is beyond me!
If it's not their body, it's not their business, period!:argh:

[omega minimo]

108. :yes:

:toast:

[Megahurtz]

113. I'll Have One, Too!

:toast:

[Warren DeMontague]

109. I'll second that.

You know I'm all about that MYOGDB train! :hi:

[omega minimo]

110. Mind Your Own WHO?! Damn Bizness!!

:wow: :rofl: :pals:

[librechik]

121. this is indeed better than "rare" n/t

[Dora]

125. That's it! n/t

[Coexist]

142. yes.

Honestly, I was more unsure about abortions before I had children. I have three - two are teenagers. I truly understand what it takes to raise a child - not just be pregnant and give birth to one.

I am done. I have nothing left to give - what is left is for the three I chose to bring into this world. I want no more. It is my decision - it is not predicated on whether or not my birth control fails.

No one has the right to judge me in this decision.

[Jim__]

5. Assuming that you're pro-choice ...

... what arguments convinced you? I would think that those are the arguments that you would be best at presenting.

[Greyhound]

26. The combination of my love for the founding ideas of the U.S.A.and the fact

that I don't have a uterus.

The notion that our government has the right to impose any laws or rules pertaining to what individuals are allowed or prohibited from doing with their own person is antithetical the ideal of American Liberty. IMO, the restriction or prohibition of abortion is equivalent to slavery.

I hope my second reason is self explanatory. :patriot:

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Unfortunately, the rightwing has, as it always does, won the language war

and so the only options for self-indentification are "pro-choice" or "pro-life", which, in the minds of the vast majority of Americans who are easily swayed and don't pay attention to nuance, have come to mean "The unchristian position that believes that rampant and maybe even forced abortions without any sense of guilt or repurcussions or respect for life at all should be fenerally mandated" and "The Christian position of no abortion, ever, for any reason whatsoever because the fetus is a human life as soon as the sperm enters the egg".

And so those who believe abortions for certain events: rape, incest, danger to the mother, etc., find themselves in a quandary as to "which side" to identify with in the abortion war.

Of course, they are something other than pro-loife or pro-choice, but the rightwing (by permission of the leftwing) has defined the debate terms, and so there ya go. The pro-life people (who aren't pro-life at all, of course, but that's another debate), and the pro-choice group that encompasses such a vast array of opinions that it's a meaningless moniker.

Add in to that the vast array of opinions as to when "life" begins, and the overlapping of those opinions with the two allowable categories of stances on abortion, and it becomes a very murky soup - the pro-choice life begins at fertilization people to the pro-life life begins at X-number-of-months people to the Bill Hicksian pro-choice life-begins-when-you're-in-my-phonebook people and also the pro-choice doesn't-matter-when-life-begins-it's-the-woman's-choice-ALWAYS people, and everything in between, and other stuff outside the boundaries.

[blogslut]

7. First off

Remind them that every mother puts her life at risk in order to bring a child to term.

[CTyankee]

122. Absolutely. That was driven home to me when my daughter

had to have an emergency C section to save her life from pre-eclampsia in her pregnancy. Fortunately, her pregnancy was far enough along that my grandson was born perfectly healthy and nearly full term. But what would have happened if her condition became evident earlier, before viability (or even after)? The only way to stop pre-eclampsia from killing the mother is to end the pregnancy.

[Cassandra]

8. Choice refers to the mother's choice...

whether they agree with her reasons or not. Do people make some bad choices? Of course they do. It's called being human.

[babylonsister]

9. Can I ask the age of your audience? I'm wondering if

anyone has ever been in the position to actually need an abortion. That tends to change minds.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. We are all 18-23, with one exception.

[PistolSteve]

10. Ask them why?

Pose the question: "If a 13 year old got raped by a homeless drug addict and she got pregnant, should she be forced to have the baby?"

If they say no, ask why? Say, "isn't it still a living being?" "how is killing this baby different than killing one between two consensual adults"

You see where I am going...

Make you conclusion that these are difficult decisions that require individual attention and the government shouldn't be the one making them.

[Fridays Child]

11. Carl Sagan had some thoughts on the subject.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

[REP]

12. Some Basics:

1. If the fetus is deserving of protection, it is deserving of protection no matter how it was conceived (rape, incest). Allowing exceptions for how the pregnancy came into being shows concern not for the fetus, but the 'morals' of the woman.

2. Every single pregnancy increases the risk of death or serious disability to the woman (source: CDC, Williams Obstetrics). How much risk is too much, and who decides? How much disability is okay? Permanent kidney failure? heart damage?

3. Fertilization, you say? Is that when the spem enters the ovum, loses its tail, or when the blastocyst implants in the endometrium (which is the medical definition of pregnancy)?

4. If 'souls' are in issue, ask for proof that they exist. In the case of monozygotic twins, where the fertilized egg splits and becomes two fetuses, did the soul split as well; if not, where did the extra soul come from? In the case of chimera (where two zygotes fuse into one fetus), does the resulting fetus have two souls or does one soul go away?

5. What about hydatiform moles? They're the product of a human ova; they are human ...

[PistolSteve]

14. Well done...

I never heard the soul argument - I like it.

[laundry_queen]

115. From what I understand

some religions believe the fetus does not have a soul until either the mother feels it move, or the heartbeat can be heard with a fetoscope. Ask them if these people should have Christian 'life begins at conception' beliefs forced on them.

[kestrel91316]

69. Hydatiform moles are people, too.

Give them the civil rights they are due.

:evilgrin: :silly:

[whoneedstickets]

15. One of the central issues is timing...

I think these wildly divergent responses regarding the acceptable context for abortion stem from the different, often unspoken, assumptions about the stage of pregnancy. Roe v. Wade is a complex ruling that outlines three distinct phases within the pregnancy and--rightly so in my estimation--balances out the woman's reproductive freedom against the state's interest in protecting the life of the 'potential person'.

The key time point where the rights of the unborn child begin to tip against the rights of the woman is viability. Once the child could reasonably be expected to live outside the womb, then there is a pretty strong argument that the pregnancy should only be terminated using the life/health of the woman argument. I think many who say I'm pro-choice but only for life/health have this vital time point in mind.

Prior to achieving viability, when we are talking about zygotes and rudimentary fetuses, there are no compelling arguments about the rights of the unborn outweighing the woman's right to reproductive choice. Those advocating unlimited reproductive choice usually have this first trimester period in mind.

The problem is that the viability time point isn't entirely unambiguous. So that middle trimester is the problem one.

[BlooInBloo]

16. I don't see what's wrong with this...

... Their own opinion is that only-if-mom's-life-is-threatened (not my opinion, but they're entitled to their own). But in terms of public policy - laws - they're pro-choice. Upshot: their personal opinion on abortion is relatively conservative, but the person does not advocate universalizing his/her personal opinion.

Where's the problem?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. I suppose I thought that "pro-choice" meant that it wasn't the buisness

of anyone but the person making the choice. Suggesting that abortion is only ok in instances of rape and incest or when the mother's life is in jeopardy seems to go against that.

[DRoseDARs]

19. I'll bite the bullet: I only support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency...

...meaning the mother's life is in danger or it's determined that the fetus will be born a very sickly baby unlikely to live long. Mother and father have to decide between themselves whether or not to abort the pregnancy. However, banning the current policy on abortions creates the problems of back-alley abortions and a large increase in the number of children put up for adoption, many of whom will be in the system for a very long time, perhaps never being adopted. Unless solid support systems are put in place to deal with both of those issues, the current policy of allowing general abortions is preferable. If the staunch anti-choicers (excuse me, "pro-lifers") as a group can't be depended on to put their money where their mouths are with regards to the current number of children without homes, they certainly can't be depended on to suddenly give a shit about the thousands, perhaps millions of more children put up for adoption after an abortion ban is put into place for a few years. The state is already overburdened with wards, and as far as the "pro-lifers" are concerned, out of sight out of mind...unless it's an essentially invisible clump of cells.

[REP]

23. I'll Keep Saying It ...There Will Always Be a Need

A woman loses two children; one two SIDS and another to leukemia. Her birth control fails and she becomes pregnant; there's nothing physically wrong with her but she is deeply depressed and cannot bear the idea of having another child. Your system would force her to bring that pregnancy to term.

A woman becomes pregnant when her birth control fails; she does not want children ever. It's not a matter of money, support or anything of that nature - she doesn't want to be a mother. Your system does not help her.

What is the difference between a fetus conceived from rape and one conceived from consensual sex? Nothing but your judgement of the behavior of the woman. The thing that makes one fetus deserving of protection is not absent in the one you deem unworthy. Your position is hypocrtical, unless you own up to judging the woman and not the worth of the fetus.

[DRoseDARs]

28. You didn't read my post very carefully, so I won't bother responding. n/t

[REP]

32. Ah. Can't Answer. I Understand.

Of course I read your post, sweetie. My points were not addressed.

[DRoseDARs]

40. Funny, I was able to respond to gollygee. Must be a problem on your end. n/t

[REP]

50. Funny That ... You Responded In The Wrong Place. Cute!

Convince me that adoption is a swell solution for every unwanted pregnancy, even in your world of perfect support.

Answer why a fetus conceived from rape is somehow different than a fetus conceived out of consensual sex and why you would protect one but not the other.

[REP]

25. Dupe Post

[gollygee]

30. I *personally* wouldn't have an abortion except for in a case like that

but I would never presume to know what circumstances someone else is in. If someone feels like she needs an abortion, I assume she has a good reason, because she knows better than I do what's going on in her life.

[DRoseDARs]

38. And as I already said, there must be a solid support system or else no abortion ban.

She doesn't need to keep the child after birth with such a system in place, just carry to term and give the baby up for adoption. As for this "failing birth control" nonsense, how hard is it to take a pill (or two; there's male birth control now isn't there?) and have one or both partners wear a condom? Any pregnancy occurring through three (four?) separate layers of protection must be an infinitesimally unlikely one. Or the Second Coming of Christ. :wow:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. I don't think the male pill is on the market yet

And the pill for women does have a failure rate, is less effective for heavier women, and changes with some drugs. Only one partner can wear a condom because the two condoms together could cause friction and actually tear.

[DRoseDARs]

49. And how many kinds of lube are there?

Seriously, we are sexual creatures meant for making more sexual creatures. Don't want a child? We have options to prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place (with the male pill coming down the line as another one). I'm sick of people making excuses to not engage in a little personal responsibility and preventative action. It isn't this bloody difficult.

[REP]

52. Abortion IS a Responsible Action! You Just Don't Like It!

That's why fetuses conceived out of rape are not worthy of protection, but those conceived during consensual sex are - because in one case, the woman wasn't being responsible enough!!

[DRoseDARs]

58. Screech a little louder, maybe your opinion will be a little more correct...

:eyes:

No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. No one will force a woman to abort a fetus conceived by rape any more than forcing her to abort an accidental pregnancy or intentional one. The difference is the stigma: Does the woman want to live with the knowledge that somewhere (either in her own home or in a foster home) the product and reminder of her horrific violation is walking around and is it fair for that child to know and be known as the product of rape? Society is the problem there and given it's difficult to change society and the stigma it bestows, the option for aborting rape fetuses ought to be open. For incest and medical emergencies, obviously there are legitimate medical reasons for an abortion. And again, no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion for any reason. But the way you're screeching at me, it seems you're implying that I'm calling for mandatory abortions for everyone. Granted, the world would be a better place with fewer and fewer Humans, but that would kind of render this whole discussion rather moot. ;)

[REP]

67. Run a Little Faster - Maybe No One Will Notice!

Your position isn't about forcing abortions; it's about forcing gestation and childbirth. You would disallow abortions except for rape and incest, even though their is nothing different about a fetus from forced intercourse or consensual intercourse, except for your judgement of the woman. If the newborn is taken away at birth, how is that different from a consensually-conceived neworn being taken away at birth? If anything, it may be harder on the woman with the consensually-conceived neonate to surrender it to strangers. Aside from that, the fetuses are equally blameless and 'innocent' and using that measure, both deserve protection. From a biological standpoint, there is no difference - and either both deserve protection or neither do. Condemning a fetus on the actions of its father is a bit harsh, don't you think, if the fetus is a precious preborn poppet?

You stil haven't answered how your ideal scenario would deal with the grieving married mother and her unwanted pregnancy. Remember, not everyone is perfect like you, and not only can birth control fail, it can be used improperly (taking antibiotics while on the Pill, etc). Say this grieving woman made mistake and that's how she ended up with the unwanted pregnancy. Do you allow for mental health in your health reasons? (<<hint hint here's your way out gracefully).

[DRoseDARs]

81. Incest leads to genetic abnormalities, so yes there's a medical reason

As for you grieving mother, why can't she go to her doctor and get her tubes tied? Why can't she wear a condom or make her partner wear one? Or both with proper lubing? Why can't she adopt a child? Why do you keep making excuses for her to get pregnant in the first place yet again and potentially go through the pain of losing another one naturally, setting herself up for the need of an abortion? If you're going to toss in her mental condition, who gets to decide whether she is responsible for her own actions? Not you or I, that's who. Does the state get to decide whether or not to tie her tubes (or remove her ovaries altogether) for her? I'd like to think in that case a jury of medical doctors with no vested interests gets to suggest an appropriate course of action, but we both know that ain't going to happen. In any case, I don't believe either you nor I could honestly answer that question.

[REP]

90. This Is Not a Hypothetical

Any idea how hard it is to get a tubal ligation when you're under 30? Have you ever tried to get one? I have a tubal ligation and an endometrial ablation - ask any nullaparous woman under 30 just how easy it is to get either (it isn't; some morons think woman = mother and that we'll "change our minds" someday. It's like telling a woman with a wanted pregnancy she'll change her mind about wanting a baby!)

The woman in question - a real woman, by the way - did have other children years later. This is not a "what if;" this is me asking you how you would legislate this very real scenario. I'm not sure what methods she and her husband were using; all I know is that they failed and she, already near-suicidal, did not want to be pregnant or give birth. The question is not 'what did she do wrong' - just assume she failed by your standards. Do you let her have the abortion, or do you let her commit suicide?

[Megahurtz]

106. So you are condoning Pregancy As Punishment

for not having proper birth control?

That's just wrong.

It's not up to you to judge a woman for not taking the proper precautions
and having proper birth control or not.

Why are you crawling in someone else's pants?
Don't you know that's none of your business?:think:

[Iris]

139. Exactly. How would you like to be the "punishment" for your mother's mistake?

Is that any message to send to kids? "I'm being punished for having sex by being force to be your mother/father."

[Iris]

143. Check out how going before a panel of doctors was "good" for Kate Michaelman, former chairman of

NARAL:

KATE MICHELMAN: In 1969, I was a stay-at-home Catholic mom of three little girls, and having grown-up in the 1950s, I was, like many women, my values in life were about my family and my ideal, of course, was very much in tune with what other women thought their primary value was, which was to make a good home, be a good mom. And, of course, women feel that way, have felt that way throughout history. In any case, in 1969 my husband abandoned me and my three daughters, really literally left our lives in a very abrupt way. I was forced onto welfare. I had very little resources. We were a couple who would – you know, was concentrating on ensuring that my husband had his career in place. We were just starting out an academic life, and my husband fell in love with another woman and walked out the door, leaving me alone with my three children.

A few weeks after he left, I discovered that I was pregnant again, and this was a very devastating time of my life. It was a time of great turmoil, a time of great fear, a time of a real sort of destruction of what I thought my life was going to be about and, frankly, I had never considered at all, ever, the notion that I would face the choice about whether or not to have an abortion. And to be honest with you, I didn't know much about the reality of abortion at the time. But my family was in crisis. I was, as I said, on welfare, because I had no resources, and as a Catholic woman, you know, I was confronted with the decision about whether or not to have an abortion, is a very complex, moral and ethical and religious issue for me.

And -- but as I thought about it very deeply, I realized that my daughters needed me very much, that I could not introduce another child into the family and ensure that my family survived. And so I made the choice to have an abortion, finding that abortion was illegal in Pennsylvania at the time. And I had a choice between a back-alley abortion, which, I had heard, was devastatingly dangerous. I even had the number of an illegal abortionist that I carried with me at all times.

But I was told by a doctor that I could apply to a hospital for a therapeutic abortion. But to get this therapeutic abortion, I had to be rendered unfit. I had to be medically designated as needing an abortion in order to get this hospital abortion. I went through a hospital board review, a panel of four men, two different interrogations that probed the most intimate details of my life. It was humiliating and degrading. They finally granted me permission to have this therapeutic abortion. And just as I was about to have the procedure, almost, I was told that they had forgotten one more legal requirement, and that was that I needed the permission of my husband.

I was -- I said, “You can't be serious. My husband has left us. I don't even know where he is.” And they said, “That is the law. You need the permission or we cannot do the procedure.” I had to leave the hospital and find my husband, who did give me his written permission, but it was a further humiliation and degradation. And so, when Judge Alito, in his opinion in the Casey decision in 1991, you know, wrote that the state requiring women to notify their husbands imposes no burden, no undue burden on women, and what does it matter anyway, because most women do involve their husbands voluntarily, so it would only be a few women who would be affected, I found that, obviously, personally and deeply disturbing, but outraged over his, again, lack of understanding about how these laws impact on the dignity and the self-respect of women and on our rights and our freedoms.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/09/1456207

[Crim_n al]

156. "Or remove her ovaries" ? .... that is the stupidest thing I've read on DU

How about suggesting the guy get his balls chopped off? It's the same thing.

I suggest you get your balls removed, see how that affects your health, and then come back with and least some knowledge before trying to spread such mind-boggling and malicious stupidity any further.

Lacking ovaries is a medical problem which needs treatment. No doctor will remove both functioning ovaries unless they have a major problem, such as ovarian cancer.

[Megahurtz]

119. But you want to force women and girls to carry unwanted children

to term and give them up for adoption if there is a "support system in place"!

Fuck that! We are not breeding pigs!:grr:

[Crim_n al]

149. I got pregnant first time using the pill, condoms, spermicide and

with a husband who was supposedly sterile because of a low sperm count.

Second time, I was using a copper 7, only doing it during the safe times,
and using spermicide and condoms.

I was being terribly careful, because I'm very strongly anti abortion for myself, not for moral reasons, but because I just can't bring myself to do it.
(However, I fully support anyone having an abortion if that's what they choose.)

I had my children, and I'm glad now that i did, but the years spent bringing them up on my own and in poverty ... (husband left me because 2 are handicapped,) were times I'd wish on no-one. I had no support, could not put them in care to work, and have a psychiatric condition that means I really shouldn't have been a mother without support, and I was an abused child, so I had no role model for parenting.

So I could be the poster girl for the anti-choice crowd, having coped with all that, except for the fact that I've also experienced what it's like to have an embryo taking root in my belly and not be able to handle being pregnant. I starved myself and wouldn't let myself sleep til I aborted, and nearly killed myself in the process. And I don't regret it. Some things are just imperative to a person, and trying to legislate about imperatives does nothing but make criminals of innocent people and damage health.

Sometimes fatally.

[Scout]

158. 'cuz we all know that birth control NEVER fails....

I don't think you are really pro-choice. I think really you are very judgmental and ill-informed about birth control. And you seem to be one of those persons who believes women are incubators, and once she is pregnant well tough shit--you squeeze out that brat and give it up for adoption!

It's unreasonable to expect people to use 3 or 4 methods of BC.

[REP]

46. Wrong.

In my first example, the woman who has recently suffered the DEATHS of two children doesn't want to go through another pregnancy, let alone hand over her helpless newborn to strangers. She doesn't want to be pregnant. Your system FAILS. Read the studies - peer reviewed medical studies - I provided, and see if you think a woman in severe depression over the deaths of two children needs to go through that. This case happened in the 60s, so get off your high horse about BC methods (yes, this really happened; she was able to obtain an illegal abortion, thanks be).

In my second example, you assume that every woman can take the Pill. Golly gee, guess what! No, not every woman can, nor does a woman who does not want to be a mother want to go through a pregnancy, childbirth and then hand over a newborn to strangers. She's still a mother; she just doesn't have custody.

And as for your astonishment that birth control can fail - even a tubal ligation can fail.

[DRoseDARs]

56. 1) Preventative actions, 2) Other options, 3) Where did I say I was astonished?

Seriously, all three layers failing? A pill (two when the male pill becomes available), two condoms with lube (there's even spermicidal lube) ... all failing? Who are you trying to convince here, you or me? Give me a break. :eyes:

[REP]

57. Give Me a Break!

Using two condoms is usually advised against. And not needed for the surgically sterilized. Not everyone can take the Pill (those who have had certain cancers, blood clots, etc). One size does not fit all. Welcome to Reality.

STILL dodging my questions. I'm not surprised.

[DRoseDARs]

60. Ok, I'll give you a break: I can see you're a very impatient person...

I've always hated the thread structure DU employs. Difficult to track who's responding to whom, where, and when. Nightmarish with hundreds of posts.

[REP]

71. You Have Never Answered

Asked again above.

[DRoseDARs]

85. See? Impatient. n/t

:P

[Iris]

63. Um - using 2 condoms at one time? Bad idea.

Makes them more prone to break.

It's ridiculous and impractical to expect every single person who has sex to employ all those methods anyway.

[DRoseDARs]

68. As I said elsewhere: Lube. Also, no less practical than brushing your teeth or flossing.

You have to go through the trouble of buying a toothbrush, picking a toothpaste, getting some Dixie cups and floss and mouthwash, cut off the circulation to your fingertips, brushing back and forth, swish-n-spit. The burden is unbearable.

Seriously, stop making excuses. Take a pill (go to a doctor for a prescription), put on a condom (male, female, both; buy from a store or there are even clinics that provide for free), add lube (especially if using condoms), fuck (any position you like). What is difficult about this? :shrug:

[Iris]

72. I think using one or 2 forms of bc is adequate.

And I won't have you or anyone else telling me differently. If my bc choice fails, I'll make the decision about whether or not I'll be a parent.

[DRoseDARs]

84. Unless a form of bc has a 100% effectiveness, your premise is faulty...

No such bc exists (abstinence notwithstanding, but let's be serious: People are not going to stop having sex and it's silly to suggest that they do so), so to rely on one form automatically comes with a risk. Two forms greatly reduces that risk, and three practically eliminates that risk (though not 100%; still fairly remote). Triple redundancy as a form of precaution is a great policy in anything field where there is a risk involved.

[Iris]

135. That's just ridiculous. I still stand by my "premise" (which is really my opinion

and the way I choose to run my own life) that 1 or 2 bc methods is adequate, but hell, even if someone doesn't use ANY and gets pregnant, it'd be her business.

[Lars39]

126. I had a friend once who couldn't take bc pills, and was allergic to latex.

Should she have just been fitted for a chastity belt and told to forget about ever having sex unless she was prepared to raise 10 or 12 kids?

[Iris]

136. ha! No, she COULD have sex if she uses spermicide (which I'm SURE is much

much less irritating than a condom!), a diaphram, but no lubricant there b/c it might create holes in the diaphram, and her partner has had a vasectomy and gets his semen checked WEEKLY to insure that no little "half-people" are swimming around in there.

[Scout]

159. you're a real piece of work...

with all your requirements, why even bother to have sex? With two condoms, who would feel anything?

I hope you don't have any daughters....

[Clark2008]

65. Some women can't take the pill - it would ruin their health

Did you think of that one?

BTW, I'm one of them. I cannot take hormonal supplements.... EVER.

Oh - and I'm pregnant using two separate barrier methods at the time of conception. I don't really think I'm expecting Christ, though.

:eyes:

[REP]

75. You Were Careless - Shoulda Used Three! or More!

Geez, don't all couples armor themselves when they get into bed? If you're not using a titanium condom and radioactive diaphragm with 17 spermicidal jellies, well ... you're being careless :sarcasm:

Me, I've only been sterilized twice, so I'm playing with fire.

[DRoseDARs]

87. Meaningless hyperbole, not suprising.

Screech!

[REP]

93. Yes, You Screech Squawk Screech But You Say Nothing - Just Avoid Questions

You invent new parameters and conditions for my question about which abortion you allow, and completely ignore my question about why the rapist's fetus is not worth protecting. You gave some feelgood pablum about the woman, but I asked: why is one fetus worth protecting and one is not? You screech and screech and do all sorts of adorable things, but never answer the question ... but that's okay. Your non-answers have stated your position loud and clear. You can't hide from that, and all your pretty prattling can't hide it.

[Clark2008]

97. Actually, I thought it was funny.

Her point - and mine, too - is that birth control, while preferable, isn't:
A. Always available or used properly
B. Usable by a certain percentage (women who smoke over the age of 35 cannot take hormonal birth control - and some women, like myself, cannot take it for other health reasons.
C. Effective

Luckily, I'm in a committed relationship, have enough money to survive, have experience raising a child, so I know what I'm in for and want to keep the child, even if I was reluctant at first.

I don't have to consider abortion - but some women in my position MIGHT. I am, afterall, getting a little long in the child-bearing tooth (36 years old - not ancient, but no spring chicken).

[DRoseDARs]

86. Lube? And I've already responded to the inability to take a pill...

...and you do realize I was being sarcastic about the SCoC without needing me to post the :sarcasm: smiley, right?

[Megahurtz]

103. Carry a child to term and give it up for Adoption???

Screw that!:grr: That's Forced Motherhood!

No one has the right to impose that on anyone!

[gollygee]

134. I can't take birth control pills

I'm also allergic to latex. There are other condoms available now, but if there were when I was single I wasn't aware of them. And I'm allergic to the spermicide they often put on these things.

Sucks to be me, eh? I have a non-hormonal IUD, which works for me, but it's only one form of birth control. If I got pregnant, we'd have another baby, but then I'm happily married and financially secure and stable. I am not in a position to tell other women that they'd have to make that same choice because they could be in very different circumstances.

Every woman has a different specific set of health issues and life circumstances. This is why laws don't work in this area. It's a case-by-case issue, and only the specific women involved, with consultation from their doctors, know what the best thing to do is in their specific situation.

[Beaverhausen]

21. If contraception was more readily available, and if sex ed was better...

...there would most certainly be fewer unwanted pregnancies, ergo, there would be fewer abortions. But until the number of unwanted pregnancies goes down, the number of abortions will remain where it is.

And as far as emergency contraception goes - well, rubbers break, diaphrams "move" or are forgotten,and several things like taking antibiotics can lessen the efficacy of BC pills. Women need to have emergency contraception readily available.

[Greyhound]

41. Contraception and sex education are wonderful and necessary,

however, they have nothing to do with the fundamental issue of the potential prohibition or restriction of abortion by the government.

The acceptance of the government's "right", at any level, to intervene on either side of this issue, is the real problem. If we continue to allow this obscenity to proceed, whatever the eventual outcome, it is a crushing defeat for liberty and, by relegating women to the status of property of the state, constitutes another step toward absolute servitude to a tyrannical authority.

[Warpy]

22. Any health care worker who's been through a maternity

rotation can tell you a woman's life is ALWAYS in danger. Once you learn all the complications and their frequency, you start to wonder how any of us made it through with mothers around to bring us up.

Childbirth is about 6 times more deadly than surgical abortion.

Plus, there are other criteria to look at. Forced pregancy not only cancels a woman's right to liberty, threatens her life, and destroys her ability to pursue happiness--our so-called inalienable rights, it threatens everything from her social support system (families can and do throw pregnant daughters out into the street), threatens her ability to make any sort of living (employers cry about liability and insurance), and poses a very real and severe threat to physical and mental health. Having an unplanned child is a devastating experience, especially for poor women. Keep it and you face a lifetime of poverty from reduced wages; put it up for adoption and you face a lifetime of severe emotional consequences, IF you've gotten through it in decent physical condition.

It's amazing how cavalierly men say "oh, just have the kid and give it up" like it's as easy as giving an extra puppy away. It's not. Google "birth mother" and see what you get in the way of long lasting damage, and realize that nobody did any research on this stuff until less than 20 years ago. Men didn't want it talked about.

In short, forced pregnancy is devastating in all areas of a woman's life and the devastation is permanent, no matter what she does. Pregnancy and child birth are not benign conditions, they are risky conditions, and they must be voluntary.

(remember, the choices a woman faced before 1974 were forced childbirth, being maimed by an amateur abortionist, or suicide.)

[REP]

27. Here's The Studies on the Psychological Sequelae to Surrendering for Adoption

J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1999 Jul-Aug;28(4):395-400.
Related Articles, Links

Postadoptive reactions of the relinquishing mother: a review.

Askren HA, Bloom KC.

Deer Valley OB/GYN, Mesa, AZ, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature addressing the process of relinquishment as it relates to the birth mother. DATA SOURCES: Computerized searches in CINAHL; Article 1 st, PsycFIRST, and SocioAbs databases, using the keywords adoption and relinquishment; and ancestral bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Articles from indexed journals in the English language relevant to the keywords were evaluated. No studies were located before 1978. Studies that sampled only an adolescent population were excluded. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted and information was organized under the following headings: grief reaction, long-term effects, efforts to resolve, and influences on the relinquishment experience. DATA SYNTHESIS: A grief reaction unique to the relinquishing mother was identified. Although this reaction consists of features characteristic of the normal grief reaction, these features persist and often lead to chronic, unresolved grief. CONCLUSIONS: The relinquishing mother is at risk for long-term physical, psychologic, and social repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions.

Med J Aust. 1986 Feb 3;144(3):117-9.
Related Articles, Links

Psychological disability in women who relinquish a baby for adoption.

Condon JT.

During 1986, approximately 2000 women in Australia are likely to relinquish a baby for adoption. A study is presented of 20 relinquishing mothers that demonstrates a very high incidence of pathological grief reactions which have failed to resolve although many years have elapsed since the relinquishment. This group had abnormally high scores for depression and psychosomatic symptoms on the Middlesex Hospital questionnaire. Factors that militate against the resolution of grief after relinquishment are discussed. Guidelines for the medical profession that are aimed at preventing psychological disability in relinquishing mothers are outlined.

Community Health Stud. 1990;14(2):180-9.
Related Articles, Links

Erratum in:
• Community Health Stud 1990;14(3):314.

Social factors associated with the decision to relinquish a baby for adoption.

Najman JM, Morrison J, Keeping JD, Andersen MJ, Williams GM.

Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Queensland.

Little is known about the characteristics, social circumstances and mental health of women who give a child up for adoption. This paper reports data from a longitudinal study of 8556 women interviewed initially at their first obstetrical visit. In total, 7668 proceeded to give birth to a live singleton baby, of which 64 then relinquished the baby for adoption. Relinquishing mothers were predominantly 18 years of age or younger, in the lowest family income group, single, having an unplanned and/or unwanted baby and reported that they were not living with a partner. These women were somewhat more likely to manifest symptoms of anxiety and depression both prior, and subsequent to, the adoption, but the majority of relinquishing mothers were of 'normal' mental health. The decision to relinquish a baby appears to be a consequence of an unwanted pregnancy experienced by an economically deprived single mother rather than the result of emotional or psychological/psychiatric considerations. These findings document a particular dimension of the impact of poverty on health.

[whoneedstickets]

35. The Pro-Lifers claim a similar grief reaction...

as a response to abortion. It seems likely that both terminating a pregnancy and giving a child up for adoption could have a profound psychological impact on a woman. Of course, the politically charged nature of this debate will likely prevent any reasonable investigation of which is harder.

[REP]

37. Wrong, And Here's THOSE Studies:

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31

Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.


RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)

This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.




Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...

The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed

PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...


Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.

Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.

Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...


Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?

Koop CE.

What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.

PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.

Romans-Clarkson SE.

Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.

This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.

PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.

Handy JA.

The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

[whoneedstickets]

47. What flawed methodology!

I simply scanned the study and they appear to rely on a self-reporting subset of women? What if some concealed their abortion history? I'm not sure the R2L critics point about mental heath is valid, but what if self-reporting prior abortion was an indication of mental health? Following up with these women would reveal only that those with good mental health exhibited subsequent good mental health.

To really conduct such a study one would need a random sample of women who received abortions and compared it with a similarly sampled group of those who chose adoption. Anything else has issues of self-selection and sampling bias.

Edit:
After reading more these studies, they are rife with sampling issues, even the Scottish study only got 77 responses out of nearly 400 identified candidates. Any survey conducted with a sub 25% response rate is crap. The other studies deal entirely with relatively early procedures. One study notes a lack of follow-up with most clinic patients -- a serious data deficiency. Even the meta-analysis of 250 prior studies shows some incidence of post abortion anguish (likely with those already suffering some mental illness). No wonder most data is anectdotal!! C.E. Koop's point about the cost of a full study are probably accurate. If one tried to do the same with mothers who opted for adoption, the data and selection issues would be huge.

Frankly given these methodological problems, the mental anguish argument seems pretty much a dead end.

[REP]

53. Read Them Again; "Scanned" and "They Appear" Is Not Analysis

Complete citations are included; you can read each entire study for yourself.

[whoneedstickets]

61. Chek my edit above

The adoption studies too are crap! One study of 20 mothers! That's not social science its story telling. The one study that looked at 60 something women noted that many of these mothers are from a particularly vexed sub-group to begin with! So, poor, young and depressed women who accidentally become pregnant and, lacking parental support, give a newborn up for adoption tend to exhibit high levels of depression. Compared to who? The population in general, or other poor, young and depressed women who accidentally become pregnant and, lacking in family support, have an abortion? Really, can we claim EITHER procedure to be the cause of the mental issues? Not with this evidence.

Gosh I hope this isn't the state of health research in this area!?

[REP]

76. Tee Hee

:rofl:

Sorry.

:rofl:

Can't help it. You're adorable.

[whoneedstickets]

80. I'm glad you're amused...

...I'm appalled. This is a fundamentally important question and there seems to be almost no legitimate research going on and a huge paucity of data. This suggests either a) no one cares about womens' mental health b) politics is preventing serious analysis. Either explanation leaves me queasy.

[REP]

92. Do I Smell Something?

Yes, I do. Smells like bullshit.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. I suppose what they mean is it should

be available. That is a rather limited choice.

I believe life begins at fertilization so I can't help you there!

[buckettgirl]

33. Thats touchy....

I don't know how a person can be pro-choice and claim those ideas... I guess its better than thinking abortion is always wrong.
I, personally, disagree with using abortion as form of birth control (which is why I would never do it), however, sometimes individual situations demand that outcome.
I would make sure to tell these people that there is no *stereotypical* situation in which to have an abortion... a person's situation is individual and must be kept in context. I guess it would also be good to drive home the point that if abortion weren't allowed at all, then the government would be paying for more children than what the taxpayers would like (as it seems some would just as soon let the children die for their parent's wrongdoings).
I would also show them a picture of an anencephalic baby.....which if born alive, the prognosis is death. There is no reason that a mother/family should be forced to carry a child like that to term if they are sure of the diagnosis/outcome beforehand.
For me, this is a touchy issue, as my husband and I must decide our course of action should we ever decide to have children. There is a history of severe birth defects (resulting in death)in my husband's family. We don't know if we will have children, but if we do, we want the option to abort - to save ourselves the heartbreak that his family has already endured (my husband has lost a son, and my brother-in-law lost a daughter, both were under 9 months old).
I think that those people who feel that abortion is never necessary unless it is rape/incest/mother's health need a dose of reality. There are so many other reasons, legitimate reasons that go beyond using it for birth control that MUST be considered.
If I were you, I would do my best to present well researched information to make that point.

[Iris]

34. It's not really a choice if you have an abortion because you were raped or

even if your life is in danger.

What I mean is, sure you could choose to give birth to a child conceived in rape, but the fact is either way, I'm sure it would not be the woman's choice to be pregnant at all through rape. An abortion in this case is more like a decision between the lesser of 2 evils.

Same with health of the mother - if a woman has an abortion so she doesn't die or destroy her health - it's not really a choice. It's a life-saving necessity.

So to say one is pro-choice and then put such stringent stipulations on the nature of the choice is really not pro-choice. It's anti-abortion except to in cases of rape, incest, or to save the health and life of the mother. Because, really, if you put these criteria on the "choice" SOMEONE has to decide which women are worthy of that choice.

[kevinbgoode]

42. Ask them if, when a man masturbates, if he is killing potential life

Since each time may be the last time he discharges sperm, does that mean he might potentially be destroying life? And shouldn't that be regulated so that untold millions of eggs could be fertilized and produce children?

I mean, if life begins at fertilization, that means it is the man's sperm which provides the stuff of "life" - and the egg is just the warming oven, a quaint concept that reverts back to ancient thinking of the biblically correct - that it was Man who carried the babies in his sperm and woman who just baked them to life.

It would seem to me, that if a man suddenly starts shooting blanks and has a history of using contraceptives or ejaculating without a partner, he has murdered potentially millions of potential children.

[Marnieworld]

88. ejaculation is not fertilization

Well there's a subject line I wasn't expecting to write! ;)

The OP specifically said that these people thought life begins at fertilization. Sperm + egg. No egg equals no life.

This is opposed to many who believe that it begins at implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine wall. The "oven" you mentioned. There is debate down to this level because of the opponents of birth control. BC can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting so therefore no embryo or eventual baby. But if life begins at fertilization then it's "murder" to take BC or emergency BC because it prevents implanation.

As far as the OP is concerned I found pro-choice concepts to be self-evident since I was a little girl so I have no idea how to convince someone who doesn't.

[novalib]

102. "Life" Does NOT Begin Before Birth!!

"Life" is what happens when a person is born.

It begins at birth and ends at death.

It's SOOOO simple.

[kevinbgoode]

148. I agree. . .and I thought our Constitution clearly says you become

a U.S. citizen upon BIRTH. . .not upon conception.

[Big Sky Boy]

43. Try focusing on the "decision" rather than the act

I am strongly opposed to abortion. I am not exactly sure when life begins, but I find it very difficult to argue against the fact that if a fetus was carried to term, it would most likely become a living human being.

That said I have to ask myself something.

Do I have the right to limit someone else's options regarding this issue based solely on MY deeply held personal beliefs? I am not comfortable asserting that I do. And if I actually thought I did, where would it end? What other personal decision should I be entitled to meddle with?

Ask your audience how they themselves are actually affected by this issue. How does the ability of someone else to make that choice have any impact on their daily lives at all?

As a gay white male, I can think of no other issue that affects me less. I will never be pregnant and I will most likely never find myself in a situation where my partner is forced to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. As such, I have chosen to defer that choice and the ability to make that choice to the people who might actually need to do so.

I know all too well what it feels like to have politicians and voters make deeply personal decisions for me, to enforce their own religious views by codifying them into law and telling me I don't have the right to marry the person I want to marry--a decision that affects their lives not one iota, but is devastatingly damaging to me and my partner.

There will never be a unanimous decision on abortion. Both sides are too entrenched, but perhaps we can come to consensus on who has the right to make that decision.

[IdaBriggs]

44. Why not start with some "history" of the abortion debate?

For example, for thousands of years, it was "accepted" that "God" put the soul into a baby when the mother felt "quickening" or "movement." This was a huge deal for Christians especially, who had concerns about where unbaptized souls went. I believe Thomas Aquinus was the one who "logically proved" (note that its in quotes, please) that life DID NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION because that would mean human beings were in charge of souls instead of God, and that men were running around with "half-souls" coming out of them everytime they orgasmed. Since souls were God's provence, and human beings weren't in charge of them, life did NOT begin at Conception. (I believe that was close to a thousand years ago or so; please double check as I'm doing this from memory.)

Anyway, in approximately 1865, God spake unto the then Pope, and informed him that the previous several thousands years of understanding was wrong, and that God personally put the souls in at conception. Turns out God had been lying all those years; sigh. (sarcasm)

You can also touch on fun things like "birth defects were proof of the parents either having sex in unapproved positions or on holy days" but just go there if you want to watch head's explode!

[jilln]

51. These people are like the vegetarians

who eat chicken, fish, turkey, lamb, pork, etc. Some people just don't have dictionaries.

[question everything]

54. Most pregnancies end up being miscarried, often without the woman

even knowing that she was pregnant, thinking that she is just having a period.

So if abortion would be outlawed, what would be the next step? Checking all tampons and pad to see whether they contained fertilized eggs?

And I think that the ones who object to abortions except for rape or incest are really hypocrites. If they consider a cluster of cells - you may want to have a picture of such clusters - a "baby" then why "kill" an "innocent baby" for something that adults did?

After all, we don't go punish children that are already here for crimes committed by their parents.

[Cleita]

55. I think the original premises are wrong.

Life begins before fertilization to begin with. The sperm and eggs are alive before they are joined to create a blastocyst. Killing a blastocyst, embryo or fetus for rape, incest or the health of the mother negates the argument that they are actually killing a viable human being. If these evolutionary stages were in fact babies, then it would be wrong to kill them no matter what the circumstances were.

My approach is that the baby is really part of the mother until it's able to live outside the womb without the umbilical cord. So it really is a kind of growth in various stages of evolution that is not human life if the mother wants to terminate her pregnancy before it becomes a finished human being.

I mean I have know women who were in seventh or eighth months of pregnancy that had to have the baby removed by C-section before coming to term for the health of either the mother, the baby or both. In those cases attempts where made to keep the baby alive through incubators and other medical technology. Yet it's no different to me to removing a pregnancy at earlier stages. It's really about when is a baby able to live outside it's mother. Then it could be considered murder.

Not very well known outside of obstetric circles is that sometimes full term babies are born that couldn't live for long. Maybe they are born without a digestive tract, a brain or other abnormalities that can't be surgically corrected. In that case the baby is allowed to die even after natural birth because it can't biologically live in our world. Is this murder?

[Pugee]

62. FYI Here is an interesting viewpoint that may help a little

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/


Also--Check out a copy of "A Case In Need" by Stephen King. It is fiction, but in the appendix, he lays out a very good argument for both sides of the abortion issue.

[ecstatic]

66. As long as they are pro-choice, does it matter

how they personally feel about the issue? I think your speech should focus more on the consequences of not allowing free choice, not so much on when life actually begins.

[Iris]

70. But they are not pro-choice.

They are saying WHEN abortion should be allowed. That's not allowing the majority of women who seek abortions ANY choice.

[grizmaster]

77. simple- my body my choice, your body your choice

tell em keep their stinking hands to their own vaginas unless invited

[Megahurtz]

111. That's what I've always said to these weaseling nosy Busy-Bodies.

Keep your nose out of someone else's crotch!:grr:

[Union Thug]

79. How about this: It's none of your fucking business what a woman

does with her body, so shut the hell up.

That's where I like to start.

[Alexander]

83. "Should only" is different from "The law should demand..."

I'm sure a lot of people think it should happen only under certain circumstances.

Try asking these same people "Do you think the law should demand abortions happen only under these circumstances?"....my guess is you'll get a lot of people answering "No."

I think smoking should never happen. There are no positive benefits. But I draw the line at the government banning smoking outright.

[robertpaulsen]

89. They are pro-choice. They just believe the state should choose, not women.

I don't envy you, you've got a tough road ahead of you with that class. Normally, I would say satire is an illustrative form of persuasion, but I think satire might be lost on this crowd. You might approach it in the reverse: say that you are pro-life, that the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is through contraceptive education. Less abortions, more life!

[JacksonWest]

98. Discuss Right and wrong, vs legal.

There are plenty of things that are "wrong" that are legal. Often, right and wrong is subjective. IN abortion, I can't think of anyone I've ever met that thinks abortion is right, moral, and acceptable. Most people recognize it as something that is a legal option, and should remain one. However, you don't have to convince people that abortion is not wrong, or determine when life begins. In terms of Roe v wade, the beginning of life is immaterial-it's the viability of the fetus surviving outside the mother that matters.

Bottom line:

Abortion, whether you're for it or against it, does not effect you by being legal. It is a choice that is put on the table to allow women to terminate a pregnancy. It can be used in cases of rape, incest, or any other circumstance as long as the fetus is not viable.

You can disagree with the morality of something without arguing the legality. Remind them of prohibition. Finish with freewill, how God gives humans freewill-we have the ability to make choices for good or for bad.

[Megahurtz]

99. Abortion is a Religious freedom issue.

Almost always people object to abortion because of their Religious beliefs. Why else would they? :shrug:

These websites will give you some great ideas.

http://www.choice101.com/77-religious-freedom.html

http://www.pro-truth.net/59-questions-without-answers.html

http://elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

[novalib]

101. "Life Begins At Fertilization"?!?!?!?!?!

People do NOT really believe such nonsense.

If they did, everyone would "be" nine months older than they really are.

The next time someone drools out such drivel and nonsense, ask them how old they are.

THEN ask them what it that means.

They may not figure out what you are saying.

BUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THEIR LIFE BEGAN AT BIRTH.

Every person's LIFE begins at BIRTH!!!!!

[seabeyond]

112. logic alone. abortion murder. still murder with rape, incest and mothers

health. if the reason for no abortion is murder than we cannot sanction murder under any case.

it is that simple

if we can continue to sanction abortion only under those three conditions then the opposition to abortion is purely for the sake of judging permissiveness and responsiblity and a punishment of making a female continue on with a preg simply because she is not meeting anothers moral standards. if that is the case, there cannot be a law against abortion because we cannot pass law on moral judgment putting one over the other. what about the 15 yr old that will not face her parents, cannot get an abortion and choses to take her life?

[AZBlue]

116. First of all, that's a contradiction in terms.

If you're pro-choice, there's no restrictions.

And, if it's only because the mother's life is in danger, that's not much of a choice, now is it?

[Megahurtz]

123. I Call Them "No-Choicers"!

Because if you accidently get pregnant and you were not raped by a stranger
or a family member then you have NO CHOICE!:sarcasm:

No difference in that or someone that wants to ban Abortion altogether!

[AZBlue]

133. Exactly. Actually, a lot of "pro-lifers" say it's ok in the case of a mother's health in danger.

It's not pro-choice at all.

These people need to look up the word "choice" in the dictionary!

[Iris]

138. yep. I said the same in several posts above.

I'd have more respect for someone who said "I think abortion is wrong but understand that exceptions ar sometimes necessary." Other than that - they are basically making the choice for someone else by deciding what's ok and what's not.

[RB TexLa]

130. I would use the fact that the right to an abortion is more than just that

It's the right to regulate and control your own body, whether it has a womb or not, whether it's a matter of reproduction or not. The issue is when is the state's interest greater than the person's freedom, the states set this at different times of a pregnancy and use different standards to determine when they allow the state to override the person's freedom. Within the parameters of what the state allows, it's up to an individual to make decisions.

There are many times where other people might feel they have an interest in what happens within another's body. The refusal of treatment by a family member. A husband or wife wanting medical sterlization. A risky procedure one person might want over the objections of a spouse or children or other family members, who feel they have a right to the person living and being with them. How much of this do we want put into law? How much of my wife's life do I get a say in, where do her or my decisions become subject to approval of the other? Where and for what reason should government have a say in these things?

The views you have described are very common, people are expressing what they feel to be right, or moral. We all make these judgments regarding all kinds of things. We make these judgments using our life experiences, what we have and have not seen in life, how we have been treated by others, our faith, our education, or lack of either education or faith. Everyone has a view on the morality of abortion, everyone also has a view on the legality of abortion. These two things do not have to "match up," so to speak. I would say use this in your speech, one decides their moral values for themselves, not for others.

When I have spoken with people who believe abortion to be a sin, as I do, I have pointed out that we can not and should not codify sin. In the Christian faith the gravest sin is to "have another God before" our God. I have had no conversations where anyone argued for putting this into law. I'm sure there are some extremist out there that do what to do that, thankfully I have not run into them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. "Should only take place" or "should only be legal"?

The two are completely different positions. Someone who believes the former - or, indeed, someone who believes that abortion is immoral in an circumstance whatsoever, but should still be legal, can perfectly legitimately be termed "pro-choice"; someone who believes the latter can't.

As to arguments in favour of abortion that will convince people who don't support it currently: if their opposition it religiously motivated then you're screwed; if Christianity is true then abortion *is* morally equivalent to murder; it's not quite the case that every pro-choice Christian is a hypocrite, in my view, but not far off.

If they oppose it for secular reasons (which is rare) then I'd argue as follows:


Like everything else, abortion should be legal unless there's a reason to ban it.

The only possibly reason to ban abortion would be to protect the interests of the foetus.

The only things which *have* interests are people - rocks, trees etc don't have inherent rights.

The defining property of a person is self-awareness.

As such, there's nothing immoral about abortion until the stage when the foetus becomes self-aware.

This argument fails for the religious at step 4, incidentally - Christianity teaches that the defining property of a person is something called a "soul" (although I've never seen a definition of it), which foetuses have the same as everyone else.


Ask them to consider a) a sentient, self-aware alien, and b) a human being who wasn't self aware, and never had been, but was like a computer or automaton.


I would strongly caution you against using the family of arguments I see a lot of pro-choice campaigners using about it being "a woman's right to choose"; "it's my body"; "it's none of your business" etc, because if you *have* convinced your audience that a foetus isn't a person then you don't need them, and if you *haven't* then they're not logically valid.

[mdmc]

137. safe rare legal . work on reduction of poverty to promote culture of life

need more?

[ScreamingMeemie]

140. I'm against abortion...

...for myself. As it should be. Each woman, taking charge of her own body. End of story.

[tinfoil tiaras]

145. Okay *takes deep breath*...

I personally don't like abortion. That's just my opinion. But I don't think it is right for one person's opinion to be the law. I don't think that abortion should be illegal (that would result in actual lives lost-not just potential lives lost)--that's pro-death to me--but I think that the sex ed in public schools should be better--none of this absenence-only bullshit. That has been proven not to work. The schools with absenence-only have higher teen pregnancy rates than schools (like mine) with comprehensive sex ed (i.e. pictures, how to use a condom, all that jazz). So, basically what I'm saying is alot of teen abortions would be prevented by having good, comprehensive sex ed.

Let the flamewars begin...*exhale*

[ScreamingMeemie]

151. How 'bout a big ole hug instead?

:hug:

[tinfoil tiaras]

152. Aw, thank you!

:hug: I was worried someone was going to think I was an insane pro-life person for saying that...haha

I haven't talked to y'all in like FOREVER!! What's up? :hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

153. Not much, just me...way too late again. I always mean to go to bed

loads earlier. :D

If you look above I pretty much said the same thing, only you said it better. I'm against abortion...for myself. :hug:

[tinfoil tiaras]

157. Awesome. I'm out of school all of this week

:woohoo:

Yeah, I saw your post. I was tempted to respond to it... :)

[last1standing]

146. The question isn't "When does life begin?"

It's "When does a person begin?". If you want to be technical, life doesn't begin at conception but at the level of spermatozoa and egg. Each of these cells is a living entity that come together to create a chain of cell division that eventually becomes an entity able to survive in a non-parasitic state.

Those who would suggest abortion is killing a human need to also mourn each and every dead sperm and hold a funeral service after every menstruation cycle.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

150. I'm pro choice - true story

I'm pro choice.

I got married.

Several months later I got pregnant. I wanted this child with all my heart.

I told my former husband I was pregnant. The NEXT SENTENCE OUT OF HIS MOUTH was "Why don't you get an abortion?" I told him, "If you don't like it you can leave" and then I cried for about two hours. Then he scolded me with a speech about "We agreed we weren't going to have any children, yet, it's not time, yada yada, we had a discussion...".

We had NO SUCH DISCUSSION.

If he had been stupid, he would have beaten me to induce miscarriage. But he was smarter than that. He wouldn't take me to the doctor; he didn't take off work after I went home from the hospital and couldn't take care of myself.

I was a high risk pregnancy just because I'm a small person. He accused me of being lazy when I was flat on my back after delivery from major abdominal surgery (C-section) with a urinary catheter.
I had a beautiful, perfect baby and I was thrilled. All the pains and complications were worth it.

He also stopped having sex with me because he was afraid I would "trap" him again. What fabulous logic!!

We separated when the child was less than three years old. In order to punish me, he spent over $40,000 on a divorce that lasted two and a half years, got custody of the child, and sued me for child support. My parents had a college trust for the child that they had to liquidate to defend themselves against his legal attacks against THEM during our divorce. He was warned by lawyers that he was jeopardizing his child's college education by going after my parents, but he wouldn't listen. He knows everything. So he has to pay for every bit of college.

He was the one with the steady job and the good health, not me.

He punished me for 15 years for going against his wishes. I had to pay child support till the child graduated from high school, with the threat of jail hanging over my head, even though I couldn't find a job--in spite of having three college degrees.

IF I did not have this child, my life would be very lonely. I still have no regrets about having this wonderful young adult that brings so much joy to my life.


I never said ONE UNKIND WORD to this man. I wonder how he would have treated me if I had?