Honor the Fetus, Hate the Child, Subjugate the Woman

I am increasingly sickened by the opinions of so-called liberals on this board who honor the unborn while reducing the mother to a mere incubator. I expect such sexist drivel from conservatives, who also love to cut programs that benefit the child and cut programs that teach sex education and contraception.

An anti-abortion newbie HAD THE NERVE to question why my sister-in-law, who gave birth to five children, had a late-term abortion a little over 2 years ago. Most women DO NOT have late-term abortions UNLESS THERE IS SIGNIFICANT RISK TO THE MOTHER OR THE FETUS. How dare ANYONE-especially on a liberal message board-QUESTION A MEDICAL DECISION BETWEEN A PATIENT AND DOCTOR? :wtf:

I am not usually an emotional type (or an emotional poster), but a few threads recently have illustrated that the anti-woman agenda of the Right-Wing has begun to influence supposedly liberal folks. Whether this points to an inability to think for themselves, or a deep-seated misogyny is tough to say.

I am Catholic, am anti-abortion in principle, but my religious beliefs and the law are separate. For most women, going to the gynecologist is a big deal, let alone terminating a pregnancy. Women have been taught to have a certain amount of modesty about their bodies so they often have some discomfort just going for a yearly exam. Men don't understand the emotional and psychological components of having a womb, having a period and being in touch with this part of yourself. Abortion therefore is not usually treated lightly by women.

I'm sure that I'll see a lot of flames, and a lot of posters I have on Ignore, but how can anyone insert themselves between a patient and a doctor?

religious conservative movement to subjugate women, and to keep reproductive options closed to them.

My sentiments exactly.

Even if ONE woman has an abortion for what some may think are "frivolous" reasons, it is between her and her healthcare provider!

No one else.

May I make it into a bumper sticker?! :hi:

it certainly is the Republican mantra!

I worked as a counselor and board member at a feminist health center that offered abortions for four years. The clinic dates back to pre-Roe, because Washington had legalized abortion before then. It's an amazing place, but it has a high burnout rate. I lasted four years, and I was completely drained afterward. I was glad to serve there, because they had helped me, as well as hundreds of other women.

ABORTION: ONE PENIS, NOT VOTE!

that's the bushgang and religious freak way.

Thank you for saying this.

Women/families burdoned with kids they are not equipped to take care of.

Education gutted.

Social services cut.

Religious law imposed.

The draft.

A perpetuated cycle of poverty designed to keep the underclass (everyone except the top 13,000 families) down.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: Women who have late abortions always have a reason. I've cared for many of them and people don't do this for "trivial" reasons. There are very few women who would have an abortion at all for "trivial" reasons, but certainly not 2nd term abortions. Why don't people think about that before they get on the bandwagon to decry the practice. I don't see anyone lining up to adopt crack babies, genetic syndrome babies, etc., not to mention the abortions that are done to protect the mother for some reason.

The reasons for any abortion are between a woman, her physician, and God (if you believe in one). It's nobody else's business!:grr:

The line says it all. The topic is a wedge/privacy issue brought up by the neo-cons and psuedo-liberals in the absence of real public issues where they can't succeed.

I couldn't have said it any better.

They probably barely passed the driving test. And they are probably at the same reading level as W

It seems that the same people who would prohibit abortions are the same who complain about all those mothers having babies and receiving welfare paid with THEIR tax money.

Pro-life people are usually brainless people following a doctrine they don't even understand. It is also pretty helpful to those pro-life men: the more children they wife has to take care off the less time she has to work or do other stupid stuff like educate herself.

they usually understand the concept of separation of Church and State. Dishonest pro-life people harbor a holier-than-thou attitude toward those less fortunate and on some level hate or disrespect women.

I am really sick of these people projecting their neuroses, psychoses, and mental instability on the majority. Unfortunately, these mental illnesses have started becoming law, and there is no room for rational thought anymore.

"Honest pro-life people are so because of their religion "

How dare you!

How dare you attempt to ascribe religious motives to every single person who is "honestly" pro-life!

Have you ever taken the time to sit down with someone whose views on abortion differ from your own?

You, as is the case with many folks here on DU, seem to have people all figured out. You seem to delight in putting people who disagree with you into nice little boxes.

Most folks I meet and discuss with do not fit into nice little boxes.

since you post in every abortion thread...not rocket science or a major conspriracy.

:evilgrin:

:evilgrin: someone has me on ignore...but that doesn't stop me :hi:

Whether it be herbs, a poultice (applied to the appropriate area, or just leaving the newborns out to die in the elements. This was done because sometimes, having a newborn w/4+ years of helplessness was too much of a burden on a group that relied upon each other for survival.
We may find it horrific that they would leave newborns out to die, but if that practice was not in place, perhaps we would not have survived as a species at some critical juncture in our history.
When the practice of medicine developed, I can about guarantee you that birth control was among the first 'problems' addressed. The women would have DEMANDED it.
A healthy woman can have 12+ children in her lifetime (how's that for overpopulation?).
Abortion is no longer done to allow the tribal group to survive. That is a good thing. The church did a great job of attempting to basically 'criminalize' sex. The problem was that women were able to skirt the rules through herbal means (goldenseal.
....). This made some quite angry, and they attempted to burn those who had knowledge of preventative measures.
So here we are. The Pill has an 88% sauces rate (in real-world, not Pharma Co tests). If you are on the pill for 10 years (17-27 years old) - odds are against you. You will have become pregnant with all the prevention in place.
I've had 2 children. Pregnancy is borderline debilitating. I sure couldn't run, could barely breath sometimes (carried both high). I lucked out genetically by losing the weight immediately - but most don't. I had a trauma IV shoved up my veins twice (ever seen the size of those monsters!!!). We had to buy a new bed. I suffered from insomnia, and passed out 5+7 times respectively in pregnancies. I love my kids no end - but, quite the price to be borne by one (and I was lucky - I've heard HORROR STORIES).

I will not ask someone to pay that price - unless they chose to.
I will not judge someone for choosing that which women throughout our history have had the option of choosing (pre-religion).
I will not judge.
Prior to 12 weeks....there is no humanity to a fetus, except that ascribed by religions that have, as a matter of practice, attempted to undermine the rights of women to have control of their own bodies.

END OF STATEMENT/RANT.

Some pro lifers would say "never"-- It doesn't have rights until its born. Other put it at 12 weeks post conception. Other stick to the Roe v. Wade decision: first 2 trimesters okay, after that no. Prior to that decision, abortion law was left to individual states, where various definitions of life were applied.

But all of these distinctions seem rather arbitrary when medical science can enable a fetus to live outside the womb for increasingly longer periods prior to term. Does the prematurely born infant have different rights than a baby brought to term when abortion is acceptable for a fetus of the same age? And conversely, if abortion were completely free, would it eventually become acceptable to kill an infant?

I'm not religious, but I care about the right to live. To those who are so concerned about the mother's rights to do as she please, I ask, does the growing fetus inside her body have any rights at all?

allows it to have.

So what if the child is born unexpectedly early? Its welfare is now in the artificial hands of biomedical technology. Does it gain or lose rights, even though its of the same age as a fetus who could be legally aborted were it in utero?

I detect a note of hostility here-- I'm not interested in denying women rights. But I'm just asking for your opinion on the scenarios made possible by technology: Keeping fetuses alive outside the womb before they come to term.

I would think that any compassionate person would object to killing a premature baby. Yet I don't honestly see the difference between that and abortion (at later ages in gestation).

I can't figure out how you detected any hostility from my simple post.

If it is outside of the womb it is no longer a fetus. Technology can do very little for a fetus without the woman's permission.

and the mother and her doctors decide each situation individually.

And each one of them is nobody else's business.

You can't make blanket statements about age of viability.

that you just made there and with think that line of thinking, just fell into the abyss.

Where did anyone here say they were in favor of killing premature babies?! :wtf:

Keeping fetuses alive outside the womb before they come to term <--- Medically, this makes absolutely NO sense. You would never find a doctor describing it this way because you are using terms in a medically impossible way for emotional shock value.

A "fetus" by definition can't live outside the womb. We call that a baby. And a fetus doesn't "come to term" outside of the womb. It is a baby and given appropriate medical intervention.

This post is typical of the medically unsound, emotionally charged language employed by those who see women as incubators.

And for that, I thank you! :yourock: How true it is that even just going in for a yearly exam can be very unnerving for so many women ... yet those who would deny women control over their lives and their bodies act as though the decision to terminate a pregnancy is taken "frivously" by whomever is making that decision. :grr: The reality is that they know NOTHING of the circumstances surrounding that decision, nor do they know what goes on inside that woman's head or her heart. You bring up an excellent point of fact rarely mentioned. I will remember this "talking point" and will certainly inject it into my next debate about this issue ... because one thing I know for sure, is that there will ALWAYS be a another debate. Unfortunately. :(

this isn't original but if it were Liberals and Democrats who were solidly anti abortion konservatives would be putting up abortion clinics faster than convenience stores.

I don't have to go to Free Republic to get my blood pressure up on most days. I can always count on right wing opinion/talking points right here at DU. I am actually stunned that many of these people don't like Bush because they don't seem to care for much that is even remotely progressive.

I am sure most of this opinion on choice you are referring to comes from the guys. If only they/we could get pregnant, an abortion clinic on every street corner there would be...

"I don't have to go to Free Republic to get my blood pressure up on most days. I can always count on right wing opinion/talking points right here at DU."

word.

sometimes the lack of rational thought here astounds me-I feel like I stumbled into FR or a Yahoo message board!

You'd be surprised how many women are anti-choice. I can only surmise that they're out of touch with their bodies, their secuality, and their emotions, or completely brainwashed by their religion or upbringing.

And I assure you I am not out of touch with any of the things you mentioned, nor am I brainwashed by religion/upbringing.

I used to be pro-choice, just like my Democratic family was. Then I got pregnant. Then I felt the baby kicking and hiccupping inside me. I could tell when somethign I did was upsetting her, I knew she could hear and would remember the sound of my voice, I knew singing to her and playing music for her would stimulate the development of her brain, etc. No longer could I just sit back and say it was not a person. Knowing that if she had to be delivered via induction early due to pre-ecclampsia (sp?) was terrifying. I didn't think of her as a 'lump' or a 'parasite' -- I was concerned for my child.

So it's not religion, and it's not brainwashing, it's experience that changed my views.

who MAY need access to abortion, then that's OK. I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. I would never have an abortion myself, but I have no right telling someone else what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

I don't consider it part of a woman's body. After it can hear, react, etc., I consider it to be a separate person, deserving of it's own protection. Which is why I think there should be restrictions.

you would restrict a living being for a fetus that has THE POTENTIAL FOR LIFE.

I have had four miscarriages-one in my fifth month-so I know all about POTENTIAL FOR LIFE vs. actual life.

And if you think it's OK for a mother to be sacrificed at the expense of a child, then I don't have enough time to tell you what's wrong with that notion.

Another unfortunate result of lumping anyone who doesn't agree with unrestricted abortion on demand into a homogenous 'they'.

I agree there should be exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

But I think that once that fetus develops past a certain point, it is for all intents and purposes equal to a child deserving of its own protection. Which is where we disagree. And I understand that you think otherwise, I just want to make clear why I think it's more than just a 'mind your own beeswax' issue. To me, there are children involved, whose rights are being subjugated because there has been no effort made to determine when they should be considered 'people'.

Also wanted to clear up the exception for the life/health of the mother issue... again this is only the hardcore pro-life crowd that feels this way,and they're the tiny minority.

because as i keep telling you, women will go to extraordinary, life-risking lengths to abort, which is harmful to both the mother and the fetus.

It is not about whether or not women will have abortions...because they will...and they have for alot longer than it has been legal. The question is whether they will be safe, or nightmarish.
<sarcasm>But maybe a woman who would decide to abort deserves mutilation in some people's eyes. You reap what you sow, right?</sarcasm>

You're so right. Any woman facing an unintended pregnancy (AKA a woman who is fucking while not intending to procreate :spank: ) should have to bear her "mistake" or be mutilated or killed trying to control her reproductive choices.

and carry a fetus to term.

And that's their choice!

I have supported women who gave the child up for adoption, women who carried the fetus to term and kept the child, and women who had an abortion. I would never tell another woman what she should do with regard to her reproductive health.

I guess someone else might have to get this message to RationRose, since it appears she may have chosen to close her ears and her mind to what I have to say.

I am, however, intriqued by her comment that she is "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice".

In many ways, so am I.

And not just with regard to abortion, either.

I am anti-smoking, but pro-choice when it comes to other people smoking.

I would never smoke a cigar or cigarette. (And, if you ask me why, I would tell you that I think it is a filthy, disgusting habit that could lead to an unhealthy addiction. I can, in other words, articulate to you WHY it is that I am anti-smoking.)

But I do respect the rights of other people who may choose to smoke to do so.

But that does not mean that I will not try to point out to them why what they are doing is either wrong or unhealthy. Since I am anti-smoking, I have no problem talking to those who do choose to smoke and trying to convince them to stop.

I wonder how many people who say they are anti-abortion are able to articulate exactly why they are anti-abortion.

And I also wonder how many people who say they are anti-abortion but also pro-choice would ever try, because of their anti-abortion views, to convince someone contemplating abortion, to choose not to have an abortion.

I wonder.

With what I assumed was a wanted pregnancy. You projected your desires and hopes and feelings, and as the fetus grew, you became more and more attached to these expectations. Perfectly normal in any wanted pregnancy.

What you experienced, however, is not what every woman experiences, especially with an unwanted pregnancy. Your experience may have changed how you view your pregnancies, but it is meaningless to women who don't wish to be pregnant.

You seem to want to make your personal experience political. That is not a good idea. It's best to let each woman decide for herself if she wants to carry her pregnancy to term or not, and let them ask if for your opinion if they want it.

thanks for your wisdom.

You say 'unwanted'. I can't say that. I did not want to be pregnant at the time, though. I was on the pill. (set an alarm - they have to be taken at the same time every day!) But I can't bring myself to say it was 'unwanted'.

I don't want to make my personal experience political, I was simply explaining how it was that I went from pro-choice to more pro-life than pro-choice. I have no problem with women who don't wish to carry their pregnancies to term -- my only problem is when they wait until the fetus can react to pain, hear, remember, etc. to abort it.

As we ramp up to the Imperial Selection of 2004, it doesn;t seem logical that Totalitarian Monsters will troll heer more often, or that Uncle Karl's professionals don;t have a smarter strategy for parasitizing this board than some Freep who shoots his mouth off after 3 posts and gets banned.

Think about it. I want to make it clear that I am accusing no one of this, but to say that it is rather a statistical certitude, given how many DUers have the stomach :puke: to troll around with the Freepers, Dittoheads, and Brownshirts (though I repeat myself).

Many of them don't post on any other topic and those who do don't seem progressive or respectful of (post-natal) human life.

On edit: I love your subject line. :thumbsup:

:D

Perfect description!

I got that term from veganwitch. Awesome, isn't it? :-)

I think the question is why do we have to put up with them? Their agenda is pretty obvious. Mysogyny well into the thousands of posts...

:eyes:

An obvious disruptor IMHO. I'm unemployed, but I can still throw $5 DU's way. I really think some of these folks are operatives. Their lack of logical thought kind of points toward a right-wing mindset.

and keeping DU *busy*.

must be because of the election.

I'd like to use it, if you don't mind. :yourock:

is about as reasonable as "baby killers". And equally conducive to reasonable discussion.

who thinks that they know what is better for any woman of child-bearing age. they might include someone who...

-wont give a woman a tubal ligation or other permanent birth control until she is 30 and/or already has children

-wont fill a prescription for birth control or EC

-constantly critiques or snooper-vises a pregnant woman's dietary, lifestyle, child-birthing or -raising decisions

not just abortion.

should be terminated. Fuck them for interfering with someone's RIGHT to birth control.

Well given your expanded definition, I admit it's not as inflammatory as it seemed.

I find it shocking that people won't give a tubal ligation or other perm. BC to a woman before she's 30... I wonder if there are doctors that similarly refuse to do vasectomies to young men.

But I do have to wonder about the last one. As far as child-raising decisions, it takes a village. Do you think it's wrong of me to offer unsolicited advice to parents in the hopes of helping them / their kids? I guess the word 'constant' is a qualifier that excludes this, but I just wanted to ask anyhow. Some people do tell me that I'm too nosy, pushy, etc. Same question for pregnant women who smoke -- if it's illegal in public places due to exposing others to harmful secondary smoke, why not the fetus?

they will almost be immediately bombbarded with advice, horror stories, warnings and above all, hands like they are a friggin buddha. this may be your best friend or someone in the produce aisle that you dont even know. and then the checkout person and then the person parked next to you....

as for women who smoke while pregnant, ive never heard of one that didnt at least try to quit. but nevertheless, she probably gets told or atleast, whispered, pointed, eyes-rolled at, that the last thing she needs is another person coming up to her saying she is killing her fetus and a terrible person. it could be that shes really stressed out and rather than doing something more dangerous or drastic, she is having one cigarette, maybe the only one her entire pregnancy. goddess knows that ive felt the urge to have one considering all the shit ive had to go through in the past few weeks.

while pub crawling every weekend isnt a good idea, having one or two glasses of wine an entire pregnancy may notcause irrepairable damage (after the doctor or midwife sames ok), but you will bet that woman will have to defend her actions all night long.

and for people who feel the absolute need to rub women's bellies like they are the nose of lincoln (for our illinoisian duers) im all for grabbing crotches and slapping hands hard enough to leave a bruise.

I went through two so far, and you're spot on about intrusive people. Regarding smoking, I know it's hard to stop, but there really are lifelong problems associated with low birth weight, which is one of the primary effects of smoking. This doesn't mean she's a terrible person, any more than a parent who overfeeds their child to the point of grotesque obesity is a terrible person. We all have faults, and some of our faults impact others. It is not for anyone to judge that person. But ... again ... it takes a village. And IMO that requires that we help that person with our actions, not just by making comments or rolling eyes or any of the other horrible things that some people do.

Also it's well known that even as much as a glass of wine a day will not hurt the baby. I disagree that those women will have to defend their actions anymore. Or maybe so, because after all there are a great many uninformed people out there. But all the baby-advice boards (and the majority of obstetricians) say it's OK. (Even good for you, as it helps you to relax.)

As for touching, lol, I'm not as aggressive as you, but I do think people should at least have enough manners to ask first. :)

She's not married. Her doctor refused, stating that she "might someday find a husband that would want her to have his baby". No amount of argument would change his mind. At the time in her pregnancy that she requested this procedure, no other doctor in the vicinity would take her on as a patient. There's not a whole lot of options in rural parts of states. Niece tends to make pretty bad decisions. She had a 3rd baby. Her mother and father are virtually raising all 3 kids. They have been thrown into permanent poverty because of this.

Just more reason to have national, single payer healthcare. I take it that the reason no other doctor would take her was due to insurance? Or why?

What a stupid, stupid man. :grr:

They wouldn't accept her as a patient because she was so far along in her pregnancy. Her only other alternative was an hour and a half away.

...I gave the finger to a woman with a pro-life bumper sticker on her car. And also why, I suspect, several sanctimonious DUers have given me shit for it.

...who should get the brunt on your criticism. Liberals believe in individual rights...and that includes the right of the woman to make her own health care and reproductive decisions.

- Perhaps there are some who call themselves liberals but are really conservatives in disguise?

However, some liberals consider more developed fetuses to be individuals, which explains why we're trying to defend them.

Whatever do you mean by "so-called liberals"?

Liberals, historically, have always stood up for the weak, the vulnerable, and the powerless against the strong, the mighty, and the powerful.

That was true in the 1960's when liberals fought against segregation against very powerful forces that wish to deny a whole segment of our society their very personhood.

It is certainly true now when liberals fight to remind everyone that we, as a society, have an obligation to fund programs that provide protection to children. And not just protection to kids, but food, clothing, medical needs, shelter, and education.

It is certainly the case that liberals fight to ensure that the poor get an equal break against the powerful and the rich.

So just how is it that you claim that those of us who wish to engage in a serious debate about how we ought to define and defend what some consider to be the most vulnerable, the weakest, and the most defenseless members of humanity, are just "so called liberals"?

There are, believe it or not, those of us who have been liberal and Democrats before many who post on this board regularly were even born. And some of us sort of resent having our liberal-ness questioned -- as well as our views of women denegrated -- by people who would rather sling invective and accusation than engage in a serious discussion of this issue that, after more than 30 years, refuses to go away.

There is nothing more basic to a person's makeup than their beliefs. Even people that are in agreement with you on a wide range of factors may have some beliefs that do not mesh with yours.

The nature of life is a very convoluted one. The vast majority of people simply do not understand even the basic details of what makes us tick. As to the idea of what constitutes a person it is even more vague. To expect everyone to be in lock step on such an issue is a bit unreasonable.

We are sentient entities that arise from biological functions. One of the factors of this biological function is that women do in fact carry our offspring and are in effect their incubators. How we deal with this and legislate it is dependent on our understanding of the process.

There are very tricky moral issues at play here that people have to consider when they face the question of abortion. When thinking about the choices before them their rights are not in the forefront of their mind. The question of what they should do and whether it is right or wrong are the key issues they deal with.

We continue to ignore this factor in our battle to defend choice and as a result we are seeing our rights eaten away by those that would assail us from a supposed moral high ground. We let them have it because we refuse to face this aspect of the matter. They will win over time and we will lose our rights. Unless we find the courage to battle them on this issue.

I am totally pro-choice, even voted for a Repub once because he was the only pro-choice candidate. But, some Democrats are anti-choice and I didn't see anything in the "rules" about having to be pro-choice in order to participate on this forum.

Unless that becomes a criteria for participation, I guess choosing to ignore those threads and/or posters is the only non-blood pressure raising way to deal with it.

Weld was more liberal than a lot of Dems in Mass. What I wouldn't give for another four years of Bill rather than Mitt Fucking Romney.

Hi Kathy:) I agree with everything you've said; there's definitely a growing cadre of LINO's here (Liberal in Name Only:) And did you see Mitt's latest attempt at stirring partisan anger re: moving the convention to Southie? What an ass...

he's such an arrogant bastard!

Weld was pro-choice and Silber wasnt' (used to live in Boston). Not to mention the fact that Silber was and is a total asshole.

It's the only time in my life that I have ever voted for a Republican.

:bounce:

I'll count on my fellow RATIONAL Duers to debate this storm trooper in the Gestational Gestapo. I personally am sick of their weak arguments masking their misogyny.

some who may or may not already have tombstones.

Asking this question may cause anyone who responds to it -- and gives the screen name of one or more poster -- to violate the rules of DU.

According to DU, it is a personal attack to announce publicly that you have put a person, by name, onto your ignore list.

My bad

i also have the same person ignored.

he argues out of his ass-it's really tiresome.

(No further message)

By the way, RationalRose, when you DO read this (and I know that you will), I thought you said in an earlier post to this thread that you had no idea who the ignored poster was.

How is it, then, that you know that the ignored poster is even a "he"?

Dozens of people that you ignore? My, my, my.....I would never think of closing my mind to the opinions and views of so many people.

i guess that doesn't apply if you name yourself :eyes:

no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. NO ONE. period.

seems to be easier for people to judge others than to think for themselves.....

Peace
DR

Keep 'em coming!

Just wondering.

re: the identity of ignored posters? :shrug:

:shrug:

could be dozens...

was replying to another poster:)

sorry, Sean.

:D

I can only imagine who it is...
:eyes:

I don't think I have broken any rule here.

I do think that if someone persists in keeping count of the number of ignored posts he or she has on a given thread, and also insists on making that count public, then that person comes perilously close to making a personal attack, at least as I understand DU's rules.

I should say that I do no consider someone announcing publicly that he or she has put me on his or her ignore list to be a personal attack at all.

I believe I am correct when I say that since 2:19 this afternoon (ET), I am the only person who has posted two messaages in response to RR, and has received no response. (Az posted two responses to RR, but one of them was responded to.)

If RR chooses to ignore me, that's fine.

It is, after all, her loss.

And I'm sure that she'll be able to read whatever I write before she signs on anyway.

not really

:shrug:

But being a man, and since I have never gotten pregnant, or had morning sickness, never felt a labor pain, and never raised a kid on my own for twenty years, while subsequently working a low paying job while doing so, well, I don't think anyone would or should care to hear my opinion on the subject.

My wife though, who did all of the above before I married her, is pro-choice. And I agree with her.

Abortion should be between a woman, her partner IF SHE SO CHOOSES, her doctor, and her God.

I firmly believe that if you are against abortion, don't have one.

I'm also sad to see so many anti-choicers around here. I had no idea there were so many liberals who want to control what women do with their bodies.

some are honest-like redqueen, whose experience lead her to her decision. Most are just bigoted in one form or another, and it comes out in treating women like chattel with regard to the abortion issue.

everyone who doesn't believe in unrestricted access to abortion on demand as 'anti choice'. Note I describe myself as more pro-life than pro-choice. I learned that those who use the term 'pro-life' actually believe that even oral contraception is abortion and should be illegal (?!). However, since I don't agree with the legality of unrestricted abortion on demand, I'm lumped in with them...

Then passions get going, and insults start flying, and people stop listening to each other.

I just don't understand why people think it's OK to protect the unborn at the expense of the mother.

There's lots of shades of gray, I agree.

I also think it's wrong to say that the woman has any LESS rights simply because she is pregnant.

The lack of an exception for the life/health of the mother was the red flag that caused Kucinich to stop voting pro-life. There's a balance here, and with luck and hard work we'll eventually get there.

"Then passions get going, and insults start flying, and people stop listening to each other."

A very sad commentary, but, alas, all too true.

I agree with you 100%.

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with using birth control, it should be used if you aren't in a position of raising a child.

I guess what really weighs on me is the 'partial birth abortion'. I just don't understand the reason that a child has to be killed before it is completely born. If it is going to come out anyway, why does it have to die? This is where I have trouble with it... how would the child being allowed to live affect the mother?

This is where I think our logic falls down, how do you answer that? Do you look at the person and say 'because I want it to'? How do you justify that arguement?

it does not belong on a liberal/progressive messageboard. The correct term is "late term abortion" or "Intact dilation and extraction".

The fact that you use a right-wing term is indicative of where you get your news and opinions.

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

on this subject.

Admittedly late-term abortions are a tiny minority, most overwhelmingly for medical necessity, and therefore there is no reason to change the law. As many have pointed out there are ample provisions under Roe v. Wade for restricting late-term abortions.

Thanks for the information, I never knew how to answer that arguement.

Please don't post pictures like this without a warning. Please....

This is a repost of a post that was deleted because of the many complaints that there was not a warning about the graphic content of the picture included

Partial birth abortion and the use of that term began in the halls of congress when
fat white men wanted to villify women and accused women of killing
viable babies. So they passed a very bad bill that will cause the deaths of
many women.

The medical term and the right term to use is Dilation and Extraction.
The procedure that is done is done most often because the fetus is
severly deformed or because the life of the mother is dangerously at stake.
It is done that way in order to leave the mother's uterus and vaginal
canal as untraumatized as possible so that she may NOT have any problems
with it should she become pregnant again. This makes perfect sense and
is the best for the mother--whose health many want to allocate a back
seat to in favor of the delivery of a deformed unhealthy fetus who may
rip up her insides.

Here is a picture of a fetus with anencephaly. This fetus might live
for a few hours after birth, the most. This is what a mother is expected
to birth now, after the pot bellied white men banned third term
abortion.




There are others also, but I think this is graphic enough.

If you do not want an abortion and do not approve, then do not have
one. It is that simple for you .

access to abortion on demand should be available to every woman. Every woman who decides upon an abortion for reasons which are none of anyone else's business, and well withing her legal rights, deserves to have that abortion in a clean and safe environment.

No one has the right to force women back into the dark ages when they died from botched abortions.

I saw many abortions when I worked in an OR in the fifties. At least three a month and they were booked as "D&C" These women were the lucky ones--they were connected and wealthy enough--hospital in a very wealthy connecticut town.

The contents of those abortions was NOT ever manifested as a little tiny baby who is elegible for a social security card being already designated a human being with rights, who could hear, talk to it's mommy, burp, hiccup, and live a little life of it's own within it's host.

Never.

The contents of an abortion is usually about a tablespoonful of blood and some cellular matter. I was responsible for collecting the results for the lab. Remember a woman knows she is pregnant after a missed period--at that point she is incubating for two weeks. With today's technology it is even possible to tell before a missed period. Therefore an abortion can take place very very early--there is no little tiny fully developed human being there who talks and hears mommy singing. Neurologically, that is impossible until the nervous system is fully developed. Movements felt, of the fetus are often just reflexes and cannot be allocated human responses to hearing something or in any way being cognisant of life at all.
What the pro life people show in their disgusting pictures are usually not the result of an abortion, but natural miscarriages.

But if the romantic urban legend type things appeal to some women that is fine.

Some of us are just not that prone to suggestions like that. Some of us are aware exactly of what the process is and some of us are not all entranced with our ability to "give life" seeing that role as an assigned role of a society most often wanting to control us and our childbearing functions, as a romantic "gift" from god----a miracle.

Well some just do not see us as women to be lauded for doing what we were built for and some of us do not think this process is any sort of a "miracle of birth" at all. In other words we do not put ourselves on a pedestal or buy that we are special in any way for birthing a child.

We love and enjoy our children--and wanted them. Unwanted children are a disaster.

"Unwanted children are a disaster."

My mother could not afford an abortion. Besides, I was conceived long before Roe v. Wade.

I was an unwanted child.

Am I a disaster?

but the point is that women who want to plan their families should not be expected to carry to term an unwanted child. Some of us think that planning our families to everyone's best interest, including the siblings, is the way we want to live our lives. We have a right in today's world to do that.

What your mother did is irrelevant. I for one would not like to be told that I was an "accident" as many mothers used to tell their children. Women who do not want to carry to term an unwanted child no longer have to suffer through the prenancy if they do not want to do so.

Every pregnancy is a risk in some way.

no one would have kids!

that you disagree with the the statement that "unwanted children are a disaster".

What I think I hear you saying is that any child could be a disaster -- or something quite different from a disaster.

My post was to point out that not every unwanted child is a disaster.

I think you and I agree on that.

edited: to change "unplanned" to "unwanted"

to which I replied that I could not tell.:-)

I have seen a few unwanted children land in foster homes. I have seen more than a few abused and truly unwanted put out on the streets. An example of this would be the period in Rumania under Nicolae Ceausescu, who forced women to pregnancy--women were required to report every three months to a clinic to be examined to determine if they were pregnant and records were kept of their reproductive condition. If they were suspected of havning an abortion they were arrested. Soon the state orphanages were filled to the overflow. These women literally could not feed these babies or care for them as they were so poor. Babies were being left on the doorstep in alarming numbers and becasue of lack of cribs were placed on the floor, lying almost on top of each other. Another example is here in the US. About three years ago I read of all the abandoned babies that were left at firehouses in Texas and those that were actually placed in dumpsters. In a period of six months, more than five hundred babies were abandoned and at least fifty were found dead in dumpsters.

In the aftermath many of these orphanage children simply went out onto the streets and lived on the streets, begging, prostituing themselves out at the age of twelve, stealing and doing drugs.

That indeed is what I mean by disaster.

with early abortions. My only concern is after the baby is viable on its own.

You mean to say there is nothing to protest about abortions being done before 24 weeks? I find that a little inconsistent with the view of "pro-life" because here you are attempting to define just when life begins.

Apparently for you, it is when the fetus is viable. For others however, life begins at the first breath after birth and that is part of their religion also.

If that is the case, then by what parameters can we agree upon to define when life begins?

There is no consensus. We have to come to some kind of agreement on this so that both camps can be reasonably satisfied with some kind of compromise. As for what parameters ... I think the developing consensus centers around viability and characteristics such as touch, hearing, awareness, etc.

I'm more pro-life than pro-choice, because the pro-life movement considers a fertilized egg to be deserving of protection. Obviously at that point the fetus is not only completely dependent on the mother for everything, but it is also not closer to a child than a lump of cells. Given that at that point there is NO WAY for the fetus to survive on its own, there is no reason (IMO) to confer personhood and protection for it.

straighten your thinking out for yourself.

We do not need to come to some agreement at all. You simply make your choice based upon your beliefs and your decision is yours alone to make.

The only thing to agree on is that Roe vs Wade is the law of the land and abortion is still a legal process and choice a woman has. We might also want to agree to nullify the stupid third term abortion law passed by this stupid white men congress and kick out Ashcroft on his ass for trying to force Planned Parenthood and some hospitals to rat on women and their conditions.

Other than that, it certainly is a choice every woman is entitled to and no one need force any other woman to do what someone else tells her to do.

I would hate to see women revert back to the days of the botched up abortions done by medical students on kitchen tables. That is a recipe for death for many women. And, women will have abortions. They always have had abortions . They know how to do this and have known how to do it for thousands of years. I have no doubt they will simply continue.

This is more than just a women's rights issue - you disagree obivously, but I will still maintain that at some point during the pregnancy that fetus becomes a separate person. I agree that the PBA Ban should be overturned, and it will be.

I also agree that there will always be abortions. However abortions as a whole are not the problem, it's the ones after four or fie months. With earlier detection and more effective and accessible birth control we can eliminate the vast majority of those.

and why do women have second trimester abortions? most often because of lack of healthcare services and abortion providers.

ALL women should have access to healthcare and abortion providers.

Just more evidence of the double-standard you spoke of, where people fight against abortion but refuse to fight for living people.

:grr:

it's all the disinformation out there that makes the issue so contentious. you are one the most well-informed of the pro-life people i've discussed this issue with here...some are not as well informed, as you may notice.
the issues surrounding the abortion debate are complex...to say the least. that's one of the reasons i posted my thread. peace.

Tell me. How about starting with a definition of personhood.

it seems to be somewhere between the second and thir trimesters, per the conversation we had in another thread.

the conversation and debate was with Redqueen not noiretblu. my question is to her. What is the definition of personhood since your claim is that at some point a fetus becomes a separate person?

Not just me. If it were left up to me, I'd say it would be between four and five months. After the fetus can feel pain, form memories, hear, etc.

Eventually science will probably be able to answer the question. That they don't seem to be in any hurry to do so is distressing.

You're honesty and sheer bravery is admirable... the issue of abortion is so volatile, let alone late-term abortion, that even though I personally know women who have had it done, I can't imagine writing about it on a message board, even one that is supposedly populated by Progressives such a DU, for fear that if I hear anyone bash these women for their choice I would have an aneurysm because I get so angry knowing that the people doing the bashing haven't the slightest clue what these women have gone through.

I don't care if a woman has an abortion for so-called "trivial" reasons....it's not like she goes skipping to Planned Parenthood to get one done. I would argue that no woman does.

Frankly, I'm sick of this debate. Like I said in a previous post, I've concluded women just need to put their foot down and tell these bastards how it is.....as long as a fetus depends on a woman's body for their survival, the woman's right trump the fetus's, point blank. It may sound harsh, but that's how it is. Deal with it.

It takes care of the whole late term abortion debate, in that it bans abortions of fetuses who are viable outside the womb....other than that, a woman's right to her life and her body trumps that of anything or anyone growing inside her womb.

As for whether the fetus is a life, or just the potential for life, or if it has a soul is a question for religion, be it Christianity or atheism. And yet once again, someone else's need to do God's work by "saving the babies" trumps a woman's control over her own life, or, rather, protects her from the burden of facing the consequences of her own sins. Talk about denying someone agency....this should be and in my eyes the ultimate insult to women.

So I say, just fuck it. No one is going to tell me what to do with my body. Of course, with this brings a whole new understanding of the whole Madonna/Hoar dichotomy, but I really believe I'm better off being labeled a FemNazi than to be circumscribed in the itty bitty circle of what it is to be a "real woman," but I digress.....

Sorry for the rant...this is just pissing me off to no end.....

period.

I can tell that this is a subject about which you care very passionately. I have no desire to piss you off any further, but I am always somewhat gratified when I see what I consider to be possible areas of agreement with people on the subject of abortion.

I think I hear you saying that if a fetus is able to live outside the woman's womb (that is, if it is viable), then a ban on abortions would be OK (unless, of course, it was somehow necessary to destroy even a viable fetus in order to save the woman's life or to protect her health).

Can you and I agree on this one point at least?

terminate a pregnancy: it's none of your damn business.

I agree. And that's how I believe abortion laws currently work in this country, that is, unless a woman's life is in jeopardy.

When I say I know two women who had late term abortions, I mean they were past 10 weeks and therefore could not have a standard D & C....it wasn't like the fetus was alive and kicking. In fact, a woman usually does not feel what they call "quickening," a sort of fluttering in the womb until the end of the 5th month, and full on fetal movement doesn't start until the end of the 7th.

Therefore, the current law allowing a woman to terminate pregnancy up to 24 weeks is logical to me. However, I suspect people who are on the anti-abortion side of the debate are against abortion entirely, but maybe I am making assumptions, just as people assume those of us who are pro-choice want abortion to be legal during an entire pregnancy, which is patently false.

*Although I do believe that women should be allowed to abort her pregnancy any time she chooses, what this is about is defending what is currently codified by law, not asking for something that isn't even occurring....although the rigid religious right would like everyone to believe that is what we are advocating.*

So, enlighten me. Are we still in agreement? If so, why are you on the side of the debate that is fighting to overturn the current laws that reflect these beliefs?

*Edited to add another paragraph*

one thing I see left off of this discussion is: what if the fetus would be better off if the mother has a choice? How about all the newborns in dumpsters every year? the child abuse, neglect, malnutrition, incest.....
Maybe people should get off their high horse and look at reality once in a while. Some people aren't good parents, some fetuses will never be whole because of severe medical problems. Why don't people who are so enamored with every spark of life get off the bottoms and go adopt some of the countless children with HIV, developmental disorders, chronic abuse or neglect, etc. that are out there.
I don't see them lining up for THAT job. It's easy to judge from a distance.

that since some parents will not be good parents to their children, annd that since their are not a lot of people lining up to adopt children with disabilities or who might be neglected, that we should, for those reasons alone, encourage folks to have abortions?

Why would it not make more sense, instead of abortinng children with disabilities or kids who might be abused, to press of additional funding to support foster care or adoption for these very special children? Or to press for more funding to enforce the laws against child abuse and to provide safe places for them to live?

but is that what happens? how many pro-life groups, besides some of the churches, address the concerns of actual, existing children? anyone have a list?

Those psuedo-Christians are more likely to vote politicians in that cut programs that help orphans and poor children than actually do anything that addresses the plight of these children.

If you count soup kitchens and food pantries, then I guess they are helping kids, but only if they have a parent in their lives.

I think these are the ones who get their news from the headlines, and believe them.

They are being manipulated by certain parties because without their support, those parties would be hard-pressed to find support for their equally critical anti-family policies.

However I hope that pro-choice advocates on this board will recognize that demonizing an entire group because of a stereotype is wrong.

What I'm suggesting is that if a woman is informed that she is carrying a child with deformities, or knows she has been abusing drugs, or whatever...or is NOT wanting to be a parent for ANY reason, it's her decision. Nobody has a right to decide that for her.

Many people are willing to deal with children with disabilities or that may have major problems, some are not. Yes, we should have better funding for these families, but it is also their choice as to whether to do this.

As far as people being bad parents, I feel that many women KNOW they aren't ready to raise a child and an abortion is the right choice for them over abusing or neglecting said child.

I'm reminded of a woman that killed all three of her infant children with a steak knife years ago. Were those babies better off?

:yourock:

:loveya: rational rose for telling it like it is :hi:

I too am perplexed by the notion that when carrying a child, a woman ceases to be a human first, incubator second. I believe every adult has the right to decide their own medical treatment, even if it goes against a Dr's advice. This is an unpopular view in today's world. I just wish there was as much attention focused on the condition of children already BORN and how we can make their lives better.

NC_Nurse mentioned that you hear so much about unwanted, abused, and abandoned children, yet many of the pro-lifers kick the interests of these children to the curb.

Therefore they don't worry about unwanted, abused, neglected, or abandoned children. They've already paid their tithe at the church, so to speak -- already achieved their 'I'm a good person' high -- so they have no need for actual empathy for actual children. Just my .02.

Too many white anglo-saxon protestant homophobic racist misogynists. They call it "the land of the free." What this clearly means is "Land of the Free for SOME people."

Try out this irony, RationalRose...my conservative father and I both beleive that women's bodies are their own and they should have control of them and what is within them. How tragic that some on a liberal board are for only SOME personal freedoms.

the american public (and increasingly women) are going to the pro-life side. What do you think this means?

That' s the way our constitution was written.

:D

For those who are passionately Pro-Life, I would like to ask you: At what age (pre or postnatal) does the young human have human rights?

The reason I ask is because some ProLife people seem to think that the right to live begins at the moment of birth. Yes?

How do you Prolifers reconcile that view with the increasing ability of medical technology to support a baby born many months before term? Does the preemie have fewer rights than a baby delivered after 9 months in utero?

If an neonate can survive outside the womb 2-3 months before its due to be born and if its legal status is no different from an unborn fetus (i.e., it can be killed at the behest of the mother), when does abortion become infanticide?

Please let me know all of your opinions. I am ambivalent on this issue and am curious how those who feel passionately about the right of the mother to choose what to do understand human rights of infants.

Once birth has taken place, then you have a baby. We celebrate birthdays, not conception days or viability days. You can't pin these down as easily.

No premature baby has ever had to wait for the due date to get a name, a SSN, or have to consider the due date as the birthday. Otherwise I'd have had to wait until I was 21 to drink legally. Thanks to being a preemie, I was legal at 19 when my state raised the drinking age, grandfathering in anyone already 19 and up.

Once it's born, it becomes a baby with all that entails. Preemies have been around for as long as women have been giving birth. Some "preemies" were actually nine months along, but conceived before the marriage. These children were never legally bastards.

If a woman conceives prior to her American citizenship exam, passes it during the pregnancy, what is the citizenship of the baby at birth? American with the right to grow up to become President of the USA.

We need science to step up to the plate and do some serious research.

Are you serious? Then maybe you could help with a coupla' deadbeats on www.washingtondispatch.com who don't, eh, exactly see it that way. The Bible is, to them, the law of the bloody land.

abortion was murdering the unborn.

Rhodes said to her anything unborn is not a living child. Also, she challenged him--"Why is it unborn?"

Good question, eh?


No answer from the guy. Why is it guys who do not have a clue--none, whatsoever of a woman's job to birth children think they can make all sorts of judgements upon it? Who the hell do they think they are interfering in a woman's business? and her body? Who is this prick to call in and imply that women who have abortions are murderers?

Be on the watch for these types of sanctimonious, religious pricks. (Rhodes also challenged him on the "virgin birth" thing. He said Mary got pregnant by the Holy Spirit)

Their wives /girlfriends are probably ones who have abortions and keep it secret from them out of fear.

he didn't even have an answer. He probably doesn't understand the basic biology of conception and childbirth.

without the mother's body being held hostage, then we can stop worrying about abortions. If those who are concerned about the life of the fetus (or "infant" if you prefer to use that term for the pre-born as well as the born) are willing to ante up the money to have the fetus extracted from the body of the woman who cannot, or does not wish to, carry it to term, and pay for its support from that point on, then they can have it.

So long as the woman is held as an unwilling hostage, the decision is hers.

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop, or even greatly reduce, abortion. It just makes it more likely to kill the woman, too. But then, that's the unspoken agenda of a lot of "pro-life" types - they want the women punished.

I'm not a fan of abortion - who is? It's too much like drowning the kittens instead of spaying the cat. But unwanted pregnancies happen. Must the woman be held hostage to it for 9 months, and undergo all the health risks of a pregnancy, for a birth control failure or a momentary lapse of common sense, or worse, a rape? What does that benefit anyone?

Those who are truly concerned about the lives of those aborted fetuses should be working toward an external support system to permit the fetus to be brought to term outside of the original uterus. Instead, many are working to try to make birth control unobtainable, which seems antithetical to their alleged mission. Abortion is, however, just the first rampart in their siege of women's rights.