Does the State have a compelling reason to restrict Abortion?

By this I mean: Is there any credible evidence that women have "abused" abortion? For example, Is there evidence that many women, on a whim, decide to have late-term abortions...just for the heck of it..., you know, like getting their nails done? Are there large numbers of doctors willing to perform such abortions? Are there large numbers of women who are just itching to wait, just so they can have second or third trimester abortions? Is there any credible evidence of abortion being widely used as a form of birth control? btw, Credible = Not Anecdotal

I ask these questions because I don't think such credible evidence exists. It seems the crux of the issue between the anti- and pro- choice camps boils down to:

cultural attitudes about women: the mental, emotional, and psychological makeup of women

Your thoughts please.

OLD white men, who are usually the very same religiously-insane guys standing outside Planned Parenthood Clinics, bombing those clinics, and terrorizing women.....some beat their own wives and terrorize their daughters too....

and paying for their abortions.

...it was old white men who gave women the right to an abortion.
They call themselves the Supremes.

cultural beliefs about women. clearly, not all men (not even old white ones) are against abortion.

restricting abortion? I would think not.

Even if women have "abused" abortion, it would not make sense in the context of compelling public interest. People have abused alcohol and the only restrictions pertain to the age of the purchaser and the vehicle code primarily where a compelling public interest does exist.

Even if every abortion were on a "whim" as you state, where would the compelling public interest be?

Even if there were evidence of women using abortion as birth control..birth control is FAR MORE in the domain of compelling public interest than the woman who MAY be using abortion as birth control.

or something similar, regarding women in this culture. if you recall the initial reaction to the utah "murder" case, some people reacted to the "woman as vanity" archetype because the woman was quoted as saying she didn't want a scar from a c-section.

woman as evil
woman as perpetual child
woman as intellectually bankrupt
woman as mother
woman as sinner, if not sin itself

and so on...i was wondering how these cultural archtypes or myths affect the debate about abortion.

sucks for so many people and that the government can't do much to remedy social problems.

They try to deflect responsibility for society's ills towards women, often black, whom they depict as morally causual. They try to pretend that poverty is caused by women who can't keep their knees together. They pretend it's a personal choice, poorly exercised, rather than a policy choice.

It helps corporations pay lower taxes, and it creates cheap labor and a permanent underclass.

the rw uses imagery and language (code language) to divide and conquer...it has appeal. it is my hope that we start examining not only how that happens, but how it affects US.

and they are for the most part at the root of the abortion debates. For some reason some people cannot fathom a woman making all the choices concerning her reproductive health..in fact one of the threads was started by a woman that is so nuts she should be the last person commenting on anyone else's mental health.

however, archetypes (at least how i'm using the word) are nothing more than entrenched stereotypes..."holy" stereotypes, if you will.
and i don't think archetypes create dissonace in the way stereotypes, (perhaps) do. i'm thinking more along the lines of definition 3 below.

ar·che·type ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärk-tp)
n.
An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype: “‘Frankenstein’... ‘Dracula’... ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’... the archetypes that have influenced all subsequent horror stories” (New York Times).
An ideal example of a type; quintessence: an archetype of the successful entrepreneur.
In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious

It is really only in this day it can be safe but if the Republicans have their way it will be unsafe for most and the rich will go to Europe and have their D and C's as always. Back street will come back. Women have always wished to control this.I can not figure why they do not want them safe and they them selfs have them. They do not even want birth control which is so odd as Bush's family were always for that and the grandmother, I read, was a big name in pushing for that. Did you know in Conn you had to sign a letter saying you were mentally unable to have another child to get any information? I had to do it and it was in the late 50's or early 60's. Hard to believe.

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 treated lightly by women.

Anecdotally, my sister-in-law had a late-term abortion two years ago. She had five children under seven at the time, and would have died had this procedure not been available.

I know wait for the usual suspects to show up and spin their insane, misogynist logic in your thread. Fortunately, all I'll see is "Ignored". Why many of them haven't been banned is beyond me.

"Anecdotally, my sister-in-law had a late-term abortion two years ago. She had five children under seven at the time, and would have died had this procedure not been available."

Just curious, why wait until you are 'late-term'?

Who the fuck are you to judge? Is it any of your fucking business? Do you really think-having already given birth to FIVE CHILDREN-that she would take abortion lightly? Your judgementalism is nauseating.

Guess what-women aren't incubators. I'm sure her 5 orphaned children and mentally-ill husband would have gladly accepted your financial support had she died. BTW one of her children is disabled as well.

LOVE THE FOETUS, HATE THE CHILD, AND SUBJUGATE THE WOMAN. There are plenty of countries that would accept your application for immigration-Iran and North Korea come to mind.

On edit: having noticed you're a hit-and-run poster, I doubt you'll come back and defend your position. I also doubt you'll be around very long...

"Would you have been happier if she died and the child survived?"

Of course not. I just could not think of any reason that the child would have to 'die' for the mothers health.

I asked a question, you don't have to answer it if you don't want to. I don't think the question I asked was judgmental, I was curious because I have had this discussion with others and they brought this up and I couldn't think of a good answer. They countered with why not induce labor and have the baby be born early, if it survives then it survives. If the mother can't or doesn't want to raise the child it can be put up for adoption. When they gave me this scenario, I didn't know why the baby had to 'die' for the mother's health. Once the child is out of the body, the health of the child is not tied to the health of the mother.

What is a good argument for this?

As for the hit and run poster, I have trouble finding the posts after a day because they don't stay in order, it constantly changes and I don't bother searching thru 20 pages of posts to find it again. I have only been at DU for a short time and I'm still trying to figure it out.

You can bookmark the threads you've visited and, also, check "My Posts" to see the threads you've added to. :)

Thanks, I'll try that! :D

kind of abortion. Some of those religious fanatics don't even want us women to use the pill.

And, as already pointed out: Those laws are made by guys who think women shouldn't have control over anything, not even their own bodies.
They'd rather have us die than have a late-term abortion that might be medically necessary for the survival of the mother.

I don't think the number of late-term abortions performed is that high. And I don't think it is in any ones business. If those fanatics think life begins with sperm, they've already killed millions of babies by having wet dreams.

"They'd rather have us die than have a late-term abortion that might be medically necessary for the survival of the mother."

This is what I don't understand....in what situation would it be medically necessary for the child to die so that the mother's life be spared? I'm talking late-term abortions here, not tubal pregnacies, etc. How is the mother's health tied to whether the baby lives or dies? I was asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it, it made me question my view on this.

This is info from the Planned Parenthood website

http://plannedparenthood.org.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.html?q=late+term+abortions&order=r&cmd=context&id=3858621118da2d#hit1

"Medical indications may lead to abortion after 12 weeks. Discovery of serious fetal anomalies, such as severe genetic disorders, or conditions in which the woman's health is threatened or aggravated by continuing her pregnancy include

malignant hypertension, including preeclampsia
out-of-control diabetes
heart failure
severe depression
suicidal tendencies
serious renal disease
certain types of infections

I hope that'll help a bit

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/abotaft1st_010600.html
Medical indications may lead to abortion after 12 weeks. Discovery of serious fetal anomalies, such as severe genetic disorders, or conditions in which the woman's health is threatened or aggravated by continuing her pregnancy include

malignant hypertension, including preeclampsia
out-of-control diabetes
heart failure
severe depression
suicidal tendencies
serious renal disease
certain types of infections

These symptoms may not occur until the second trimester, or may become worse as the pregnancy progresses (Cherry & Merkatz, 1991; Paul et al., 1999)



And what about this case?
http://www.medical-journals.com/r04_801b.htm
"Finally, consider the case of a woman who learns at 18 weeks of gestation that she has a fetus with holoprosencephaly and trisomy 13. The fetus she is carrying will never become a child able to smile or talk or go to school, but the woman is at risk for complications of carrying the pregnancy to term. The risk of maternal death due to a legal induced abortion in the United States is approximately 0.6 per 100,000,4 whereas the risk of death for a woman 35 to 39 years of age who attempts to carry a pregnancy to term is 21 per 100,0005 — 35 times as high. If a fetus with severe congenital anomalies has a "right" to be born, how should that right be weighed against its mother's right to minimize her risk of death by terminating a pregnancy that she knows will not produce a baby who is able to survive over the long term?"

Edit: oops, beaten to the post.

Thanks for the information and the link.

again, who are you to play God? Love the child, hate the foetus, subjugate the woman. I'm really disgusted with anti-choice hypocrites.

I had pre-eclampsia in my first pregnancy. I ended up having my son early by about 3 weeks because of it.

I'm sorry to hear about your sister-in-law and I hope she has recovered from her ordeal.

That is a very complex question. It hinges on when the state recognizes a life as a legal person, due the protections afforded any person.

The moral questions you raise are a separate matter as viewed in the context of personal morality. The pro-choice argument recognizes this, that morality is different among different individuals. The anti-choice argument is that since life should be recognized at the point of inception, it has fallen out of the purview of personal morality and becomes one of state legal protection.

This is why it is so contentious. The two sides do not agree in the legal and moral definition of the beginning of an individual's "life." As far as the state in concerned however, it should only be concerned with consistency in application and scope of the laws it enforces.

O

with all the rights of every other citizen in this country, what options would I have if I had an unwanted pregnancy? Could I not sue the fetus for unlawful inhabitation of my body, since his occupation of my very body is surely a privacy violation? I don't let strangers squat in my home; I can have them thrown out for trespassing. So surely I could do the same with the "person" squatting illegally inside my very body?

This subject has gotten so out of control. The closer I get to menopause, the happier I am for myself, but I weep for the next generation of women.

I understand that many people do not make the distinction between "fetus" and "baby."

Nonetheless, I find the anti-choice group's references to the "unborn child" a little weird and disturbing. The frontier of birth is significant (I include premature births, of course). Even the apparently prospering pregnancy does not always end in a live birth. Conferring personhood on an unborn entity/future person neglects to address that fact. When the fetus is given rights equal to those of the born, the dilemmas you refer to arise. I have big problems with those who ask us to consider the yet-to-be-born as persons in a legal sense (let alone as "souls" from inception, which is a religious concept distinct from the legal one).

I believe the state has essentially settled on the definition of personhood as post birth, in no small part to the legal ambiguities that you and the poster before you have addressed. It becomes unfathomably more difficult to adjudicate the law if we begin to see personhood starting at conception.

In fact, you may have hit on a key point here. Maybe the distinction as far as the state should be that while life, in some form, may begin at conception, personhood begins at birth. The state should only concern themselves with the rights of full personhood.

O

do you have any idea how difficult it is to evict a tenant? After all, in most cases the fetus was 'invited' i.e. although the pregnancy was unwanted, the sex was consensual. And the fetus is not a stranger, but a relative! So even that 'unwanted tenant' would have rights. In any case, you cannot simply KILL an unwanted tenant!

Peace!

My metaphor was not comparing the fetus with a tenant overstaying his welcome in my rental property; my metaphor was a stranger coming directly into my home and refusing to leave. That would clearly be trespassing, and in some cases/states, I think you are protected under the law for killing a trespasser in certain circumstances, i.e. if you feel threatened. Perhaps I feel that my health (physical and/or mental) is threatened by this fetal trespasser, especially since this trespasser has latched onto my body and is sucking the life out of me, living off of my blood. I wouldn't let a stranger off the street do that, now, would I? If I were, say, a lactating mother, happily nursing my baby, I wouldn't let some stranger come in off the street and nurse my other breast, would I? No one should be allowed to come in and force his/her presence upon/into my body without my permission.

This entire lunatic discussion is why the law needs to stay out of people's reproductive organs.

are viewed as well. i was hoping to get a discussion going about how the cultural myths/beliefs/achetypes/whatever about women influence the debate.

I was initially responding to the "state" emphasis in the title of your question.

As far as the larger questions of cultural myths, beliefs, archetypes these are far more complex and personal.

There are some men who see their position as one of control and dominance. Women are essentially subservient to men and are put on this earth as servants to male power. This probably stems from the "Father God" image so prevalent in Western religious beliefs/archetypes.

There are others, both men and women, who sincerely believe that personhood begins at conception and are therefore protecting a life the same way as a society would protect against murder. If you believe in a soul that inhabits the body at conception that is sanctified by God, then of course you would be against abortion, whether you are a patriarch, a misogynist or just a devout believer. To someone with this belief, it is no more right for a mother to abort than it would be for her to kill her living child, even if it was to save herself.

There are others who see this as a cultural attack. They associate abortion with the counter culture movements of the late 50's and 60's. They are against it because it represents the "social decay" and "amoral freedoms". They are cultural/religious conservatives who dislike change of any kind, especially as it relates to religion, class, or race.

There are some elites who have just used this as a wedge issue in political organizing. These people, in my view, are rather despicable. They are the ones who will get abortion outlawed for the middle class and the poor, while they fly off to Switzerland to take care of there own "unfortunate" situations.

You have to realize that the Patriarchal Family mindset sees unwanted pregnancy as a lack of discipline, a weakness, both personally and culturally. If someone "falls from grace", they must bear the punishment for their action. It is through this punishment that the person is "cleansed" of their sins. While we may see this as archaic, it is because we come from a Progressive worldview built on compassion ("to suffer with").

It is important to realize that everyone comes to this question with a worldview which shapes their response. To simply put down someone else's deeply held belief without acknowledging the rationality of it's basis will get us nowhere. That is where we are now. Two sides yelling at each other, for all intents and purposes saying nothing.

And the only ones who benefit, are the despicable elites who feed off of social disharmony, anger and fear.

O

for a most interesting post. i do think it's important to recognize that we all bring out own beliefs and worldviews to the discussion. here's where i draw the line: personally, i could care less what people believe...it's the insistence that their beliefs should trump the beliefs of everyone, even those who don't share their beliefs. abortion is a perfect example of this belief, imho. because of course, those who believe abortion is wrong have the option of not having abortions. i respect people who admit they are pro-life and pro-choice...abortion is not an option for them, but they don't feel the need to control other people's choices.

Thank you for starting an interesting topic.

"i respect people who admit they are pro-life and pro-choice...abortion is not an option for them, but they don't feel the need to control other people's choices."

This distinction gets to the core of abortion as law. That is why those that support legal, safe, abortion see themselves as morally inclusive, less authoritarian if you will.

Where the conflict arises is that some do not see this as a "choosable" situation. They see them selves as simply defending human life.

This is why your question initially intrigued me. I think one answer may lie in clearly defining the state's interest and separating personal morality from public ethics. In essence, as long as this is argued as a moral issue, it won't be solved to anyone's satisfaction.

It will remain contentious for many years to come. All I am trying to do is to get people to realize that by and large, both sides are seeing this as entirely consistent with a broader worldview. The more we an appreciate this, the better chance we have of crossing this great divide.

We are not bound by our imaginations, only by our prejudices.

O

it's the best way to look at it. however, wouldn't you agree that some of the more authoritarian arguments on the issue don't see much a distinction between the two: personal morality and public ethics?
but i do think it's the best way to reach common ground...with those who seek that.

it's the best way to look at it. however, wouldn't you agree that some of the more authoritarian arguments on the issue don't see much a distinction between the two: personal morality and public ethics?
but i do think it's the best way to reach common ground...with those who seek that.

as property. Read A Handmaids Tale it is a look into the future of America if the shrub is reselected.

early 1800's. The reason was because a lot of women died after the abortions because medicine wasn't up to snuff just yet. It has never been a religous item until maybe 50 years ago. When you consider what it took to get women the right to the pill, you can understand what these religious nuts are doing. At the turn of the 20th century it was illegal to teach any kind of contraception. Abortion was widely practiced because 90% of the country was poor and raising dozens of kids is expensive. That was when people had 10-12 kids!

Paul Harvey came up with a solution years ago: fetus transplant. A doctor takes the fetus from a woman who doesn't want to have a baby and puts it in a woman who does.

Another thing - the anti-abortion people claim that the fetus is a human being. However, if a woman has a spontaneous abortion - say at 3-4 months - the fetus is thrown away - no funeral. So it would seem the issue is letting woman have the right to decide what to do with their body, not how important the fetus is.

If these idiots spent half the time and money they do on trying to stop abortions and worked to better educate women and make life better for the people that have babies, the situtaion would probably take care of itself.

My sister had a premature live delivery at 4 months. The baby did not live for long, and she had a funeral for her baby. I could be wrong, but might the hospital ask the mother whether she would prefer to throw it away or bury it?

And calling people who disagree with you 'idiots' is really not productive. To me it's about the same level as the pro-life people calling the other camp 'baby killers'. Same as with the other monikers proudly used on this forum.

so they can answer your question. and..."idiot" to fairly mild compared to "baby klller," so your comparion doesn't quite fly either.

He was going on about women having abortions just for convenience, vanity, etc, etc. I just said, "Wow. Is that what you really think of women?" He was visibly taken aback.

The pro-choice crowd has long blocked the collection any data whatsoever being gathered on abortion. I understand why they have this stance--they fear that the right wing will use the data to back up their opinions. This is a valid fear, but at some point we must let the truth, whatever it may be, come out. It seems very hypocritical to me to on one hand view abortion as a personal medical decision to be made between and women and her doctor while simultaneously refusing to allow any data to be collected. The end result is that we know far more about the long term effects of having breast implants than we do abortion.

since some breast implants have proven to be harmful to women. if women were having the kind of complications from abortions that they do from silicone breast implants...oh wait: they aren't.

You missed my point. You claim that women aren't "having the kind of complications from abortions that they do from silicone breast implants". You cannot possibly know this to be true because there is no data to look at. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice and I want to see abortion remain legal. However, we have reached the point where lack of data is proventing sound medical research from happening.

and because i posted a thread here last summer asking women to post their stories about abortion. my evidence, alas, is ancedotal.
abortion, in my case, was simply an outpatient procedure. i went to a clinic, and it was over in a few hours.
we KNOW that women died in unsafe abortions before roe vs. wade...there is even evidence of this.
are you arguing that abortion is a harmful procedure?

I'm talking about scientific, medically valid studies, not "I talked to a couple of my friends" type evidence.

or should i have it confirmed by a scientist to make it valid?

an·ec·dot·al - Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.

Scientific analysis involves taking a diverse, statistically valid sample and tracking it over time. By this definition, what you have described does not meet this criteria.

i would be the source of the scientists' information in a study of complications resulting from abortion, would i not? and i didn't have any complications...none in the 20 years since either.

Since when does a single instance constitute a scientifically valid sample? Are you delibrately being annoying, or do you really not understand what a scientific study looks like?

would be a sample of women just like me...is that scientifically incorrect? wouldn't women who have had abortions be the sample? please correct me if this i am not grasping how a scientific study is done. and...hasn't someone already told you (several times) that IF there were significant complications from abortion (as there were from breast implants), those complications would be reported, and presumably, available for the very kind of scientific study you claimed could not be done because pro-choice advocates are withholding information? or...are you being purposely annoying?

regarding women that drive the abortion debate?

Patients who had silicon breast implants complained of complications, and as they added up, the medical researchers noticed, as did the patients.

That's not happening with abortions. How many people do you know who have had an abortion (that you know of)? How many of them have had complications?

Doctors are required to report the adverse effects of a surgical procedure, AFAIK

but, perhaps doctors and clinics are in on the pro-choice information-withholding conspriracy too.

<snip>

Given the chronic underreporting (or, in some cases, nonreporting) of abortion statistics by the states, the legislation—in essence—provides them with an incentive to be even less diligent in the future in producing accurate and complete data on abortions obtained by residents of their state.

Data have also become more difficult to collect over time as harassment has escalated at abortion clinics or at the offices of physicians for whom abortion is a large part of their medical practice. The violence and fear engendered by some protests probably increases the reluctance of providers to report abortions to the state health authorities or even to respond to private inquiries from AGI.

In addition, the most difficult data to obtain are from private practitioners who perform a small number of abortions. Should the nonsurgical methods that are currently being introduced on a trial basis gain widespread acceptance in physicians' offices, the completeness of abortion data would be likely to decrease further.

Because information from providers is not likely to improve and, indeed, may erode further, perhaps inquiries regarding abortion should be addressed to the women themselves. However, women are often reluctant to report having had an abortion. In fact, und erreporting of abortion is a common problem in surveys around the world, a factor that then hinders the gathering of information on the number of pregnancies that women experience, especially unintended pregnancies.

The government-sponsored National Survey of Family Growth, a periodic study that is the main source of information about pregnancy and contraceptive use in the United States, seriously undercounts abortion. In the 1988 survey, for example, women reported only 35% of all abortions known to have been performed during the period covered by the survey. Strenuous efforts were made in the survey fielded in 1995 to assure women of confidentiality and thus improve reporting, but preliminary indications are that a sizable proportion of procedures still went unreported.

<snip>


http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib14.html

This link itemizes the problems surrounding gathering abortion data. Apparently some data is readily availible, like the number of abortions performed. Other data, such as long term impacts are completely unavailible.

No one here is arguing that the data is easy to access, widely available and 100% accurate. However, the trouble with collecting medical data is not limited to abortions.

Other data, such as long term impacts are completely unavailible.

Completely untrue. And once again, I'm surprised to see you make such sweeping and unqualified assertions.

Dow Corning has clouded the issue with bought and sold studies on their safety and trashed any studies they commissioned that didn't agree with their position. I know...I was involved with over 3000 cases.

(sorry I know...off topic)

but they don't have the power to block collection of data on complications as data concerning those complications is , more often than not blocked by the insurance carrier covering the MD for malpractice.

http://www.agi-usa.org/
http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html

You might want to check out their research sometime. They have plenty of it concerning abortion, even about late term abortion and abortion among teens.

1. Misuse of medical resources: and no, there is no evidence of that.

2. To protect the women: that was the original reason for anti-abortion laws, because the procedure was not generally performed in a safe manner; but now the anti-choice crowd is trying to claim psychological harm years afterward -- in effect, trying to deny choice on the basis of 'you'll feel different later.' That just won't fly.

3. To protect an innocent party: which means claiming a fetus to be a party. Nor do anti-choicers mean a viable fetus -- they mean everything from a fertilized egg to delivery. Under Roe v. Wade, the state can already regulate abortions on viable fetuses -- third-trimester abortions. But a woman's control over her own body is still the primary considerations.

Misuse of medical resources: and no, there is no evidence of that.

There is no evidence because there is no data to look at.

i have seen studies from the AMA posted here, as well as statistics from a variety of sources. let's say you are right...why the rush to restrict abortion? is it a kind of pre-emptive legislation? or legislation designed to address what might be found if pro-choice advocates didn't hide the information?

I'm surprised that Nederland would make such an unqualified sweeping remark. Though I often disagree with him, he usually makes reasonable arguments. Arguing that there is "no data" is not reasonable, by any measure.

There is plenty of data on the risks of abortion, the frequency of abortions, etc. Though there are some areas where data is lacking (such as the exact reasons why the patient is seeking an abortion) the assertion that there is "no data" is beyond the pale.

if complications from abortion are rare, it follows that there would be limited reporting (and therefore data regarding) those complicatons.

I agree that there is data on the number of abortion performed. However, I've never seen any data on what percentage of women experience complications due to abortion, what effects abortion has on fertility, increased cancer risk, etc. Do you have these numbers?

The reason I made the statement that I did is because about twelve yers ago I remember hearing that it is the official policy of Planned Parenthood (the group that by far performs most abortions) to not release data on the women that have abortions at their clinics. Perhaps this is no longer true, and I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong on this.

One first needs to establish SOME SCIENTIFICALLY COMPELLING argument that there is a causal connection before violating the privacy rights of the patients.

Violating someone else's rights to privacy on a whim is not sufficient.

In cases of fertility, scar tissue can be caused in a uterus for a variety of reasons..likewise, all women who have conceived are more fertile the first year following conception whether a live birth resulted or not. Therefore, where would one make a causal connection sufficient to violate individual privacy rights anyway?

and admit that data is hard to come by?

But my ex was vetted to become the head of Planned Parenthood in SO Cal a few years back. She is an OBGYN and I talked her out of it as I feared she would be targetted by wingnuts..I will ask her if that statement is true to her knowledge and get back to you if you have no objection to secondhand information.

Nederland is referring to a general condition (which I don't think is true) where abortion data is non-existent. I believe you are referring to the recent Ashcroft requests for protected data from abortion providers.

If Nederland had said that the data was hard to come by, then I'd agree with him and I'd explain the very good reason for that (ie. the data is reported to the proper medical authority but it's not released to the general public like it's candy). Unfortunately, he made the claim that there's "no data" at all.

so if I am incorrect then you are indeed correct..we were talking past each other.

I saw you mention about the privacy concerns, and so I mistakenly assumed you were referring to Ashcroft's recent abuses.

However, there have been some long-term studies done. Though the area hasn't been studied in depth, there are good reasons for that too. For one thing, no one has any reason to think there are any serious long-term effects aside from the risk to a woman's fertility.

And it's funny how Nederland started out claiming that there was "no data" on the misuse of medical resources by people getting abortions. Now, it's "There's no data on the long-term effects of abortion" without Nederland ever acknowledging that he's changed his argument.

I do try to admit when I'm wrong :)

I was exaggerating when I said "no data". I should have said that data on the long term impacts of abortion is nearly non-existent.

Actually, I just posted about how you went from "no data" to "no data on long-term effects" without acknowledging it. Ignore that comment.

However, I don't see how the absence of data concerning the long term effects of abortion has anything to do with the question of whether or not the state ever has a compelling interest in prohibiting abortions. The lack of data is an issue concerning "informed consent", an area that is not a compelling interest for the state. The lack of data does not make informed consent impossible, so I see no reason for that lack of data to cause the state to intervene on the basis on informed consent.

I'd interested to hear what she says.

Come a little closer sweetie-cheeks and I'll show you a little data. :-)

But seriously Nederland, is that supposed to be an argument? Show you?

Go show yourself. You can't order me around. Do you really think women are going into emergency rooms with infections they got from an abortion and no one is recording this?

And while I haven't seen any studies about increased cancer risk, I have seen studies which examined abortions effects on future fertility (they reduce it) and the frequency of complications (extremely rare compared with other surgical procedures)

The reason I made the statement that I did is because about twelve yers ago I remember hearing that it is the official policy of Planned Parenthood (the group that by far performs most abortions) to not release data on the women that have abortions at their clinics. Perhaps this is no longer true, and I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong on this

I believe you have misunderstoof PP's policy. They do release data, but not any information that could be used to identify the woman. The law requires that certain things be reported.

For one thing, as a non-profit, they have to account for the money coming in, and how they spend it. The law also requires that they report adverse reactions, if they know about it. Also, hospitals (which is where many of the people with adverse reactions go, and not to the medical facility where they had the procedure) are required to report all emergencies, and they track infections, etc

IOW, PP doesn't release information unless it's required to by law.

Think about it Nederland. How did the women with silicon implants find out about how widespread the problems were if this info wasn't being tracked somewhere? If it weren't tracked, then the only way I could think of for their becoming aware of how widespread the problems were was word of mouth, and possibly "ambulance-chasing atty's" looking to make a buck.

If that last is the case, then why hasn't the same thing happened to all those woman who are having abortion-related complications? Or do you think there are more women getting implants than there are getting abortions?

After we advertised the "sicca" symptoms shared by others and advertised in newspapers telling them to contat us if they had them. Medicine was useless in getting the word out. :D

(sorry but as I posted above...I worked on over 3000 cases..it's for another thread another day...but I can't help myself)

which is, if the problem did become a matter of public awareness because of lawyers, then why hasn't the same thing happened with aboritons?

The simple answer: Because abortions don't cause complications as often as silicon implants do.

You totally missed my point. I'm claiming that no data on the long term effects of abortion exists. You folks are saying I'm wrong. If I am wrong (and I'm perfectly willing to admit this is possible), all you guys have to do is produce the data. You are the ones that are making the claim that the data exists, so the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof cannot be on me because it is impossible to prove a negative.

Not much of it, but there's a reason for that. There's no reason to think that, aside from it's effect on fertility, there's no significant long-term effects.

all you guys have to do is produce the data

Not true. We can point out how the lack of data on the long-term effects of abortion is irrelevant to whether or not the state ever has a compelling interest to prohibit abortions. The lack of data is an issue of informed consent, and it's easily resolved by informing the patient that they don't know nuch about the long-term effects of abortion. Then, it's up to the woman to decide if she wants to take the risk.

More than half of all medicines and medical procedures have yet to be tested for efficacy, never mind their long-term effects. That hasn't led the state to declare a compelling interest in banning half of the medicines and procedures that doctors use. Why should it be any different when it comes to abortion?

it seems someone has pulled a fast one. i was asking for data to justify restricting abortion, as yet, neder one hasn't produced a single thing. figures...

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

and I think your concern about there not being enogugh data on the long-term effects (which might provide some indication of a reason to prohibit some abortions), but I do disagree with you on the legal relevance of this point. As I've pointed out in other pasts, the fact that some effects may be unknown is covered by the rules concerning informed consent.

on the long-term effects of abortion. where are they getting their information from?

with sexism in medicine.

First of all, it would be EXTREMELY difficult to have long term data on abortion as a surgical procedure since as I stated above one would HAVE TO ASSUME causation in the matter given ALL the variables such as endometriosis, tampon use, sexual history, etc. I would be EXTREMELY suspect of any study that did.


But to answer a question with a question...why would there be any greater risk of these diseases with abortion than with any other D and C?

Second, we are finally just getting around to having LONG TERM STUDIES on heart disease in women since most prior studies were limited to men thereby leading to the incorrect assumption that a MAN with a positive family history was MORE at risk than a woman with the same history...or that risks of heart disease rise exponentially in post menopausal women

I did a search on PubMed, a database designed to provide access to citations from biomedical literature. I came up with 245 articles relating to the long term effects of abortion, so there is some data out there.

I read a few abstracts, but it seems there is no consensus on whether or not abortion has any long term effects on fertility, increased cancer risk, etc.

However, let's say hypothetically it is pr oven that abortion decreases fertility and increases the risk of breast cancer....like the article a previous poster listed says, it most likely would not affect a woman's choice to have an abortion. And when they talk about "increased risk" of breast cancer, I'm sure it pales in comparison to the "increased risk" of remaining in poverty for a woman who carries an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy to term given the fact that half of women who obtain abortions in the U.S. are poor and low income. Oh, and I'm not even mentioning the problems children face who are born into poverty.

No, I think it will be more fuel for the anti-choice movement. There's a host of other risky things people do that directly correlates to cancer, such as smoking, and that hasn't been outlawed.

I'm sure by addressing this to you I am preaching to the choir, but my reason for writing this has more to do with venting my frustrations than anything.

Ultimately, I think women need to, as they say, "get some balls," and stand up and tell these bastards that their bodies are their own and no one is going to tell them what they can or cannot do with it. A woman's right to choose trumps any potential life of the fetus's, point blank. I know that's harsh, but people need to deal with it. No one can argue against it's viability and it wouldn't conflict with the ban on late-term abortions.

And if she is killing a "soul," she will answer to their so-called God and not them. Afterall, isn't it true that there is no one to fear but God himself?

My womb, my life, my choice!

I did a search on PubMed, a database designed to provide access to citations from biomedical literature. I came up with 245 articles relating to the long term effects of abortion, so there is some data out there.

Can you post a link to one so I can see it?

I'm not sure you will be able to see this link...I'm on a university network and have access to certain databases I'm not sure you can get to otherwise unless you pay a nominal fee or go to the library. Nevertheless, here is the link:

Link

If you can't get to it, I would be happy to post or send you the citations and/or abstracts to the articles.

:)

Friday February 28, 2003
Report: No abortion-cancer link

By Sally Squires / Washington Post
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
WASHINGTON -- Having an abortion does not appear to increase a woman's chance of developing breast cancer, according to a report to be presented Monday to the National Cancer Institute. The findings could help end a longstanding debate on the question.
"The weight of the scientific evidence says that there is no relationship between having an induced abortion and breast cancer," said Leslie Bernstein, senior associate dean at the University of Southern California, who will present the findings Monday to a meeting of the institute's Board of Scientific Counselors and Board of Scientific Advisors.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/health/0302/28/a02-96389.htm

If abortion is a right, it cannot be abused, by definition. Priveleges may be abused, rights may not.

I, for one, am about sick and tired of watching the American people bend over backwards to give up their rights.

I am sick and tired of hearing neocons tell me what ISN'T a right. For example, they will say that gays do not have the right to marry, because "marriage isn't a right". Horseshit. These anti-American morons need to read the 9th and 10th amendments.

Never since 1865 has America been in such danger...and just like then, the enemy is ourselves.

i'm sick to death of it too :toast:

have had their way long enough.

I'm taking my country back. To hell with the GOP and their hypocritical bullshit.

:toast: you're my new best friend :loveya:

I have been battling it out (for what it's worth) on several non-partisan forums for quite some time now.

I started coming here for a little R&R.

I think I'll leave this on my favorites list.

As a legal matter, "compelling interest" is an argument the govt used to infringe on one right in order to pursue another. Under our legal system, no right is absolute and can be limited to the extent necessary to protect some other right. Affirmative Action is a good example. It infringes on employer's property rights (to hire who they want) in order to protect other people's right to equal protection.

a right to counsel, but that doesn't apply in the real world anymore, does it?

It's very persuasive for that reason, even if, as a legal matter, it's not true.

Inalienable.

Great answer. :thumbsup:

because of "cultural attitudes about women: the mental, emotional, and psychological makeup of women".

The anti abortionism of the last 150 - 200 years is really something of a historical anomaly. The Catholic church didn't make abortion a ex communicable offense until 1588 - but there were no laws against it. England outlawed abortion in 1803; by the 1860's abortion was illegal in the USA. Physicans (who were all men) were a driving force behind these laws. Their aim was to legitimize their profession and force midwives and herbalists, etc. out of the market. Another dynamic was that abortion had become popular among middle and upper class women who were trying to control the size of their families. The "lower" classes were seen to be out breeding the upper and the powers that be didn't like that idea.

In more modern times the anti abortion movement in the USA seems to be driven by religious groups wishing to codify their belief systems into law.

There's a whole bunch of fascinating information at this web site:

http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html#71

as an aside-
There is at least one place I know of where abortion is widely used as a form of birth control - Vietnam. Contraceptives are not widely available, and the abortion rate is 2.5 per woman. The government only permits 1 or 2 children, and encourages this .

-----

I've known several men who were rabidly anti abortion, and it's a mindset I've struggled to understand. On a personal perhaps it has to do with control - I don't know. Most of them you can't even talk to about it.

and the issue of control...isn't that also about controlling women?

Though I never understood how they got that from the teachings of Jesus.

and my god...the anti-abortion stuff is alll over the place. it's hard to find anything remotely neutral.
here's a site of interest.
http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html

I'm afraid I don't have time to do my usual semi-thorough read of a thread before responding, but I just gotta ask.

By this I mean: Is there any credible evidence that women have "abused" abortion? For example, Is there evidence that many women, on a whim, decide to have late-term abortions...just for the heck of it..., you know, like getting their nails done? ...

How on earth would any of the things you list be a "compelling reason to restrict abortion"???

If people took bus trips on whims, would that be a compelling reason to restrict bus trips (i.e. to restrict people's access to buses, or require good reasons for taking bus trips, or limit the number of bus trips people could take ...)?

If people "abused" their right to eat ice cream by doing it every day, ditto?

The fact that people don't have "good reasons" to exercise a right (by whose standards? of course) is NEVER a compelling reason to interfere in the exercise of rights.

That's kinda the whole point!

It is those who propose to interfere in the exercise of the rights who must present the compelling reasons for the interference -- *not* that there is no good reason for the exercise!

I don't disagree that the urge to deny women control of their bodies and lives comes from cultural attitudes toward women; of course it does. But the point is surely that whatever those attitudes are, their content is irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether the exercise of rights may be interfered in. Just as cultural attitudes toward anyone based on his/her race, religion, ethnicity, or any other personal characteristic are irrelevant.

We wouldn't be asking whether the fact that some Jews go to synagogue more than anyone thinks they need to, or some African-Americans listen to hip-hop music for no good reason, or some gay men wear far too much makeup, could be a "compelling reason" for preventing any of them from doing what they do.

"Does the State have a compelling reason to restrict Abortion?" is absolutely the right question. But it is the state which must present its reasons for interfering in the exercise of a right.

Only then, if it does demonstrate such a compelling reason, does anyone who wants to exercise the right need to demonstrate that s/he has a "more compelling" reason for doing so.

In the case of abortion, the nature of the right is obvious: being denied the ability to exercise the right in question means being compelled to assume a risk to one's life, and being deprived of important liberty. Regardless of anyone's "reason" for exercising the rights to life and liberty, denial of that exercise violates the rights to life and liberty.

I might want to eat ice cream because it's delicious, but denying me the ability to eat it would violate my rights to life (hell, I could starve to death) and liberty (I really do get to eat what I want).

I might want to write a letter to the editor simply to see my name in print, but denying me the ability to publish my opinions would violate my right of free speech.

I might want to hire a lawyer for my trial simply because the one I have in mind is so cute, but denying me the right to the counsel of my choice would be to violate my right to due process.

The state needs to demonstrate that it has compelling reasons for forcing someone to assume a risk to her life that she does not want to assume, and depriving someone of important liberty she does not want to surrender.

I've always said that it is possible that the state could demonstrate such compelling reasons, in the case of abortion as in the case of any other right, in certain circumstances (once, of course, it establishes that it has an interest in women's pregnancies in the first place, which it didn't actually do in Roe v. Wade).

I've just never seen anyone offer that demonstration. Who knows ... if I read some of this thread, maybe I'll find it!

.

surely you know that i don't think the state has any compelling reason to restrict abortion, and surely you know that the reasons i gave are the bits of the usual arguments from those who seek to restrict abortion. and just as surely, you must know that cultural attitudes about women don't *justify* gender discrimination against women, anymore than cultural abour race *justify* racial discrimination.
i am still waiting for evidence of the state's compelling need to restrict abortion, and clearly, the usual arguments (based on cultural attidues about women, imho) obviously don't fly. this thread is a challenge to the pro-life contingent to prove me wrong on the above points, namely:
1) there is no compelling need for the state to restrict abortion (as nsma mentions, no compelling public interest)
2) the anti-abortion fervor of the last 30+ years has more to do with entreched cultural attitudes about women (i refer to them as archetypes) than reverence for the unborn.
still waiting for an argument to the contrary...

It's just a call for more contradiction.

"1) there is no compelling need for the state to restrict abortion (as nsma mentions, no compelling public interest)
2) the anti-abortion fervor of the last 20+ years has more to do with attitudes about women than reverence for life."

The argument to the contrary is that you are wrong on both counts. In order to make my argument I'll reverse the order of your points:

2) Your perception of the anti-abortion fervor is what it is - your perception. My reasons for not thinking that abortion-on-demand after whatever medically agreed upon point is acceptable do not stem from any misogynistic sentiments on my part. My reasons for my opinions are based solely on the fact that my perception is that a fetus becomes a person before birth, that is all. I suppose I need to state here that of course an exception should be made for the life/health concerns of the mother. The vagueness of the term 'health' is one of the reasons for the lack of progress on this issue.

1) When you consider my reasons stated above, it becomes quite clear why there is a compelling need for restrictions. If people who deserve equal protection are being aborted because they currently are not considered to be deserving of said protection, that equates to justified murder simply because these fetuses are currently considered to be less than human.

2) anti-abortion fervor
not just my perception, i'm afraid. there's a ton on information out there, but i doubt you 'd be interested in it. i will suggest one book: "gynecology" by mary daly. she discusses the partriarchial need to control and tranform women quite extensively. not surprisingly: the means is often by controlling reproduction.
if the fetus is a person at conception, does that mean it has even more rights than the woman carrying it? is this a woman-loving position because it's hard for me to tell :eyes:

1) :boring:

You just deny my reasons for thinking the way I do as invalid due to what you've read. As I said, no discussion, only contradiction.

You can point to whatever historical evidence you want to, it doesn't change the fact that many people share this view. And notice I did NOT say it begins at conception. That's not something I think the debate should focus on, since it seems to be tied to religious beliefs. I said that at some point it becomes it's own independent human being, and that's not when an egg or eggs is/are fertilized.

FOR YOU AND FOR YOUR LIFE! YOUR beliefs should govern the way YOU live and the choices YOU make. your beliefs should not govern the way i live, and the choices i make...and here's why:
I DON'T SHARE YOUR BELIEFS
i think there is even disagreement among scientists as to when "life" begins...i don't think it's relevant, frankly.

and i just don't get the compulsion to control the options available to others, simply because of your beliefs...when YOU have the option not to go against your beliefs. perhaps legal abortion is too much of a temptation for some, hence the desire to limit it :shrug:

the issue here, per the article i posted for someone else, is that women have, do, and will continue to seek an end unwanted pregancies whether or not they can do it safely and legally. so...the only relevant question i see for the state to determine is: does it make sense to offer safe, legal abortions, given that reality?

is the health of existing women more important, as a matter of public ethics and policy, than the moral/religious beliefs about fetuses of a particular segment of the population?

You're right, there is currently no consensus as to when *separate personhood* begins, but there will be, there has to be.

And since there is no consensus, why do the mothers' rights trump the rights of the growing person inside her? At some point they don't, and the sooner we answer that question to the general satisfaction of the majority, the better.

IMO it's very relevant when a fetus deserves to be considered it's own person - hence the conversations about why a baby is any more a baby just because it's outside its mothers womb.

It's not a compulsion to control others, it's a compulsion to protect those who are incapable of protecting themselves.

I have no doubt that some women will do whatever they want. So will rapists -- should we make women carry condoms around so they can be assured of safe rapists? You may find it very offensive that I equate abortion to murder, but in the cases where it is not medically necessary and after the point at which a fetus has its own rights, then there really is no other word for it.

I say that the health of existing women is a canard. Not all abortions are for the health of the mother. Those that are, fine - I have no problem with that. But what is causing most of the friction in this debate is those that aren't. Those are the ones that are considered to be the unnecessary taking of a human life.

It's not the moral / religious beliefs of people which is more important, but the fact that some of these fetuses, if moved a just a few inches, would be considered 'babies', deserving the full protection of the law. I don't think location should determine who gets protection and who doesn't.

because beliefs drive this debate. as in your questions:

why do the mothers' rights trump the rights of the growing person inside her?

do you really think a woman should lose all of her rights to personhood, simple because she is pregnant? should she just submit to your morality because you are convinced you are right? does she lose her ability to make her own decisions because of when you believe life begins?

It's not a compulsion to control others, it's a compulsion to protect those who are incapable of protecting themselves

a fetus is not a person, but has the potential to become one...maybe. sorry...i don't buy this "protection" argument. i have no doubt that you are sincere, but i don't see that sincerity in our society. children are not at all revered in this society, and certainly not to the degree that "the unborn" are. let me ask you something...why don't we "protect" the children that are already here?

abortion = murder...that's a real slippery slope. i will tell you again: your beliefs should govern you own action and behavior. if you never have an abortion, you will never be a murderer. what on earth gives you the right to make that choice for someone else...because of your beliefs?

I say that the health of existing women is a canard

And I said: women will seek to end unwanted preganacies whether abortion is legal and safe...or not. that's hardly a "canard," though i can see why you dismiss it as such. it's great to TALK about being "pro-life" without having to face this reality: safe, legal abortions ACTUALY SAVE WOMEN'S LIVES
It's not the moral / religious beliefs of people which is more important, but the fact that some of these fetuses, if moved a just a few inches, would be considered 'babies', deserving the full protection of the law. I don't think location should determine who gets protection and who doesn't.

This is just NONSENSE. a first trimeseter fetus is no more a a "baby" than you are.

"do you really think a woman should lose all of her rights to personhood, simple because she is pregnant? should she just submit to your morality because you are convinced you are right? does she lose her ability to make her own decisions because of when you believe life begins?"

No, of course not. As I said, the rights of the unborn don't start at conception, as I don't consider the fetus at that point to be a person deserving of their own rights and protections. She only 'loses her ability to make her own decisions' once those decisions affect the well being of a separate being. Nothing gives me this 'right' to advocate for -- it's something I consider an obligation, to stand up for the rights of those who can't stand up for themselves.

"a fetus is not a person, but has the potential to become one...maybe. sorry...i don't buy this "protection" argument. i have no doubt that you are sincere, but i don't see that sincerity in our society. children are not at all revered in this society, and certainly not to the degree that "the unborn" are. let me ask you something...why don't we "protect" the children that are already here?"

I can't answer that question, except to say that it is probably for the same reason that sports stars are paid so much more than teachers. Nothing is valued unless it generates profit for someone. Since the abortion issue can be used as a tool by those that seek to divide us in order to maintain power, abortion gets attention. Since actual needy children don't help them maintain power...

"abortion = murder...that's a real slippery slope. i will tell you again: your beliefs should govern you own action and behavior. if you never have an abortion, you will never be a murderer. what on earth gives you the right to make that choice for someone else...because of your beliefs?"

As long as we fundamentally disagree, no amount of arguing will enable us to see eye to eye on this. The crux of the issue is when separate personhood is conferred. Obviously it's not going to be on a fetus less than 3 months old. After that point, though, as you said there is no consensus -- however denying these people their rights simply because other people haven't made up their minds as to whether they deserve them? I don't wish to be on that side of the argument.

"And I said: women will seek to end unwanted preganacies whether abortion is legal and safe...or not. that's hardly a "canard," though i can see why you dismiss it as such. it's great to TALK about being "pro-life" without having to face this reality: safe, legal abortions ACTUALY SAVE WOMEN'S LIVES"

This is the same kind of argument used to defend distributing needles to junkies. You're helping them in something considered immoral, but it's saving lives, so the greater good wins out. Perfectly rational. However, it falls apart if you think, as I do, that a person deserves protection before they are born.

"This is just NONSENSE. a first trimeseter fetus is no more a a "baby" than you are."

Which is why I used the word 'some', indicating those *after* separate personhood could be reasonably argued (i.e. not first trimester, IMO).

those decisions affect the well being of a separate being...

WHEN is this? and who determines it? second trimester? third trimester?

and of course, if the woman's life is at risk by continuing the preganancy, would you then allow her to make decisions again?

i'll also address this statement.

"However, it falls apart if you think, as I do, that a person deserves protection before they are born."

what does that have to do with anything i wrote? if women will seek to end unwanted pregnancies, regardless of whether safe, legal abortions are available...how does restricting safe, legal abortions "protect the unborn?" answer: IT DOESN'T. outlawing abortion = increasing the likelihood of adult female deaths from botched abortions. it will not magically produce a "reverance for life," as defined by the pro-life movement. it will not change anyone's opinions or beliefs, and it will not "protect the unborn."

which brings me back to the question you can't answer:
why don't we "protect" the children that are already here?

frankly, as soon as we figure out the answer to this question, i think the need for abortion will decrease dramatically.

thanks for the conversation...back to work.

There's no consensus as to when a fetus becomes a person. I used to think (before I got pregnant) that it was after the baby was born. Now I think it's probably fairly early in the second trimester. But clearly the medical community needs to step up to the plate on this issue.

And of course once a health issue for the mother is a concern then you have to balance the rights of the two people. I support exceptions for the life and health of the mother, of course.

I don't expect it to produce a reverence for life any more than laws against murder do. And since not all mothers will seek illegal abortions (should there ever be any wide-ranging restrictions placed on it), I do think it will provide a measure of protection.

I did answer as to why we don't protect the children already here - it suits TPTB not to. Of course you are characterizing society as a whole, which is not accurate, since many people DO protect those children. The fact that voters decide to spend money on bombs and not healthcare or education is beyond me. But simply because they outnumber me does not mean that I stop existing.

I agree that if we were to adopt family friendly policies such as a living wage, unrestricted access to reliable contraception, EDUCATION about reproduction, etc. etc. etc., that demand for abortion will decrease dramatically. Which is why I tried SO HARD to push Kucinich. :)

Thank you also for the civil conversation. It is appreciated more than you probably know. :yourock:

i understand your opinion, i just don't think it makes for good public policy...until and if a number of things happen.
i concede there are some good people who believe they have an obligation to protect and revere life...and who aren't misogynists :D

i am one of those peope actually...which is why i don't support the death penalty or war.

however, i don't see that the state has compelling interest in restricting abortion beyond the already common sense medical guidelines in place. these guidelines don't determine when life begins, and frankly, i don't think that question is ever going to be answered to the satisfaction of all. but i do think there is some consensus in the medical community regarding first trimester abortions. it's the later term abortions that have created most of the recent controversy.

i check the AMA's site for a policy regarding abortion, and the organization leaves it up to the discretion of the physician and her/his personal "beliefs." a political dodge, no doubt. i wonder if they issue similar guidelines regarding heart surgery.

and finally...i truly believe that if men could get pregnant...abortion would not only be legal, it wouldn't even be a topic for discussion.

peace.

and necessary.

In my opinion both sides can be unreasonable.

The people who want to give full human protection to a half dozen cells are unreasonable, but no more unreasonable

than the other side which refuses to recognize that a baby one hour before birth deserves some legal protection.

As a father of a boy born through caesarian, no one will convince me that my son was not the very same boy while I was watching the doctor check his position with the ultrasound, while I was watching the doctor going in to take him from my wife's body, and when the doctor was showing him to us. It was the same boy. At that point, he deserved some legal protection.

There should be able to be some reasonable middle ground.

Is there a time--ANY time--where an abortion can be considered the unneccessary taking of a human life?

Why, or why not?

Because if a specific manner of abortion falls under that definition, then in THAT type of abortion ONLY should the state have a responsibility to protect the life of the human.

If there is no question of the "unneccessary taking of a human life," then there is no question of the state interferring.

End of story.

if you want to rephrase the question.

No hijack intended.

In fact, I am simply answering your question by asking another. In my opinion, the only way that the state has any business is if there is an unneccessary loss of life. Do you disagree with what I said, or just the way I said it?

Sorry if I bugged you! Wasn't my intention at all.

who determines what is and is not unnecessary? politicians? doctors? who?
for example, i've heard some anti-choice folks here claim that clinical depression, for example, is not a compelling reason to have an abortion...but of course, that could depend on how the woman was impregnated. some may consider clinical depression as a result of rape or incest sufficient suffering to qualify for an abortion.

sorry for being testy...just having some coffee now :7

Let me define "necessary."

To me, all life is "sacred" for lack of a better word. Necessary loss of life is when there are no other reasonable options available.

It is a pretty cut and dried issue when you're discussing murder, war, or even assasination. That type of loss of life should be acknowledged ONLY where there are zero alternatives.

But life is not the only thing that is sacred. Freedom is also sacred.

It is very different when you discuss loss of life issues that involve individual freedom. Suicide, self defense, euthanasia, and abortion are the topics that immediately come to mind. In these areas, the state has to step back and allow the individual much more room to define what is necessary and what is not.

i don't disagree with the notion that all life is sacred, however, i don't see that principle in action much. i cannot believe gw bush, for example, is "pro-life" though he may be anti-abortion. i don't think that man has a reverence for life, nor are his actions consistent with his professed beliefs.
given the horrible disparities and inequites we tolerate...i don't see that reverence for life is a driving force in this culture...at all.

Remember the way he practically drooled about , oh what was her name...The lady on Texas death row that went born again, and Bush mocked her when she begged for her life?

Regardless of where you stood on the issue of her sentence, Bush's response was just evil. Pro-Death.

And anti-choice for all those but a select group of his chums.

Reverence for life is a forgotten dream in America. So many hold it up as if it were their personal shining light, yet while doing so the shut their eyes to all that it would illuminate.

Yes, many do this. It's baffling. Protect lives if they're unborn (even a fertilized egg!?!?!?!), but kill them with impunity if they're judged by man to deserve it. Really sick and twisted people.

But! Please let's not forget that the actual triumph to be sought is true reverence for life. Not just for the lives of the unborn, or for death row inmates, but also for the poor - who despite being alive are sometiems (often?) unable to enjoy life due to financial restrictions; and also for the sick, who suffer due to having a health industry that profits off of their misery... I could go on... hope you see my point.

because there is very little reverance of life in the official policies of this country. and of course...this is not even the issue, imho. the issue is: do women have the right to determine their own healthcare choices, so is that something they should concede to internet posters?

Unnecessary taking of human life, no. And it's nothing to do with internet posters, it's people who think that fetuses deserve personhood before they are born. Many of whom are not on the net.

you are the second person i've asked to do this. the first really couldn't come up with a definition.

Just as with the beginning of personhood, what justifies 'necessity' is a grey area.

This would have to fall on the medical community, IMO. Just as with the decision as to when a fetus is actually more like a child than a clump of cells.

by a neighbor...she's 15, but very sheltered and naive because her extremely religious parents kept her ignorant about sex and her body. she is afraid to tell her parents what happened..afriad of what they will do to her, so she doesn't tell anyone. the girl has been sheltered from any sex education training, and only knows the basics about reproduction. she thinks she can't get pregnant unless she's married and in love.
four months later, she is sent to the school nurse's office complaining of stomach pains, and she finally tells the nurse what happened. the nurse arranges for her to have a pregancy and HIV test...both are positive.
the girl is advised by couselors to tell her parents what happened...a peer counselor even accompanies her to provide support. her parents are enraged (dad moreso than mom, but mom is a doormat) and order her out of the house. she's now homeless, preganant, and HIV+. the peer counselor find her temporary housing, and though she tries to keep her head given all the terrible events that befell her, she slips into a serious depression.
after weighing her options, she decides to have an abortion. it's now the second trimester of her preganancy...because she didn't realize she could get preganant until the nurse explained who things work to her. her parents contest the abortion because the father feels "sluts who open their legs" should be punished for their sins...the mother is a doormat, as i previously mentioned. the parents sue to force her to have the child, but they don't want custody...they want to put it up for adoption instead. the girl says she will kill herself if she's forced to continue the pregnancy.

question: is this a necessary abortion?

its so emotionally charged that, if it were true, it would require the intervention of professional therapists. I have no such training.

Here's some thoughts, regardless:

1) If it came down to the life of the mother or the life of the baby, my outside opinion would have to be weighted towards the life of the mother, IMO.

2) Get that girl out of that family, get her some counseling, asap.

3) Take a 15 year old girl, who is already undergoing drastic changes within her body, add to that the hormonal changes that accompany a pregnancy. Pile on family hysteria, and you have one confused human - agreed?

So, do you think that her threats of suicide are valid, or a temporary response to a temorary situation? Furthermore, do you think that with this girls upbringing, that if she did terminate the pregnancy, that her years of taught guilt might push her further into depression and possible suicide?

4)Lets take the opposite approach:

An adult has consensual sex with her partner. She has already established herself in her career, and is very mature both intellectually and emotionally, yet she isn't sure she wants a child. Everyone around her is very supportive of her feelings, and whenever she brings up the topic of abortion, they all express their love for her, and let her know that no matter her choice, she will always have the support of her family and friends. Her partner, whom she has been with for several years, expresses the same support.

There is no medical reason to terminate the pregnancy, no financial reason, and the baby would be brought into a wonderful home and family.

Yet, the woman decides to terminate.

Now, your turn. Is this a necessary abortion?

it is HER decision. YOUR or anyone else's judgement of "neccesity" is IRRELEVANT.

first, I was asking noiretblu a rhetorical question. I know this is an emotional issue, but if your going to respond to something I wrote, try to give me the same respect taht I'm putting into the discussion. OK?

Second, you seem to think that I'm making some kind of judgement that contradicts freedom of choice.

You are wrong.

Third, though I agree with you that if a woman does not wish to be a mother then that is her choice, but the reality of the situation is often something different.

The reality is that after a point in time, a woman no longer has the legal right to chose to be a mother. After a certain time has passed, it is assumed that the choice has already been made. Legally, a woman's right to chose is not absolute, it is relative.

Therefore, the judgement of others is NOT irrelevant. Just relative.

The reality of the situation is that women have made choices about childbearing for as long as they have been bearing children. There IS NO WAY to force a woman who is absolutely otherwise determined to bear a child, short of the Gestational Gestapo. They tried it in Romania and it was a DISASTER.

The reality of the situation is that Noiretblu's original discussion point, cultural attitudes towards women, gets to the heart of this "controversy." Are women considered 'capable' of making decisions about reproduction? If they were, we wouldn't have this l-o-n-g thread.

The reality of the situation is the wealthiest country in the world does NOT provide health care for all its citizens.

The reality of the situation is that the suffering of unwanted children in the wealthiest country in the world is unconscienable.

The reality of the situation is that America is facing a spiritual, environmental and economic catastrophe about which it is still in the throes od denial.

The reality of the situation is that Americans collectively have VERY LITTLE RESPECT for born and breathing "human life" unless, of course it manifests with white skin.

The reality of the situation is that bringing a child into this world in these times is a daunting proposition. Anyone up to the challenge has my respect. Would that anyone who does not feel up to it could simply be left in peace with a private decision.

I gave you an answer, and you said it was reasonable.

Why tell someone else that I was unable to answer?

What's up with that?

if you would be so kind as to do so again. as i mentioned, i don't think you were able to do so the first time.

I don't think that Bush would be so so stupid as to try and overturn RvW, for two reasons,

1: The Republican party would be screwed for years, with moderate women voting for them less and less

2: What reason would the fundamentalists have to vote for them, except maybe to stop gay marriage?

For the record, I'm pro-choice.

No, there is no compelling reason for the state to restrict abortion. But a compelling reason is what the Supreme Court says it is, since Scalia was able to find a compelling reason to make it illegal for Indians who had been doing so for centuries to use peyote in religious ceremonies.

And the reasons why a woman would have an abortion are completely irrelevant to anybody but the people immediately involved.

unwanted/uncared for children, however. Late term abortion is a medical issue, but having the option of early abortion is probably critical in a country where there are few resources to care for these children if they are born. Pregnancy happens when you don't want it sometimes and I can't imagine these RW compassionate creatures adopting the hundreds of thousands that may be born if abortion is no longer an option.

differ from saying this: "Since we can't afford them, let's kill them before they are born"?

Wouldn't it make much more sense to demand adequate funding for medical treatment for all children?

as reflected in its policies? i agree with you...when that is the case, there will probably be no need for abortion.

"when that is the case, there will probably be no need for abortion."

when we are currently involved in an immoral "war" that is killing both living and "unborn" people, americans and Iraqis?
does someone like bush have any credibility when he claims to be "pro-life?"

For people like me, who protested the war and never supported it and have a hard time still supporting anyone who supported it, there is no disconnect.

For bush / most pro-lifers (rabid right wingers - no contraception allowed -?!), of course it's not the case. No credibility, and it's obviously being used as a tool to divide people and manipulate some into supporting them, if for no other reason than this one.

as am i. which is why i oppose the efforts to turn this country into a rw theocracy. thanks for the converstation...really. sometimes the heat and noise in these threads makes understanding another's pov impossible. i truly understand and respect your views...but i hope you work on that issue of wanting to control other people's choices, ok? LOL...a sort of joke :hi: ok...now i REALLY have to get back to work.

in american domestic and foreign policies.

Not my fault most Americans prefer Iraq war, drug war, war on the poor, etc. :(

unfortunately, he can't even get nominated by his own party.
sad, but true.

i haven't seen a single argument that convinces me of that the state has a compelling reason, need, interest, or obligation to restrict abortion rights. we know that late-term abortions are rare, that there are very few providers trained to do such abortions, and that current law already provides some common-sense guidelines.

thanks everyone for playing :hi:

because there are already restrictions in place, and those restrictions are built on the state's legitimate obligation to portect the life of the child after a certain point in development.

Now, if you intended to ask whether the state has any further need, obligation, etc., then perhaps you might have a different conversation on your hands.

Unless you're suggesting that the right of a woman to end the pregnancy is absolute, up until the moment of birth. Based on what I've seen you write about late term abortions, I don't think that this is your position. You accept that a restriction on late term abortions is reasonable, if perhaps a little irrelevant, yes? I quote you "current law already provides some common-sense guidelines."

Those "guidelines" of which you write? Those are restrictions. They are reasonable restrictions, by your own admission, they are "common-sense."

Therefore the state does have a compelling reason, need, interest, or obligation to restrict abortion rights. The right to abortion is not absolute, it is relative.

If one believes that a one day old fetus is life, then this is about the fetus. I know you don't agree with that concept. But many people honestly do. They honestly belive that killing a one day old fetus is at least murder light.

if it is mine, for example, and i don't share your beliefs...why should your honesty and sincerity mean anything to me, or to my healthcare options and life decisions?

Whether or not there is credible evidence that women have been fucked up enough to abuse abortion, doesn't actually matter when it comes to the the fact that they alone retain the right to make that decision about their bodies. What compels them to make that decision is none of our business.

As for the wide spread myth of the conveniently used late-term abortion, I thought it had already been well documented here and elsewhere (I was one of the people who documented, thank you very much! :-) ) that that was misinformation being spread by neo-conservatives and right-wing fundamentalist anti-choice groups. Does anybody still believe that women were racing to abort their late-term fetuses capriciously?

are terrific and I wholeheartedly agree. :thumbsup:

i was asking those who share that view and aren't rw to give some evidence of that claim. in fact, it's at the core of the current legal attack on abortion rights, imho. and as i mentioned, i think it is based of some powerful archetypes...thus it's appeal to to some. perhaps those with a more authoritarian worldview, as orwell mentioned.
i find it interesting that so few comments were made about the cultural attitudes about women that underlie the rw side of this "debate." instead...i hear a lot about how sincere those who seek to limit women's reprodutive choices, on our side, are in their reverance for the unborn.

I believe that for many or most 'anti-choice' people, it is NOT about cultural attitudes about women. It is all about the value of the fetus -- whether or not it is equal to a human life.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario where both men & women were likely to become pregnant and bear children. Do you really think that all the pro-lifers would then drop their concerns about abortion? If so, I think you are being a bit too cynical. I know many women who are pro-life that would feel the same way about it -- even if men were the ones who got pregnant. Their entire concept of a fetus is that of a small baby which, though still living inside the mother's body, is already an individual with inherent, inalienable worth. You can debate baby vs. fetus; you can debate limits to parental responsibility; you can debate government control vs individual control, etc. But it is not inherently anti-woman.

Now, I have struggled over the years to accept the pro-choice point of view of my fellow lefties, which frankly seemed callous towards a life in development. I have come a long way, and I have many arguments I can give to my pro-life friends about why the pro-choice position is not inherently immoral. But raised Catholic, in an idealistic environment, it has been very hard to be fully comfortable with the position of the left on this issue, or to stop seeing the life of a fetus as worthy of government protection. Abortion is not simply a religious issue. It can be validly seen as an issue of ethics and of the degree to which our society does or does not cherish each individual human life.


I'm not saying that this is the only way for it to be seen, or even the right way, but IMO it's VERY important for the left to come to recognize and understand that the definition and protection of human life is a matter of sincere conscience and a deep struggle for many prolifers. Rather than telling those pro-life liberals and pro-life centrists that they are irrational women-haters etc.., we on the left should try to re-present our message in less antagonistic ways.

to recognize that protecting the rights of women as human beings, to ensure their ability to be completely human, has been an centuries-long struggle. Frankly, through the years, the positions of the anti-choicers has been seemed callous toward women; women have died because of those fighting on the wrong side of this issue. This issue can also be validly seen as an issue of ethics and the degree to which women are cherished as human beings, with the full human right to live their lives in freedom. The anti-choice message is deeply misogynist, in that it devalues women as human beings. By giving that message a free pass, and not pointing out its basis, by sugar-coating our argument, by giving anti-choicers a "pass" in the interests of civility, we bargain away women's human rights. There is no political goal worth that coin.

I, for one, cannot find any ethical basis for the anti-choice position that I can acknowledge as valid.

That said, I have few problems with the framework laid down in Doe v Bolton, as long as the life and health of the woman is always given the utmost priority.