Are you an extreme abortion person, or a moderate?

Regarding abortion, the consensus of DU is undoubtedly pro-choice
and pro-feminism, pro-womens rights. That said, even pro-choice
persons will add qualifiers regarding the last trimester.

This, however is a more extreme poll. I'm curious whether hillary
clinton is right to call for people to realize that they are all
not extremists, and are willing to negotiate that we can not see
this issue as divisive.... or are we really all extremists.

The poll choices are intended to be the extreme pro choice situation,
that the baby has no rights until it is out of the womb, and until
then it has no right to life whatsoever (choice 1).

The second choice is pro-choice, but, in a reasonable consideration
where the baby really is quite advanced, and has developed rights to
life of its own, when the mother's life is not threatened.

The third position is the polar opposite of 1, that the woman is just
a foetus bag, and if she dies carring the baby, that is what god wants.

The 4th choice is, like it says, that you're anti-abortion, but are
willing to conscience it under cases of rape, incest, genetic problems
and the mother's life.

Obviously there are many more subdivisions, if i mistakenly worded
one of these that you cannot tick it. Please explain.

By law, a woman has a right to an abortion. Period. It is a personal choice, one made between a woman and her doctor. Abortion should not even be discussed in the political arena - no one person has the right to force their religious beliefs about abortion on another - and abortion is all about religion. NO ONE has the right to keep a woman from getting an abortion if she so chooses. Especially men who have never been in the position to choose.

Men (and women) are put by both men AND women into a position where they have to make such decisions. I'm fully pro-choice, but I'm not going to cop-out of a debate by saying only half of the people in this country affected by such a decision have to right to decide.

on edit: added "only"

they would never be in a position, if abortion became illegal, to put their health at risk to obtain an illegal abortion. That should NEVER EVER happen again in this country.

If we did have some medical breakthrough, and guys could elect to get a uterus implanted in them and the fetus could be transferred to them to carry for 9 months? So all those pro-birth boys could put their money where their mouth is? :evilgrin:

Your argument is absurd.

If she were speaking against the draft, she would be speaking against a man being forced into something against his will.

A man speaking against abortion rights is a man speaking FOR forcing a woman into something against her will.

One position is for personal rights and one is against.

The correct analogy to the draft would be if a man were speaking FOR abortion rights in a society that denied them.

And I support that position (for a person's rights) be it in regards to the draft or in regards to abortion rights.

that abortion has NO affect on men whatsoever. I'm totally pro-choice and will never budge on it, but I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me I have no say in the matter. Until women reproduce asexually, abortion is most definitely an issue that concerns all of us.

The fact that I will never experience something does not exclude me from discussing it nor render my mind less capable of forming valid legal and ethical opinions on it.

Having the possibility of becoming pregnant does certainly inform a woman's point of view on this, and I dont want to discount that all, but the idea that men cannot have opinions on the issues surrounding abortion is rediculous.

.... they just get to contribute financial support for 18 years for a child whether they intended to contruibute to a pregnancy or not.

The idea that men should have NO say is as absurdly sexist as the idea that men should have control.

and child birth. There are.

buck up kiddo, you don't have to make a decision about shit

and this is coming from a heterosexual male, who has been in a situation where abortion was an (and finally, THE) option

you're trying to create equality where none exists, it's all on the woman

The man has no say other than to pay child support.

that child support gets into discussions about abortion rights.

Abortion rights deal with a woman making medical decisions about her own fucking body. There is no way, no matter how unfair the possibility of child support may seem to you if you don't want a child, that a woman should be forced to have an abortion if she does not want to undergo one. On the flip side, there is no way she should be forced to be in a state of pregnancy for 9 months and then to give birth, if she does not want to undergo it.

If this weren't the case, then you'd essentially be saying that when a woman gets pregnant she gives up legal control over her body. Is that what you intend to say?

'Pregnant? Okay, we're gonna have this person make decisions for you now. We'll let you know when you're in charge of yourself again.'

I made a flip comment. But it does disturb me sometimes since a girl did that to me. She said she had a miscarriage, lied to an adoption agency about who the father is, and gave my daughter away. Not the same thing I realize but its connected.

This: 'Pregnant? Okay, we're gonna have this person make decisions for you now. We'll let you know when you're in charge of yourself again.'

Is a far fucking cry from: 'Yeah, we know it's your body, but it's half our kid so we'd like a say in what goes on too.'

The day women reproduce asexually is the day that abortion can become ONLY a woman's issue.

what happens in a woman's body? Please explain. If it is not their body, I fail to see how they have any say....

One person one vote. We are, at the end of it, one society, not
a separate male and female one, as much as we are that too.

In this regard, government is elected by both men and women, and
as it has to record in to law, the definition of when a citizen
has the right to life, it is the charge of all citizens to vote
and lobby this legal concern.

Similarly, government sets laws about when we might pull the plug
on a person, without calling it murder... in old age, brain death
and such. As elections involve all voters, men are inevitably involved
and that is "how exactly".

The presumption we make, is that the government is empowered by citizens
to be our friend, our champion, not our oppressor, and in this regard,
it is neither man nor woman. So, as we are talking on democratic
underground, and not feminist underground, it is wiser to be humble
and consider ALL potential voters, not just those directly involved.

I do agree with your point, that it is a private matter for a woman
in terms of her freedom of choice, and yet as well, the same goes for
a cannabis smoker and their freedom of choice, where the vast majority
of people making laws about it, are not involved... and indeed,
should be taking advise from those directly involve, rather than
presuming that they know better.

So in a democracy, those directly involved, must educate those not so,
and, as you are, make it clear who is under the foot of legislation,
vs. who is intellectualizing about the concerns of another.

the minority?

Sorry, don't buy it.

I know this is going on right now with the anti-gay state ballot initiatives but I am confident they will be struck down as discriminatory and unconstitutional at some point soon. Imagine if we had left integration up to a majority vote. Or women's right to own property. Or the right to vote in the first place for women or people of color.

I'm sorry, there are some things the majority has no right over (even in the mask of 'democracy') and one is subjugation of a part of the population....which translates, in this case, to my equal right to control my body the same as they would theirs.

The day abortion goes on a ballot initiative is the day I would leave this country.

The tyranny of the majority may be athenian democracy, but we've come
a long way in evolving modern liberal democracy (perhaps not as yet
in the US), but a modern state exists that civil rights are extended
to ALL members of society with no exceptions.

It is the failure of the american winner take all system of government
that the minority is oppressed ane excluded from their own process,
their own very personal concerns, as indeed, is happening with these
ignorant mysogynists who've taken electoral power far beyond its
constitutional limits to usurp powers not ennumerated to them.

The ninth amendment of the bill of rights, is your protection, and
as these people are so stupid and low, they've no concept of what are
obviously basic principals we should consider, that in a free society
all citizens, not directly involved, should, unless it is harmful to
their own rights, give way to the minority concerned.

Womens sufferage did indeed come about by making it a majority issue,
and there is no going back. We can only defend our rights, as a
collection of minorities, by hearding together to oppose these ignorant
theocrats. In my own view, the right to inhale air with any sort of
dust in it whatsoever, smoky dust, as was an obvious right unenumerated
when the constitution was written, has become a ballot initiative
and a war... yet what asinine foul criminals see they might
usurp the constitution for a petty attempt to destroy and weaken
an electoral constituency.

Liberty is not the tyrrany of the majority, it is the right of every
citizen to be included and enfranchised. That fools use the word
and do not know its meaning, is a sad reflection of where we're at.

There are 143 million women in the U.S. and only 138 million men.

the foetus is probably self aware enough to -just- count as an individual in its own right, so a woman isn't the only person affected by her decision to have an abortion.

A has no right to tell B what to do in purely private matters, but he/she does have the right to tell B not to interact with C in certain ways.

My position is somewhere between 2, with shades of 1 - I favour some controls on late term abortion, but I feel very strongly that until the foetus is self-aware abortion should always be legal.

I voted other on principle, because of your post title. What is an "abortion person"?

But then i got caught up in the frustration of these divisive framing
issues... as i am pro-choice for all human beings and pro "life" not
the divisive term, but in embracing life.... the framing is divisive
and i had trouble choosing a framing that itself is not that.. and
failed... sorry.

That way, those who oppose abortions can choose not to have one, whereas those who need one can get one.

Brilliant.

And I have no good reason for it except that that was the conclusion I reached after bringing a child to full term. Until that time, I was pro-choice up until the end of the natural term. Wait until I have my next child, though, and I may change my mind again; my conclusion is based on feeling the change in fetal movement and is not grounded in science.

on edit - I wish I could change my vote to pro-choice all the way. I just read the below poster's statement - choice all the way else it's not a choice.

The need to legislate that mother's don't kill their own offspring is
against my libertarian principals. Natural law is enough. We must
trust that a woman following her own instincts will do the right thing.

Myself i'm against the extreme late term case where the baby is almost
whole... but that is the mother's choice... not my political concern,
nor any matter of the law.

However, there are all kinds of medical complications that can happen to put the life or the health of the mother at risk. What to do about situations like that is up to the woman, period.

Talk about EXTREME, baby!

LMAO.

Totally unintentional.

I guess I'm so used to the word "extreme" being tied to especially dumb and dangerous sports that I can't hear the word without thinking:

Totally extreme! To the max, baby!

No qualifiers, no exceptions, and no interference by men whatsoever.

I am not their judge, nor are they mine. Pro-Choice ALL THE WAY.

"Keep coat hangers in closets, make abortion safe and accessible"
-Me, 2004

and no one has a right to lay claim to one centimeter of her flesh.
she will decide what to do with her body -- and that's it.
it's not about abortion at all -- that moderate enough for ya?

abortions and I support social programs to reduce (and perhaps in time, nearly eliminate) the want and need to have an abortion. Adoption programs, health and medial programs, family planning programs, sex education programs, anti-poverty programs. All voluntary and easily available.

I also oppose the death penalty and I oppose war, except as a last resort.

90 days should be more than enough time to make up your mind.

Figure the first few weeks until a missed period... then perhaps that
happens once in while... 2 missed periods!.. hmmm... gaining water
weight.... hmmm... maybe its the diet... Would you consider 120
or 180 days to give some breathing room?

Babies usually are just growing during their last three to four months in the womb if all I recall correctly from my health class. They shouldn't have to feel pain. I don't know when that point is, but it should be looked into to settle the abortion debate once and for all.

As always, prevention is the best.

Put fetus on a ruler
{sorta like a fish}
or some other method.
Be specific.

I used to say in cases of rape or incest but many DU-ers here pointed out the hypocrisy of that if I believe that abortion is taking the life of another. So I no longer hold that position. Now I say only for the life of the mother.

I prefer to say I am pro-prevention though

I am for:

"Real" sex education in schools
Low cost and free birth control to teens without parental permission
Plan B over the counter
Better help and support for young and poor parents

Now all you other pro-life dems come out and support me. I know many of you are afraid of the flaming, but crispy edges are good sometimes.

Birth mother could die at any point in the process.

Criminalizing abortion will not stop abortions; it only produces 'criminals'

and I don't think there will ever be a compromise.

First when I say for the life of the mother I mean if she is going to die if she continues the pregnancy.

Try to see it from my perspective, which in no way comes from religion.

If I believe abortion is taking the life of another than that is already a wrong. So producing criminals by criminalizing abortion isn't even a point with me.

Of course illegal abortions would happen if abortion is made illegal, but it would be by a womans own hand. No one is taking her life, she has a choice. With abortion the babies life is being taken and to me thats wrong.

I can see from your perspective that if you do not believe a fetus is a life, then you see no wrong being done. But for those that believe it is a life, its wrong, and there is no reason good enough to take the life of an innocent child.

It's called self-defense.

I said taking the life of an innocent child, that's not self-defense.

If the baby is dying or dead in the womb, that is a threat to the life and future fertility of the mother.

I didn't get from your other post that you were talking about a child already dead in the womb. That's not really self defense either though. If the child is already dead no one is taking its life. I don't understand what your trying to say.

--used to be punishable by law, as it was considered abortion.

about this part of your post: "I can see from your perspective that if you do not believe a fetus is a life, then you see no wrong being done."

But that is not a pro-choice perspective. Pro-choice is not dependent on one's personal beliefs on when life begins. Pro-choice people are all over the board on their personal opinions on abortion (I could tell you my personal beliefs, but I don't think they matter when discussing the political stances of pro-choice or anti-choice). Pro-choice is a political stance, whereas pro-life is a personal. One can be pro-choice *and* pro-life because they believe that abortion is immoral or unethical or the taking of a life, but people choose to be pro-choice politically because they do not believe a woman's rights should be taken from her at pregnancy.

When it comes to the political, there is no way to give a fetus legal rights without reducing the rights of a woman and lowering her to the status of second class citizen. I don't think there is any excuse for that ever. When it comes to moral or personal beliefs I can work to lessen the need for abortions, but when it comes to legal rights, I can choose one or the other to have have precedence and I choose the woman every time.

that abortion is killing children, then how can they be expected to just turn thier head and not at least say I think thats wrong.

We base our many of our laws on morals and what we believe to be ethical.

If I think my neighbor is beating his kids should I turn my head and say at least I don't do that.

Thier are countries where they believe female circumcision is right, should we turn our heads and say Oh well, I don't have to do it, but its OK for them because thats what they believe.

Do you see how some can not just turn thier head if they believe a serious wrong is happening to children.

I don't see it as lowering women to second class citizens because they may not be allowed to kill children.

and you have no right to put your moral judgements on anybody else. According to the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, the fetus has no standing as a person. Therefore, it is a non-entity, according to how the Constitution is interpreted. It can have no rights. The only consideration is the woman's 14th amendment rights.

Period.

End of story.

If you attempt to give the fetus status as a person then you are impinging on the woman's civil rights. You are attempting to put your own unconstitutional set of personal, religious, moral beliefs on a person who has 14th amendment protection. This is not only a violation of the highest law of the land, but is also in violation of international law. I would submit that advocating that kind of position could be classified in many circles as hate speech. It can be equated with racism and homophobia (both efforts to supress the civil rights of other classes of people). Of course, I've only been around here since last spring, but I don't think that kind of speech has no place here on this board.

I can sympathize with your honestly held positions, but they have no place in a modern, intellectual conversation, and, with due respect, should be kept strictly private. There are those who would view your positions as an attempt to spread hate. I personally think that all views should be openly aired, regardless of how full of hate and bigotry they might be, but my view is in the minority (reference all of the deleted messages that we find on DU).

"modern, intellectual" conversations here on this issue, because there are many intelligent people here who can have an honest discussion with someone who holds a different viewpoint. Apparently they won't be with you. And its not a religious question, yes it is for some, but not for me.

I have every right to my opinions and did you realize that this is a discussion board meant to discuss different viewpoints, not just the ones you deem appropriate. If you don't like the topic you should not respond, and you can have your own little privacy.

And so far you are the only one I have run across who equates my opinion with racism and homophobia. Its actually kind of funny because you don't know me, but I have biracial family members and gay family members that are dear to my heart.

I think the only one filled with hate here is you and your idea that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a bigot. You can feel free to put me on ignore that way you won't have to see any positions that you think should be private.

I see little difference between reproductive rights and others. When a person of color has his voting rights or employment rights threatened through another person's speech, then that threatening speech is "hate speech." When a a GLBT person has his marriage rights threatened through the another person's speech, that threatening speech is "hate speech." When a woman has her reproductive rights threatened through another person's speech, that threatening speech is "hate speech." Advocacy of a threat is just as dangerous as the threat itself, because it can incite another to carry out that threat.

I would submit that a poster who advocated restricting the voting rights of people of color would be making hateful remarks. I would submit that a poster who advocated restricting the marriage rights of GLBT persons would be making hateful remarks. And those remarks would be just as hateful if they were wrapped around eloquent verbiage as if they used the foulest of gutter language. I don't believe that ANYBODY here would disagree with me. I also think that anybody who advocated those positions, no matter how persuasively, would be subject to an alert and possible banning from this forum. Why is it OK to advocate restricting a woman's reproductive rights when it is not OK to advocate restricting those other civil rights?

I can't control what you think. But you should consider the extreme distress you are putting on other people through the positions you are espousing. Reproductive rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, just as much as any other right. And as far as hiding behind the first amendment, frankly, the courts have ruled that hate speech is not protected.

I have no one on ignore and would like to keep it that way, but you are very close to being my first. Disagreeing with an action is not the same as discriminating against someone because of thier race, gender, age or sexual orientation.

I have no respect for your point of view, and consider anything you say pointless, so you gain nothing by responding to me.

Basically calling me the same as a racist and a homophobe I consider personal attacks and do not want to engage with you anymore

Even the best doctors can not foresee all the factors.

When you tell the mother she has to continue with the pregnancy AT ANY POINT, you are tell her she must risk her life.

Most pregnancies are not life threatening, and if they are then there is the exception for the life of the mother.

And you also reduce pregnant women to having a disability, or being ill. Which would open the door to discrimination against pregnant women

I don't think I was posting yet then. You have the same position as me.

Tonight at 7, Mary Jo Rottencouch will have her four month-old fetus ripped from her womb... during a BUNGEE JUMP! It's gonna be hard to remain dilated while plummeting to the earth at 60MPH, but she better if she expects the cord tied to what would have been Little Billy's neck is going to actually yank the entire offending piece of meat out of her! And at 730, it's When Drunk Cops Attack!

Ex..treeeeeeeEEEEEEEME ABORTION!

In a world where the rights of women were unquestioned, i could maybe
laugh with XXX-FOX on that one.... but its a hard joke to crack. I
wrote a post of extreme abortions, on an anarctic peak, 200 feet deep
in the pacific, 10 seconds after the beginning of pregnancy, but its
hard to be funny and not callous... very hard indeed, knowing the
ugliness the law is on to about this issue.

It seems the extreme position is the right one, and Hillary already
has this position in spades... The subsequent question is whether the
voters are men or women in this poll... but as electoral roles do not
discriminate, we must count men. The next question is whether the
view posted reflects your own views, or what you think should be the
law. In this regard, i feel the law should be absolute choice and
one's private views can always choose not to exercise the extreme case,
that way everyone is happy except nosy people who want to legislate
other people's lives... neocons.

So Hillary then, can talk up the second view, understanding that it is
not mutually exclusive with the first, if it is not legislated, and
perhaps win major ground in reducing the divisiveness of this issue.

The only remaining trick must be to innovate a new framing terminology
that better describes this issue for what it really is about.

I don't think a fetus in the last trimester should be terminated if it can live outside the womb. That's when adoption should be considered if for some reason the mother cannot do what's needed. I think, then the pregnancy should only be terminated if it would endanger the life of the mother, or if it is determined the child life would be a physical impossibility.

Do you mean that, or do you mean just a woman?

If the woman said she wanted to have an abortion, but the doctor said he'd prefer the baby to be birthed, then what?

Do you really mean the choice should be made by the two of them?

Are done for medical reasons. Therefore, a doctor has to be involved. Duh.

The potentual mother would need to get the best medical advice as to what needs to be done. If one won't do it because of the doctors beliefs she may need to look for someone more open to those procedure. Abortions are not a do-it-yourself kinda thing.

Are in fact not pro-life at all, but are just a bunch of opportunistic, self-righteous assholes trying to force their morality on everyone.

So, I guess that makes me extreme.

I call that murder.

The first 3-4 months is okay with me. 4 months is stretching it and she better have a life threatning reason because I saw it as life from the beginning - with her having a choice to terminate it. By the 6th month, I see it as a life that could survive on it's own without her. People have had babies at 6 months term that have lived.

I understand some people are pro simply not getting pregnant, but mistakes happen. Not taking care of it in the first 3 months strikes me as far more irresponsible than simply getting pregnant accidentally in the first place. I say get your tests in the first 3 months, make it possible for some people to wait as long as 3.5-4 for extreme cases where they missed something, and after that call it murder and tax the mother for being an idiot. In fact I'm pro throwing her in jail after 5 months, for murder, if she terminates it then.

If you are willing to answer, are you a woman?

Have you ever carried a child to term or had an abortion?

If the test of "life" were survival outside the womb, do you not
think this could be cooperated with abortion, that a woman might
abort, and if the baby lives, then ain't that great? Your crime is
the perception of taking life, and defending the right to life..?

As the incidence of these mythical late term abortions where the
mother's life is not threatened are really truly small and insignificant,
do you not trust the opinion of the woman and her doctor in each
specific case?

Could you consider voting on a pro-choice candidate who suggested
that womens rights allow for a mother to chooose... and it is her own
business... Beyond the ideological argument, does this issue affect
your voting in senate, house and presidential polls?

Woman

I have one daughter, no abortions or miscarriages

I don't understand the second paragraph, the bit about "your crime is the perception of taking life". What crime? But getting at the heart of what I think you're asking, I don't think it's right for the government to forcibly take a fetus from my uterus and raise it. It may not be the best thing for me emotionally (adoptions in some cases are more traumatic for the mother than abortions), or physically. I would leave it to the woman and doctor to make that choice.

The mythical late term abortions, yes I would leave it to a woman and her doctor, of course. They are far more qualified to amke medical decisions involving the woman's body than an elected official.

I tend to vote on civil rights, and women's rights are a part of that. So a person who is pro-reproductive rights is more likely to get my vote than someone who thinks they have more right to make my decisions than I do. I would have to weigh it with the other positions of a candidate, I'm not a single issue voter. Are they going to bomb civilians? Are they going to deny marriage benefits to some people? Are they going to deny basic health care in return for tax cuts for the rich?

Perhaps we should call it "freedom to choose", to reframe this
issue that people understand that it really is about freedom, and turn
the framing rhetoric on its ear.

What i meant about "yoru crime..." was that the poster had said that
they felt that a woman who aborted late term was guilty of murder and
therefore had committed a crime and should go to prison.... and all i
was saying, is that if the baby can live outside the mother, and she
wants it out, is there not an abortion procedure than can make an
early birth and let nature see if the baby survives or not.

I'm increasingly concerned that the democratic party has walked away
from core principals of defending human liberty for ALL peoples, and
the abortion debate, i feel, with the emergence of people who are
against a womans freedom and liberty, that the party has become mushy
by allowing its principals to be comprimized, and as much as it seems
that it will undermine the party to be absolute in its princiapls of
standing for human freedom and liberty, perhaps it needs to re-frame
these debates for what they are. You are either for women's freedom,
or you are for legal enslavement. As with all these issues you mention
like bombing civlians and denying benefits afforded to heterosexuals
in marriage to homosexual couples... rather than getting caught up
in the dross, takig the issue constantly back to its firs princiapls
of either you are for freedom, liberty, or enslavement and criminality. Are the masses enslaved to pay the taxes for the
aristocracy to declare wars and committ crimes against humanity, or
are we a free people able to choose for ourselves in a free socieity.

This concept that they can abuse the framing of "freedom" and at
the same time pervert a free society implies to me, that we should
turn their framing against them, by endorsing freedom of choice.

Perhaps there is an abortion procedure that can make the aborted fetus viable. But it would, in the end, be a MEDICAL procedure, and thus needs to be decided by the woman and the doctor, not imposed by the government. The reason abortions are done in the way that they are is that they are the least traumatic on a woman's body. If you start dictating that the woman needs to go through a C-Section instead of a D&C, you are allowing the government to make somebody's medical decisions, and ones that involve putting them through unnecessary and risky major surgery.

I'z kinda ignerent about medikal things, and i figured that the
procedure of an abortion takes out the "lump", but i think what you're
saying, is to get the lump out in one piece is much more dangerous to
the mother/woman, than gettin' it out in fragments... hence why it is
important for the freedom to choose ta' be absolute.

Think about having a kidney stone - the doctor will often try to break it up with shock waves or ureteroscopy so it is in smaller pieces before it comes out. Maybe they will do that, maybe not, it depends on the size, the patient's overall health, a number of factors.

Giving birth is way more traumatic on a body than passing a kidney stone, and a fetus - depending on the timing - is likely to be far larger.

Look mom, a woman who doesn't believe others can hold their own opinions.

How fundie.

How fundie.

:eyes:

Your opinions are draconian, and it was an honest question considering
that you've made some rather fundie snap judgements on women you don't
know, and will never be.

Mouthing off about a choice you'll never have to make is so typical
of the kind of fundamentalism that drives the debate on the freedom
to choose.

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

You've started with the foul stuff here saucy. Fear seems to drive
those who have draconian views.

I think you misunderstand why i ask. You were willing to have a chat
about your views, and i'm asking if you're willing to explain further
in light of your own experiences. Rather you've become foul... and
started with the republican ad hominem stuff.

Anyone can observe what the dominant views are in this thread, so i was
asking as you are representative of a voting minority regarding abortion.
And indeed, it is quite relevant, if you can put down the defensiveness
and discuss your views, you have the opportunity to win converts, as
the majority of people who will read your words are not writers here
and are rather curious people who inquire as to what inspires people
and their political approaches.

I did say, in inquring, that i did not expect you to answer, not to
impose... and rather you've responded as if i demand. Please excuse
any mistaken rudeness.... just curious iz, all.

No qualifiers or restrictions at all, to do so is not truly pro-choice.

I have no problem aborting a fetus

When it gets to a devoloped baby I'm going to scream murder.

I'm a vegetarian who wouldn't hurt a cow, do you really think I wouldn't call someone aborthing a kid the day before it is born MURDER?

I think most of the american public would.

I do not think that is equivenlent with being anti-pro choice or it calls for being called fundie.

I said one thing in the above post that got deleted - all I said was I don't deal with idiots. Why was it deleted?

I said it after being attacked repeatedly and being called male, for my views on calling it murder after I consider it capable of living without the mother.

I consider myself very liberal, march in the gay pride parade, donate to to Now, etc. If you guys can't accept that women have different tolerance levels for when an abortion takes place, I do not see you any different than the intolerant fundies.

Especially my primary attacker who has went on several unfounded tangents. I will not deal with psychotic accusations that start by demanding my birthing history.

I'd call it justifiable homicide if the baby is dead or dying, and might take its mother along also.

because you misinterpreted someone who was trying to *discuss* with you on a *discussion* board?

No one was attacking you. I read the whole exchange. Why be defensive about those questions? She was only trying to understand where you are coming from and carry the discussion further.

Personally I find gender and experience with abortion or childbirth very significant when talking to people about either subject (abortion or childbirth). If someone got offended about my asking I'd hope they could say so simply, no harm no foul.

I think that instead of focusing so much energy on protesting clinics, people who are well and truly "pro life" should be working hard to make sure that birth control is available to everyone. I would rather have condoms absolutely everywhere, in surplus, than one kid have unprotected sex because he or she does not have access to a condom.

specifically the dosage. Small women are getting the dosages for 400 pound women. Lots of women don't like what those hormones do to them and refuse to take it. I refuse to take it becuase of what it does to me- makes me too soft and my skin tears. I'm a small woman.

birth control isn't the be all answer but fundies try to grab on to. Deprovera was pulled off the market and gave my sister cysts in her breasts, the norplant ended up being really bad for her and she found that she couldn't get it removed by her doctor who inserted it and had to pay hundreds to have it surgically removed at the hospital. My niece had that 5 year shot that they pulled off the market because of health issues. A friend took birth control for years and it screwed her up inside somehow where she cant have kids now.

I make the guy provide a condom because I hate what bc does to me.

I've paid for 1 abortion for a friend - she didn't have the money, and drove her to the clinic to have abortions two different times- she's had 6. And she's had every kind of birth control there's been availble. She does get pregnant at the drop of a hat.

So lets spend money on devoloping birth control that doesn't harm women, not stuff that only works with a certian height/weight that meets the standard 3 dossage of the pill.

and if birth control fails, or she takes a chance, let's still give her the option of 1st tri-mester abortion. Fundies will try to take that away if they start being allowed to prop up their beliefs on birth control solves the problem. I say we not feed their crap.

I believe a woman should be able to do to her body as she pleases. If that means removing the baby in the 3rd trimester that is unfortunate but I believe it should be legal.

I however never believe abortion to be a moral choice.

I would like nothing more than the anti-choice Democrats to stand up and call for a safe and effective artificial womb to be developed within a decade. Republicans and the religious right would oppose that tooth and nail though because it would take away one of their "core issues" regardless of professing a "culture of life."

I am female. I believe there should be an unrestricted right to abortion for the first five months of a pregnancy. After that, I think an abortion in which the fetus is killed should only be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life or health or severe abnormalities in the fetus. I am not saying the woman HAS to keep the fetus in her body at any point, but once it is that developed (especially since the functions of the brain involved in higher thought begin brain activity around the point of viability) it should not be legal for it to be killed. The woman should have the option of giving birth to it alive immediatley if she absolutely cannot cope with being pregnant any longer. Oh and I am not really interested in debating this, so you can reply to it all you want, I am not going to answer...

exceptions.

Other than that, I consider it one thing to abort a fetus, and another thing to abort a devoloped baby.

People who are against abortion generally hold that positon because they believe the fetus to be a human life, making abortion murder.

if a "child" in their opinion(fetus in mine) is concieved as a result of rape or incest, how is that "child" somehow less of a human being?

IMHO you have to be on one side of the issue of the issue or the other- either the fetus is a human life or it isn't...the "moderate" position that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, etc. have no moral validity- I am completely pro-choice, but I have A LOT more respect for those people who's beliefs require them to oppose ALL abortions than for those who want to put qualifications on what constitutes a human life and then fake piety.

I see the point you make, and it does indeed show that the words i
repeated as if from 1000 mindless articles, are misframed conservative
rhetoric, as indeed, either it is a human life with a "right to life"
or it isn't, but to make a value judgement based on the genetics of that
animal, is indeed a denial of the very rhetoric that substantiates the
claim.

Given a qualification on human life, then when someone is pro-enslavement
and pro-captial punsihment, their stance is as well hipocrisy and their
views nonsense. Similarly, to wage mass murders by bombing as well
suggests that the person is anything but pro-life, that indeed, the
only sound, coherent, argument for no abortions is someone who themselves
is a pacifist, against violence and killing. Then politically,
the democratic party should actually include the full spectrum of voters
from the pacifists who don't take life, as they see it, and those who
support the women's freedom and life over an untested ball of cells
that is dependent on her generosity.

That people are allowed to take this issue out of context, hiding
behind rhetoric, lobbying and propaganda, rather than presenting a
coherent picture face to face, is clearly part of the subversion.

HOWEVER-
I don't see any contradiction in people being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty- they see the "baby" as an innocent, which it is, but they see those convicted of a capital crime as "guilty" and deserving of death. I don't agree with it, but I can see and appreciate the logic.

sorry if that one disappoints you...

.. really 2 things... one is that the law under which such penalty is
perscribed is a law of man, no law of a higher power. As well, there is,
especially in the US judicial system (notice i did not say "justice"),
a strong possibility that the person so accused is actually innocent.

Then to say they are "guilty" must be cautioned the caveat that we're
not really sure, nor can we be, given the incomptence of american justice.
More likely, we can only say that the person was poor, likely dark
skinned, and as well, likely, did not recieve competent legal representation.

So if someone were to posit such an argument, it is a rather weak one.

I am neither disappointed or otherwise.. No judgements... i'm discussing.

:-)

That someone innocent would be put to death wrongly, is anathema to
someone who upholds the sanctity of life, and indeed to pass judgement
on the mother, that her life is somehow sinned, and the child innocent
is equally innane, IMO.... but it seems part of the hidden basis.

Those who make an exception for rape are basically saying the loss of the right to choose is a punishment they are putting on a woman for not abiding by their own sexual morals, and those who didn't stray from their imposed moral code still retain that right to chose.

If that's their logic, it's really about punishing the woman; it's not about being "pro-life."

Most consider the grey area.

If someone is going to abort a kid for rape or incest, why not do it in the first tri-mester?

and NO- that's not a sarcastic racial remark- :evilgrin: (although it could be.)

They like to question Roe by saying that something is either a human life or it isn't...and those that start to make exceptions lose all their credibility.

IMHO you have to be on one side of the issue of the issue or the other- either the fetus is a human life or it isn't...the "moderate"

My guess would be that someone holding this position does recognize that the fetus is a human life, but that the (mental) health of the mother comes into play. Forcing a woman to carry and deliver a baby conceived by rape or incest is, in a sense, a double-violation.

ordained by god, as far as a 'pro-lifer' is concerned- and aborting it would therefore be murder, and a case of man going against the will of god...
if what they say about abortion, and god and conception is true that is-
like i said- TOTAL hypocricy.

for someone who claims to be "pro-life" to favor this position would be hypocritical.

it's either a human life, or it isn't.

if you believe it's a human life- it would be MURDER to abort it, no matter how it was conceived, so the decision would be EASY.
inconvienence is not an excuse to play god- unless you're a hypocrite- then it's ok.

If you believe that it is a fetus with the potential to become a human life, the decision would probably be a little more difficult, because extenuating circumstances can be taken into consideration.

as they seem most appropriate. I will say tho, you assume too much. There is a point where i believe life begins and it is not at conception. After this point i believe if another's life is detrimentally affected it is a matter of choosing one life over another. Sad but the way it is. Interesting that people who see it differently than you are hypocrites. I will not call you names. You are entitled to your opinion. If you feel i am a hypocrite that is fine. I does not harm me, nor is it how i see myself.

I have had an abortion. I was engaged to be married. After the engagement i became pregnant. I was happy about it. Then i found out the man might have been molesting my 2 yr old. It was not physically provable but my daughter began to do some concerning things. I decided to terminate. I was threatened by him and his family. I was incredibly saddened by the loss but i did what i felt was necessary to protect my two yr old. I would not allow this man any contact with her or any other child in my care.

Each circumstance leading to this decision is individual. I understand this. I was asked for this thread what MY FEELINGS are. I stated them.

You stated yours. I am a hypocrite. OK i guess we are clear. Later.

you responded to my post, commenting on my opinion...

and it seems very scary to me that you would choose to terminate a pregnancy based on a suspicion of child molestation...I would certainly hope that you sought professional counsel before making such a life-altering decision...Being a man, i am not personally experienced with the condition, but from what little i do understand- pregnancy can cause hormonal changes in some women that can at times overwhelm their emotions and cause them to imagine any manner of things...
and I'm still also confused as to how aborting a fetus would protect a 2 year-old :wtf:...? terminating the engagement, that i could understand.

BUT- the choice was yours, and that's the way it should be, IMHO a fetus is a fetus until it is viable- and that's the point at which i start to have a big problem with abortion, and "choice".

and in my opinion, once someone decides for themselves where "human life" begins, it is black & white...not grey.

is that the two women I know that are most vocally pro-choice chose to carry to term and raise their children, even though they were single at the time. I guess being in that position they came to appreciate being able to make the decision on their own. They are both fantastic moms by the way.

Each chose to keep her baby, but they will fight to the death to defend your right to choose otherwise.

uncanny.

(especially the part about being a fantastic mom. :D)

both of them are sisters-in-law who had a kid before meeting one of my brothers (this is hard to describe in the plural--two of my brothers married single moms).

I guess when you do the single mom thing for awhile, you gain an appreciation of what the choices really entail.

Pro choice up until viability which is at six months gestational age. Up until the fetus is capable of living outside the womb without extreme life supports, women should have full reproductive choices.

I think that freedom of choice ends, once the fetus is able to be a seperate human life. The argument could reasonably be made, it is at that point, that the woman's right to privacy infringes on the fetus' right.

I also think that ANY time a woman's life is in danger, the option of terminating the pregnancy should be available AND it should be presented as an option by the medical profession. The new legislation allows doctors and hospitals to NOT mention this option to women. I think that is HORRIFIC!

I really do not like the term used in the OP, "extreme abortion." I don't think ANYONE is extreme abortion and would push abortion over CHOICE.

I also think it absurd to teach only abstinence and disregard all of the facts on prevention programs. The countries with the most liberal abortion laws and the most aggressive sex edu programs (that include info on safe sex and birth control) have the LOWEST abortion rates and teen pregnancies.

Ironically, the ANTI-choicers are opposed to implementing the MOST effective programs that lower abortion rates.

I sw your explanations further up in the thread, but I still am pretty repelled by your choice of words.

I really think the issue is between a woman and her physician no matter the what the current development is of the zygot, embryo or fetus.

Does that make me eligible for the new reality show? Guess so.

That puts me in the moderate camp.

I voted for the blue line, but I'd want more restrictions than that choice gave.

Early term abortions I think should be legal.

However Im torn between where the line is drawn, either viability outside the womb or first sign of brainwaves.

After that, I think abortion hould only be allowed in cases where the mother's life is in danger. At this point a pregnancy because of incest or rape will already have been reported and terminated.

like men shouldn't be involved -- (I would hope in most situations that they would be involved in the decision). But history has not treated this situation kindly. Men can get vasectomies without spousal consent, but in many hospitals women cannot get their tubes tied, etc. unless hubby signs.

NARAL just had a petition passed around for people to sign to be sent to President B. I modified mine a bit:

For the duration of this presidency and beyond, I pledge to do everything in my power as a concerned citizen to fight and preserve the principals of privacy and choice as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

Reproductive rights should be between a woman and her physician and no one else. Unless we are to become like China, where the Government makes laws over a woman's body, where Government states that one gender is preferred over another, the United States Government has no right in telling a woman what she can or must do in terms of reproductive choice.

Reproductive freedom means that my mother would NOT have had to have two psychiatrist signatures saying she would be mentally incapacitated if she had another stillborn simply because she wanted to get a tubal ligation in 1967. But this is what happened to her. With RH negative blood, after her first stillborn (after I was born) she had a 1 in 4 chance of having another live birth, and this was before Rogam and before Roe v. Wade. She refused to be treated like she was mentally ill.

If this reversal to Roe v. Wade happens, then MEN should be made to undergo similar rules and regulations, such as signatures for vasectomies from spouse or girlfriend (neither I, in 2000, nor my mother in 1967 had to give spousal consent for our husbands to have a vasectomy).

Reproductive freedom means that Pharmacists have no right to deny a woman a prescription from her doctor. If they do not believe in any prescription, for whatever reason, they should pass it to another pharmacist, not usurp a doctor's written medical order. There are groups of pharmacists out there now who are denying women (married or not) access to birth control pills. Besides the privacy issue being violated, this also interferes with a Doctor’s medical order (birth control pills are used for things other than preventing pregnancy, such as for ovarian cysts, and hormonal regulation).

I will not be treated like I live in China. I will not be treated as if someone who dispenses medication knows “more” than my own personal physician. I will fight for reproductive rights, because Government should not be involved in this matter at all.

***
that's my position and I'm sticking to it....

There is a field of differing moral and ethical interpratations of the situation. Calling any of them extreme would be a subjective judgement, not a reference to thier nature.

Thinking that a fetus qualifies as a person and therefore cannot be aborted is no more extreme than the idea that a fetus becomes a person at x number of weeks, which is no more extreme than a fetus becomes a person at birth, which is no more extreme than thinking a fetus is a quasi-person.

You cant really have an extreme opinion on this because it is completely subjective. How do we draw our moral and ethical lines around this unique biological situation.

Then there is the related issue of privacy. On that aspect of the debate there are indeed extremes.

I'm using extreme, in a way that you rightfully point out could be said
inappropriate, but think of it as a boundary condition, the extreme
end of the pregancy, the extreme beginning... as the lim->birth.
As the limit->mother'sDeath... the extreme conditions where the rules
of play obviously change.

Say we had an abortion law where a pregnancy could only be terminated
within the first minute of conception... and were there a device that
one could wear during sex that would so indicate such a pregnancy...
then a special procedure would happen where the man jumped off and
a hose inserted to wash out the "cell". .. extreme (odd i realize)
but extreme..

In math, extreme conditions often show the fallacy of flawed arguments.
As well is true of software. What happens when a voting machine gets
100,000 votes, does it crash?... extreme conditions inform as to flaws
that moderate conditions do not.

In discussing it, i realize something that the difference between
peoples opinions and what they believe should be enshrined in law is
itself quite different... and this poll asked person's views, not what
they believe should be legislated.

All of this arises, on my behalf, from a former discussion in another
thread about whether hillary clinton is wise to breach the issue of
"freedom to choose" as an issue where we can find common ground. If
it is indeed, how refreshing.... and indeed, the first extremism
we need to ditch are the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as they
themselves have become part of the problem.... the framing divides
where we might be able to have a unity.

Its absolutely rediculous.

Both sides seem dedicated to pretending that there is a right and wrong here when there simply isnt.

We dont have a cultural consensus on when life begins. It is an earnest difference of opinion and it does have legal remifications. Certainly there are privacy issues involved and those should not be compromised, that is not a matter of opinion, that is a matter of law.

"...If it is indeed, how refreshing.... and indeed, the first extremism
we need to ditch are the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as they
themselves have become part of the problem.... the framing divides
where we might be able to have a unity."

I prefer reproductive freedom, reproductive choice, or reproductive rights...

I'm still digesting what i've discovered in this discussion. I think
"reproductive" has too many syllables.... its a lead baloon for the
average sheeple.

"Freedom of choice" i like better, as it takes that word freedom that
the pukes have been busy selling up the wazooo and gives it new life
as something meaningful, more truthful, as it is not just pro, but
"freedom" we're talking about to be honest... and the pro-life word is
dead wrong.... it is anti-feminist, pro-enslavement, anti-humanist,
woman hating, denigrating and otherwise grossly misrepresenting the
issue and that constitutency and what they're all about.

Within the freedom of choice we all enjoy in our lives, some people
prefer to have self-imposed rules they live by. If we could achieve
this simple simple ground, the entire issue would be resolved. Hillary
clinton has the unique opportunity as a female presidential candidate
of bringing this issue up for conclusive resolution... and it seems
her dharma to champion justice... 'cuz if she isn't then what the heck
is that woman up to... we need our next president to be a serious
champion of justice... and what better place to start than spot in the
center of the most divisive electoral issue of the last half century.

are starting to attack contraception -- which is where this slippery little slope leads...

There is a group of pharmacists who have actively come out "against" the pill, and are denying women prescriptions that their doctors have given them http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1,00.html (which I talked about in post #54.)

I'm not talking about the "morning after pill" -- I'm talking the normal run-of-the-mill birth control pills.

in wisconsin http://www.wisdems.org/WLN/Mar_Update.htm

and yes morning after pills, too have been targeted:
article on emergency contraception often denied (though -- I have to wonder why the authorities were not brought into the picture since in the first example the woman was raped) http://www.wworld.org/crisis/crisis.asp?ID=455

Nobody wants to be in a position where they need an abortion.

But not only do I never want another woman to risk or lose her life going to some back-alley butcher, I don't want her to have to go to court to "prove" that she "needs" an abortion, or that she "really" was raped and "deserves" one, or any of the horrific situations I could see coming into play if all of these qualifiers become a factor.

It is a private medical decision. Period.

And yes, I would probably vote for a pro-choice moderate Republican before I would vote for an anti-choice Dem (taking a few other issues into account probably). My full human rights are more important to me than my party affiliation. This doesn't mean I have to agree with every candidate 100% on the issue, but I'm sure gonna think twice before voting for someone who doesn't seem to "GET" that considering a small cluster of cells, a potential future human, to be in any way equal to a fully present and accounted for actual human (who's always female, as it happens) is an inherently misogynist position.

The woman has an unrestricted right to an abortion only in the first trimester. During the third trimester, abortion is only permitted if the life of the woman is endangered. Is that not what Roe v. Wade provides for?

Not just in the first trimester and it also permits abortion thereafter if the life of the mother is endangered.

I see no reason to amend Roe vs. Wade

I thought it ruled that the right to abortion in the second trimester was to be based on consultation between a woman and her doctor, but that right was not as unrestricted as during the first semester? I realize it's quite possible I'm wrong on this. It's not something I've looked at carefully.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

"(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165. "

Now, I realize how the law has been interpreted is everything. I am not a lawyer, but as I read it, section b. of Roe allows the state to regulate abortions following the end of the first trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." (a pretty vague statement). Section c raises the stage of viability and grants the state further authority over abortion decisions at that point.

My question is, have some states interpreted section b. to limit abortion during the second trimester. Growing up in Minnesota, I always had the assumption (again, perhaps mistaken) that a pregnant woman needed to have her abortion during the first trimester if she wanted to have full choice in the matter.

the State may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health

So, yes, it MAY but most states don't regulate it. Maternal health could mean a lot of things too. This is wide open for liberal interpretation.

I've never heard of a women being denied an abortion prior to six months. Have you?

If you want specific state law info, NARAL has that on their site.

I can make exceptions in the case of the mother's life being threatened. I just want less abortions. 40 million plus abortions is too many. I think we can enact policies that actually help mothers, and make abortions as rare as possible.

and what does it represent?(i.e.-what geographic area over what length of time?)

40 million abortions have occured.

and do you have a source?

i'll hold comment pending the validity of said source.

So it really doesn't matter what I think.
A womans body is her own, and when all is said and done...

It's not my place to tell her what she can, and can not do, with her body.

The only time women get abortions in the last trimester is for medical purposes, so there's nothing to debate. Women and doctors make those kinds of medical decisions. Every time we act as if this is a legitimate debate, we fuel their side. I don't know why we do it.

we all know what normal is..right?

being in favor of *any* abortion rights will require that one not compromise with the other side, simply because the anti-abortion conservatives will not make any concessions. not even, as they have so often made clear, when the life of the mother depends on it.

To be frank, i've never met one of these "damn the mother" extremists,
but surely though they might dominate the GOP leadership, the regular
folks in the red states can't be so deeply mysogynist.

A "woman's freedom to choose life", seems in keeping with their rhetoric
as well.

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

So, what gives? You've tried blatant insults, and got deleted, so
now you're on with slights... tiresome. Would that you can explain
yourself, wouldn't it be more interesting to chat.

I avoid asinine people in life, and likely as a root reaction simply
manage never to talk with such people, and never to breach such a subject
rather being able to tell more directly their reaction to bush as a
bellweather on their nazi views in other areas.

all I said was I don't deal with idiots. It got deleted.

Your comment:

"I avoid asinine people in life"

shows your hypocrisy on the matter.

have been attacking "sweetheart" in every single post in this
thread, either overtly, or stubly... and even your attempt to
make this personal, is such. I am not referring to yourself...
What ego, to presume a general remark about asinine people has to do
with you, and therefore you should start with a preemptive volley...

silly. :-)

And all as you won't discuss, openly and with reality, someone who
means you no ill and is openly chatting about a difficult issue.

Your hipocrisy, if one must point to it, is a driven need to discredit
this writer who origininated this thread, as it could be seen as some
sort of pyrrhic victory for yourself in your effort to brand those
who disagree as somehow "wrong". Silly... like i said, nothing more.

:-)

when you were accusing me of being a fundy male and demanding my birthing history. Who's the real nasty person resulting to insults?

I'm surprised the admin didn't delete your comments.

I won't make the mistake of not complaining, again.

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

I can bring them around to where they admit they believe the choice should be there.

Throwing things up like people believe the baby should be able to be aborted the day before it would be born naturally, will likely end all progress any feminists have made with the anti abortion people.

I don't think anyone but the most extreme people are going to buy into that. It's sort of like the people who destroyed peta by pushing their extremism off on everyone else.

If we stick with fetuses, and emphasize it's a choice, I believe we can move the majority of women to supporing it though.

Someone that won't sell their values and principles for political opportunism?

not political opportunism...

The question in my thinking, is dispensing with the terrorist radical
extremists in the evangelical whackjob churches, is there a crowd who
is willing to talk on this issue without foaming at the mouth, or has
the divisive ideological stake been driven that deep, that no
political reconciliation is possible in this arena.

and insisting that not having that right means there is no pro choice.

It's sort of like saying since the death penalty can be applied to murders you should be able to invoke it immediately yourself on people if they've killed people or it's no real option.

And there's no way to enforce laws about saving the life of the mother or whatever.

It is the choice of one person only, the pregnant woman. I'm not saying that others can't add their two cents on how they feel it should be handled, but it is not their decision to make. I also believe that there should be NO time constraints on this decision - 1 month or 9 months.

and let someone adopt it.

Put me in the "extreme" camp. The "late term abortion" issue is essentially a red herring put out by the pro-preggers....unless you are under the delusion that most women are incredibly stupid and would wait until the last minute to have an "abortion for convenience".

Pro-preggers aren't anti-abortion, they are anti-sex without punishment for the sinners.

it is a private matter between a woman and her doctor or, better yet, a totally private matter if she can purchase an abortion pill.

I am curious, though about those who are against all abortion except.. rape or incest

Why? If you think that abortion is murder, and of "an innocent one" to boot, why are you willing to "kill an innocent one" because of the sin of the parent?

This, to me, is a sheer hypocrisy. And theres is very short distance to the hypocrisy of many powerful Republicans who secretly would whisk their daughters and sisters and wives and mistresses to privately terminate the unplanned pregnancy (or the planned one but undesirable by the patriarch) while will stand and holler and point accusatory finger at those who do..

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

Cite me ONE fucking abortion that was done in this country at "eight months, twenty-nine days" and I'll vote in this psychadelic poll. I'll also sprout wings and fly away.

An "abortion" - that is, the termination of a pregnancy - that is done at "eight months, twenty-nine days" (which is not the correct length of human gestation, which is forty weeks) is called BIRTH.

Surely there could indeed be a case where 8months,29days has passed
since inception, and, as it turns out, the mother has had a heart
attack and is too weak to keep the baby, or to give birth without
severe risk to her life.

There, clearly it is a matter of the person involved, as SURELY, no
woman carries a baby to that point in a term with the intention of
killing it, and surely the need to make a law to punish someone who is
doing everything in possibility to keep their own baby alive, borders
on absurd anyways.

So what's wrong with leaving such a case to the mother, as indeed your
point is true, that this is not a common case, surely 1 in a gazillion.
... but it is the boundary condition, where either the woman HAS the
right, or the baby has the right, but if we're in that absolute
situation, the law likely must be concerned, as once indeed, we charge
the baby with the right to life, then it is a citizen from that
point forward, and NO PERSON has the right to take its life.

On a farm, with sheep, the spring lamming (birth of baby sheep) brings
inevitably complications. Inevitably, a few die, despite the best
intentions of the sheep and its keeper. Must it be a crime, this
natural cycle of life. Inevitably as well, a ewe dies, that were we
as medically concerned as we are with humans, could be avoided by
perhaps aborting before it stresses and kills the ewe, in ectotopic
pregnancies for example (baby growing outside the womb, inside the
body). One need only hold a dead lamb, next to a dead ewe, and
despite all of God's purpose, and covered with slimy birth juice,
having tried to resucitate the lamb, that it becomes plainly obvious
that giving birth is a huge risk to health, and the tears of wanting
it all to work out perfect, just is not coherent with the reality
of life and death.

I had a friend recently who gave birth at 41.5 weeks. Had she had
a serious complication at 40, i do not call it birth, nor should the
law... she is the living one, and the baby may be kicking with a
heart and all, but if it comes down to it, i can only wish that
the doctor keeps my friend alive at ALL costs... and until it is
born, it is not a BIRTH.

Here's what would happen in a woman who was at 39 weeks gestation andf suddenly developed a life-threatening heart condition - she'd have either a c-section or hysterotomy. The point would be to end the pregnancy, and at that stage of gestation, the pregnancy can be ended by surgical birth.

There are no abortions of choice performed in the third trimester in the United States. There are third trimester terminations done when the life of woman is in serious jeopardy, or the fetus is dead or dying. When performed in the ninth month of pregnancy, these procedures are either induced labor, c-sections or hysterotomies, and whenever possible, a live birth is achieved.

Calling a fetus a "baby" doesn't make it one anymore than referring to it as a "bun in the oven" makes it a pastry. By using fuzzy, sentimental language, you are clouding the issue. I am beginning to believe that this is your goal.

The goal was to discuss rights, not the legislation of the United
States. The latter has very little to do with the former these days,
so there is little point in that. The poll does indeed show that
about 1/4 of the posters on DU are absolutely firm about the right of
a woman to choose over her own body, no matter the law.

It would be the difference between a libertarian who sees their rights
as not legislated, but bloody obvious, and those who are, more like
yourself, framing by the law of your land.

The poll as well shows that, if we include the "other" with the "anti"
and presume the lot to be "anti", that this group is negligible
and, for all the talk, not a serious community on DU.

I'm sorry for using terms somewhat wrongly, as it is difficult to discuss
without pissing someone off. I figure, that if i grant the "anti's"
license by calling it a baby, they'll be more likely to participate.
As well, you know damn well what i mean, and are picking language to
pick a fight when there is none to be had.

I've as well learned in this discussion, that the anti's are irrational
and not negotiable. They reserve for themselves a theocratic
right to control the rights of others, and there is no tolerating
or negotiating with the view. I thought that they might be the
sorts who might consider leaving each to her own... but it seems
rather that is not true, and i was wrong to presume that any
negotiation can be had in this area.

Where you see my language is inappropriate, by all means challenge it
as i've nothing to hide in terms... merely bumbling along as well
as i can, errors, sentimentals, and all.

You rightly challenge the language as an issue of framing, and then
you introduce US law as an issue of framing, and i realized in the
process of this the huge difference between the law and the ideology
of this debate. A person can believe in one thing, and yet grant
more license in the law... and were I to write the poll over, i would
make that distinction, and as well correct the mistakes like "extreme"
"baby" and the terms many including yourself have pointed out.

By flinging in so many pro-lie markers - the abortion done minutes before labor, calling a fetus a "baby" - you seemed to be arguing the pro-lie side, which ignores reality and the law of the land. No abortions (as the term is commonly used) are done minutes before an uncomplicated delivery would occur except in the overheated imaginations of the pro-liar.

I agree with the framework established in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, and accept the right of a woman to abort for any reason - or no reason - at all. Her body, her choice; only the woman involved can make the right decision for her. I think there should be a lot of counseling done when a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term, just so she knows not only the risks to her life/health, but will have a realistic expectation of what motherhood is, and not just the glossy mag/TV commercial happy funtime images.

The wording is slanted and skewed.

Beginning with "extreme abortion person", and describing the various "choices" using this wording:

1) the baby has no rights

2) reasonable consideration where the baby

3) god wants

4) conscience (as if the other choices do not reflect conscience)

and legal failsafes (rape, incest, genetic problems, mother's life).

I also strongly favor better prevention methods, and also addressing the broader issues like healthcare, the economy, education, and so on.

without reading any of the responses (whenever a thread goes beyond 100 responses, I seldom do).

First off, I seriously doubt that the decision to have any abortion at any time is not an easy decision for a woman to make... regardless of the circumstances.

An adult female should have the right and access to any abortion procedure at any time of her choosing.

Any consideration with regards to religious, moral, legal, ethical dilemmas should be left to the birth mother and the birth mother alone... not the "Government" or "Church State".

However, I do have some misgivings and conflicts about it...

First: abortion shouldn't be used or accepted as an alternative means of birth control. There are plenty of other options out there... use it. Fuck and have fun, but use some common sense.

Second: the only restriction I would support is some sort of "parental notification" for those under 18... you're my kid, you fucked up, I'll forgive and understand and I'll still love you, but until you're of legal age I'll be damned if I'll let you undergo a medical procedure without my knowing about it.

I'm basically pro-choice but I'm not really wild about abortion. It's not for any moral reasons or religious either. I just get concerned when it's used cavalierly like birth control or something. As if a woman accidentally get pregnant but figures she can always get rid of it. I think this is hurtful to the spirit of the woman. Actually, I think abortion is a moot issue.

the first trimester for unquestioned abortions with allowances made to the end of the second for rape, incest or health. But with a strict interpretation of these guidelines.

It is difficult for me to understand why unless an issue unknowable during the first half of pregnancy occurred, abortions outside these terms would need to be done. They are far more dangerous and complicated. Due to these facts, it is not more convenient to wait so far into a pregnancy to have the procedure done.

If the line was drawn at the end of the first trimester, with these exceptions, there would have to be better all around health care available. Women's health care is a nightmare and looking to get worse.

And with any abortion talk is the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT birth control education and support.

Abortion is not something to be taken lightly in any case. I will NEVER understand how some groups can advocate teaching children nothing but abstinence when they HAVE TO KNOW this might raise abortion rates. Do they REALLY CARE?

Edited to add.. a child past the third trimester can live outside the womb. It is not the birth of the child that would put the mothers life at risk as partial birth and c section would have to be done either way. If it is ONLY a matter of a womans health in the third trimester it is assumable she was trying to carry the baby to term. In which case i cannot understand why it is necessary to ABORT.

I am open to clarification of opinion on this point.

I can't believe that any sane person would pick choice one or three.

Once the fetus can survive on its own, then I believe it qualifies as a person. I don't get the logic where a woman could be on her way to have an abortion, be in a car crash or something, and have her baby delivered prematurely and it survive. To me that is giving a woman power over the life or death of someone else. I don't pretend to know at what point life begins, or when we get our 'soul' - so I guess I've picked an arbitary point, because I know independent life's not possible before that. Where the mother's life is in danger, I have no issue, but even if the fetus is not healthy/perfect, I still don't agree with late abortions, because my personal belief is that if you're not ready to be a parent to whatever pops out, you're not ready to be a parent at all. I really do have issues with people who only want 'perfect' babies. I mean, I know designer babies haven't really arrived yet, but we've made the first steps there. That's speaking as a mother who never had the prenatal tests just because I didn't want to be tempted or pressured into something I didn't really agree with. I know I might be flamed for this, but it's just my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else.

Third term abortions are illegal.

availability of abortion with no limits, as some posters have stated here - one said pro-choice up to 8 months 29 days - it could conceivably happen.

it's a moot point to say 8 months 29 days. That's why I voted other. This issue needs to be in the realm of reproductive rights, though -- for already various forms of birth control are being attacked. If we do not reframe this concept, women's privacy rights and personal rights will go down the tubes (see posts #54 and #62).

There was even a move in Virginia to have women report a miscarriage to the police within 12 hours --

http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/legislative_sen.html

THere are a lot of posts on this thread saying that abortions should be allowed at any time under any circumstances, and I guess this is what I was responding to. I'm worried too about attacks on reproductive rights and birth contol, including abortion, but I still don't go for the anytime, any reason doctrine.

availability of abortion with no limits, as some posters have stated here - one said pro-choice up to 8 months 29 days - it could conceivably happen.

Have any of you seriously considered the position advanced by Michael Tooley? Although he is excoriated by the anti-choice crowd as some kind of a monster, if you actually have read any of his monographs on the subject, he advances a very strong argument.

His basic thesis, as stated in his 1972 paper, Abortion and Infanticide, is as follows: "An organism possesses a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self and as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity."

The interesting part that he advances is that, prior to development of this self-awareness, it actually is less ethical to allow an organism to live in a state of pain than to put the organism out of its agony.

Frankly, this is not a totally new and radical concept. As Patterson, among others, discussed, unwanted newborn infants in ancient Greece would be "exposed," essentially left outside to die. According to Richter, infanticide and exposure were treated significantly than murder and manslaughter in Imperial Germany of the 19th Century. There are numerous other examples from other cultures that show a wide variance of ideas on the subject.

I think that Tooley brings up a very valid concept, though, in his writing. Consider this: before emerging from the birth canal, the organism (zygote, embryo, fetus, baby) is utterly dependent upon another organism for its survival. After emerging from the birth canal, the organism is still utterly dependent upon another organism for its survival. Biologically, there is minimal difference from point A to point B, is there? If the organism is not self-aware before being ejected from the host organism, is there any evidence that the organism is self-aware in the minutes, hours, days or weeks following its separation? Self-awareness really doesn't occur for months after birth, as a normal function of the development of the brain. So, if it is OK for the host to destroy this organism while the organism is still in the host's body, why shouldn't it be OK for the host to destroy the organism after it has been ejected from the host's body? From a biological point of view, the only difference is in the amount of development. From a purely ethical point of view, as Tooley points out, there is no real difference. So, if we raise some artificial legal difference, is this just another case where some man is trying to impose his personal morals upon a woman?

The bottom line here, in my opinion, is that we should re-examine the laws on abortion and infanticide to make them more consistent with the biological and ethical realities and to strip them of artifical moral distinctions and prejudices.

References:

Patterson. C. "Not Worth the Rearing": The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece. Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 115. (1985), pp. 103-123.

Richter, J. Infanticide, Child Abandonment, and Abortion in Imperial Germany.Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 28, No. 4. (Spring, 1998), pp. 511-551.

Tooley, M. Abortion and Infanticide. Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 1. (Autumn, 1972), pp. 37-65.

severely conflicted about abortion is not going to even think of extending it to infanticide)

firstly, the 'organism' is no longer dependent on the specific 'host' once it's born, so what gives this ex-host the right to determine the life of lack of for a now distinct organism?

secondly, who knows when the attributes this guy says determine the right to life occur? who decides when you believe enough in your own existence to have the right to life? Is is going to be specific age, 1-year, 2, 3? Or will it be when the organism can survive without assistance - when, if we kick them out on the streets, they refuse to just die?

Now, I don't know if you're seriously suggessting parents should be allowed to kill their babies if they want to, but if you are, it does sound like the sort of reverse-logic that an anti-abortionist would use to equate abortion with infanticide. Maybe not your intention, but you are effectively saying that abortion and infanticide are the same thing.

and that those points should be considered. Suppose you have an infant with downs syndrome but it was undetected during pregnancy? That person would be condemned to a horrible life. Suppose some other congenital disorder that might prove fatal following a pain-filled, short life? Wouldn't it be more merciful to just end it quickly rather than allow that person to go through 5, 10, or 15 years of pain just to die? What about the impact to the parents? Why should they be forced to bear the expense and the emotional heartache of a life (organism) that is certain to be completely futile? These points are out there, they are used, with good reason, as part of the debate on a woman's choice before birth...shouldn't those very valid discussion points be up for consideration if they are discovered after that point, as well?

The verbiage I used (organism, etc.) was an effort to encapsulate Tooley's logic, in an effort to help re-familiarize people with his work.

All I'm saying is that Tooley makes a very valid point that the moment of birth is an artificial and meaningless demarcation point that society has imposed upon people. Unlike most ethicists, he has the courage to examine this very important issue from a different perspective that doesn't depend upon the cultural biases of our current society. If you haven't read his monograph, frankly, I would suggest that you do so before attempting to impose your morality upon this discussion. You should be able to retrieve it without cost from any university's electronic library databases. (I got it from JSTOR; I am certain that it would be located on other databases, as well)

As far as my motivation in posting this, I figured, perhaps incorrectly, that the audience here might be familiar with his work and would be interested in discussing it, in light of the topic of the thread, "extreme abortion" versus "moderate abortion."

sorry, I don't have time to look up and read the text of it. I'll take your word for the gist of it. I stand by what I said.

After that I think we need restrictions with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life / health of the mother.

...then the only morally consistent position is the "no exceptions" one. After all, that lfie isn't responsible for how it began.

All other positions are choice, even if some of the persons holding those positions try to claim otherwise.

Then he is at odds with the Constitution.

see posts 54 and 112

See this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3044500