To what extent do you support abortion?

As a general rule, to what extent do you support abortion? I'm just curious about this because I have noticed a couple of pro-life posters on DU, and I'm interested how people feel about this issue on here. And, no, I'm not a freeper disruptor. Please feel free to reply below.

up to the third trimester, and third trimester abortions if the mother's life is at risk. My opinion is basically consistent with the principles in Roe V. Wade.

...and I don't think you're a freeper; I reserve that to the guy who registered as "Hitlery Clinton," "AllDemocratsMustDie," and so on. And even if you were a freeper, I wouldn't care as long as you weren't abusive, and you're not.

Rather than 'support' abortion, I feel that it's none of my business whether or not a woman decides to nurture a fertilied egg in her body until fruition. However, I do support funding for sex education and passing out contraceptives.

I personally won't ever have to make the choice because I am male. I would be upset if my wife were to abort except for reasons of health.

my position in a nutshell!

ONLY because it could be totally possible to give birth normally at some point in the thrid trimester making no need for an abortion as the child could live outside the mother, and the choice doesn't address that.

I don't mind that you've asked, but I'm not a doctor nor any other type of qualified medical professional. I support the right of a woman to choose abortion as a legal medical procedure without the interference of the government. (Just as I wouldn't want abortion mandated, I wouldn't want it prohibited by any type of law.)

"Abortion on demand and without apology" pretty much says it for me. The "which trimester" question I think is better left to the individual woman and her doctor, not the politicians!

I can't answer the poll either.

Don

1 - Her partner.

2 - Her clergy.

And they're optional, IMHO.

Opposed to abortion? Then don't have one!!!!!

Why, what does hehave to do with the pregnancy other than the fact that he contributed half the DNA? I know that if I somehow impregnate my girlfriend and she wants to abort, the only thing I'll tell her is "go ahead, it's you who will give birth, not me."

sigh....

While I will agree a partner would need to know (but NOT give consent), the clergy needs to stay out of this stuff. That's why we're in the mess we're in, all the damn church people trying to control women and their bodies.

Got to have those babies to provide the cheap labor, you know....

I can't imagine making the decision without the participation of my partner if circumstances are what they generally have been in my life---in a committed relationship with someone who isn't a threat or absent by the time a decision is made---but that is me and my circumstances and my beliefs. And, that is my choice for myself.
In the end, it is a medical procedure and like any, the patient and the physician should be the judges, noone else. So, I can't answer a poll like this with its absolute categories.

If the two people involved in the conception want to talk it out, that's all fine and dandy, but from where I stand, I don't think a man has should ever (with the possible exception of diminished capacity issue where a man would have a legal right to make medical decision for his spouse or child...ie, an accident that leaves someone in a coma type issue) have a legal right to determine whether a woman should have to carry a fetus to term.

tends to center more on what happens after birth. However some argue that the total denial of fathers rights begins at conception. They have a point.

:hi:

IF it is capable of living without the mother, then they would have to kill it. But if it is not capable of living without the mother, then it would perish on it's own?

I have personal feelings against it...think the procedure is disgusting...but if a woman wants to do this in months 8-9...it is her decision, and she will need to live with it.

...doesn't exist. It's called extraction and diolation procedure, but anti-choicers like to call it partial-birth because it makes people consider this disgusting and murderous, which it is not.

once born -- e.g. aencephalic babies (brain stem only; the rest of the brain is missing, will never be conscious, barely have enough of a brain to breathe). In effect, they are already dead. And in some cases, continuing to carry them endangers the health or life of the unfortunate mother.

Pinning a catchy name on this procedure ("partial birth abortion") and making hay out of these tragedies is dispicible. But that's what Rethugnicans are, that's what Rethugs do.

Vitruvius

if she carries the child to term. Very few if any women have a third trimester abortion unless there is a medical need.

A woman in the eighth or ninth month of a pregnancy would not be able to find a physician to perform an abortion unless there were a medical reason to do so.

Roe v. Wade permits restriction on post-viability abortion as long as exceptions are made for life and health of the mother, and a number of states have legislation on the books with such restriction.

basically, the right wing took a procedure which hardly ever happens and only is performed to save a woman's life or on a fetus that can't survive and tries to make the pro-choice side look like the extremists by screaming about a ban on it and then it makes the pro-choicers look bad since how rare it is is rarely stated.

that said though, I don't think any abortions should be performed after the first trimester except for medical reasons. but that's pretty much the current situation as it is. I wouldn't mind a D&E ban if it had a health exception, although it would accomplish nothing.

I voted for "Third Trimester (mother at risk)" although it's really "First Trimester + later only if mother at risk or fetus deformed"

I support Postpartum Abortion. Then again, I loathe children. Just being flippant. I'm evil. Sue me. The line is pretty long, but you're welcome to join the throng.

I'm sure many DUers who are regular movie goers would agree with my statement.

Cheers,
ADAM

And so was everyone you love.

Yeah, the movies is a killer case for abortion.
ha

Do you know what "postpartum" means? It was a joke. I do support a woman's right to choose, but not because I hate kids.

Cheers,
ADAM

I've thrown more kids and parents with infants out of movies than I can count...just last week some woman had her two yr old screaming in a sold out show of seabiscuit, and like a good mother, dragged the kid out and smacked her...

First time i ever gave a refund to a person i asked to leave

A movie theater hereabouts has special weekday screenings for mothers with small children. They don't show children's films, but shows the mothers might want to see.

That is why I think it is ridiculous that the Repugs are making it such "an important political issue". First trimester abortions are only allowed in clinics and I don't think most doctors in this political climate are advertising for patients for abortions.

Pro-lifers need to learn that across cultures abortion has always been there and they cannot change it no matter how many bloody fetus posters they hold up.

On demand, without apology. Period.

Accent on the 'without apology.'

-AA

I personally think abortion is murder, but like I said not having sex is abortion, and I think woman should be able to decide because they have to bear and most times have to raise the child.

If you take away their right to decide to have a child or not, then why give them a choice at all by sending people who rape woman to jail?

Think about it? If a woman shouldn't have the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy, then why should she have the right to decide who can impregnate them?

If a woman's right to an abortion is removed, than what's to stop anyone from raping woman and forcing them to conceive... forcing them to conceive their child and raising them?

It's a man's greatest wet dream...






Dave (AmyStrange.com)
http://www.SeattleActivist.org/MyLifeStory.html
DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
Index of WMD Articles: http://WMD.SeattleActivist.org/

Here are some excellent resources and timelines of quotes and interviews and newspaper article quotes documenting the different things Bush and Co did and said for the last two plus years concerning the war in Iraq and WMDs (and other fun things) from the Howard Dean Website---even if you're not a Dean Fan, these are still excellent resources:

The Bush Administration And WMDs: Then And Now:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary

Niger-Uranium Timeline:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline

Bush and WMD: Assumptions vs. Reality:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Bush_-_Iraq_-_Side_by_Side.pdf?docID=781

The Bush Administration and WMD: What did they know and when did they know it?:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Administration_-_Iraq_Deception.pdf?docID=762

The poll is misleading; there are no abortions performed in the third trimester unless there is risk of serious harm/death to the woman or the fetus is dead/severely damaged.

it does not claim that such abortions are done, it only asks if people would support them or not.

At that point the fetus can sustain itself outside of the womb. If the woman's life is in danger then I say of course she should have the choice. Still, I would leave it to the states to decide if abortion should be banned in the 3rd trimester, not the US Congress and President.

See Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, and Casey v Planned Parenthood. Third trimester abortions, when they do occur, are perfomed if the woman's life is endangered or the fetus is dead/deformed.

Played up by the right as a way to curb all abortions.

Why don't we just let the mother have the baby and then shoot the little sucker in the head.

/sarcasm

NOTE: I do support it if the mother's life is in danger.

if it were possible. Unfortunately, he's in his 165th trimester, so it's a no-go. (SIGH.)

So Bu$h * should definitely be a postpostpostpartum abortion

I'm sorry, but if you believe that abortion is murder, but think it should be legal in the case of rape or incest, you don't get ANY respect from me.

(Note: I support a woman's right to choose).

I have always thought the rape/incest copout was intellectually and even morally dishonest. If it's murder in one case, it's murder in the other, regardless of how the conception took place. You cannot have your cake and eat it too on that issue.

That women should always be given a choice. If chooses to sleep with someone, she has amde a choice of her own free will and thus supporters of Rape/Incest abortion only do not feel they have denied a woman a choice. However if she needs a abortion because of a crime in which her choice was denied by a sexual predator then it would be unfair to deny her an abortion because should would have had no choice in the entire situation.

I do not support this view.

I can only answer this question for myself.

After that the pregnancy would have to be abnormal in some way to justify an abortion after that.

should know themselves what the right thing to do would be. I'm against it....for myself, so I can't vote in the poll. It is unfortunate that there was forseen a need for this law in the first place.

Especially not since the vasectomy.

...but I still take an interest in their having the right to vote.
I think abortion should be legal...and I don't think it's murder. But, I do think it's wrong. Doesn't mean it has to be illegal, though. In any case, if my wife wanted to have an abortion I'd be rather offended if she didn't consult me first.

It is a private matter for the woman to decide and for the state to stay out!

And us guys as well.