Anti-Abortion Activists Here At the DU, Please Consider This

The advocacy of anti-abortion laws will result in the logical enforcement of those laws which will punish women and/or their doctors who participate in ending pregnancies.

Are you content with your advocacy for federal legislation to outlaw abortions knowing it will result in either forcing women through childbirth or in criminalizing them and/or their physicians?

Today in LBN we have this new story:

-----------------------------


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A female bartender who refused to wear makeup at a Reno, Nevada, casino was not unfairly dismissed from her job, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.


Darlene Jespersen, who had worked for nearly 20 years at a Harrah's Entertainment Inc casino bar in Reno, Nevada, objected to the company's revised policy that required female bartenders, but not men, to wear makeup.

A previously much-praised employee, Jespersen was fired in 2000 after the firm instituted a "Beverage Department Image Transformation" program and she sued, alleging sex discrimination.

Full Story Here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&e=2&u=/nm/life_makeup_dc

---------------------------------

If a federal court will force women to paint their faces against their wishes to keep their jobs ---while men are not required to do so --- based on a single, flimsy and thirty year old ruling, do you actually think that crisp and clear and new federal laws prohibiting abortion won't be enforced?

I ask this question because of all the many threads here at the DU by "pro-life" advocates who are Democrats, I've never seen one, not one actually address this issue. It seems it is always skated around.

Will you be comfortable knowing your advocacy could force women through childbirth and/or put them in prison?

Not sure I've seen anyone at DU support making abortion illegal.

restrictions in who can have abortions and when. What you advocate is making most abortions illegal. So why the word parsing?

it's people who think they have the right to make personal, private decisions for everyone else, people they don't even know. And that includes the abortion decision.

And this situation doesn't surprise me at all. Most employers don't give a damn about their employees anymore, it doesn't matter how hard you work and how good a job you do or how much loyalty and trustworthiness you demonstrate. The only employer you can ever really trust is yourself.

I assume you are speaking from the political view and not from a personal view.

and if I am wrongm, and that is a personal view, it might be clearer if you said you are opposed to abortion for yourself

and in that case, you would be pro-choice.

these "anti-abortion" loudmouths aren't "pro-life", they're just fuckin' anti-women!

conditions that they are risk free. They are not. That's what you're up against, that wall of anatomical exemption from facing a very real danger to life and health.

Of course abortion is a lousy option. Nobody likes it. However, keeping it safe and legal for women who don't wish to risk their lives, health, financial security and family support on an unwanted pregnancy is absolutely vital for the female half of the population.

The alternative isn't an end to abortion, it's an end to safe abortion.

I agree: "The alternative isn't an end to abortion, it's an end to safe abortion."

a "D&C" or trip to south america for rich woman and a coat hanger for poor women.

How can you know what every man thinks?

I certainly don't think pregnancy and childbirth are risk free.

Neither is intercourse risk free.

for women's rights, reproductive and otherwise.

So definite assumptions can be made.

for saying that I am not doing anything for women's rights.

Have escorted several times in the past at the local clinic on the abortion issue alone.

Guess its not good enough for you.

'nuff said.

a political issue if men could get pregnant.

You are exactly right, Warpy,

When a woman is in a position when she is pregnant and does not have the means to raise a child, *all* the options are lousy.

It's lousy for a woman to be forced to give her baby away to strangers in adoption. It's lousy for a woman to have to raise her baby in poverty. It's lousy for a woman to need an abortion.

Keeping abortion legal prevents women from dying. (And when women die from illegal abortion, so do the fetuses.)The best way to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancies. Unfortunately, the biggest obstacles to preventing pregnancies in the US are the pro-life organizations.

to her abuser.

http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

Shawnna Hughes divorced her abusive husband. But four days later a judge revoked her divorce because Shawnna Hughes was pregnant-- and pregnant women in Washington, according to this judge, can't get divorced.

<snip>

edited to add: I so hope this article is satire.

It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't a satire. I sure hope it is, though..

Please let it be satire; that is creepy beyond words.

:scared:

that we go back to a time when rape victims were forced to marry their attackers?

There's few greater horrors than the idea of having to wake up next to and sit across from at the breakfast table every day for the rest of your life the guy that did one of the most horrible things to you.

Imaging being one of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib being forced to live with Lynndie England.

I consider rape to be a form of torture.

their advocacy could push women into unsafe abortions that kill them.

Once women have the threat of dying as a result of an illegal abortion, they'll be "kept in line." Or so the antichoice crowd thinks. Experience has shown that women take that awful chance, with tragic results.

Seems those anti-choice DUers aren't willing to own up to the consequences of their position.

Really? Are there any DUers that suggest making abortion illegal? I can't recall every reading any posts by one, except for maybe some freepers who got banned.

And the silence in this thread is deafening.

You noticed, huh?

They are out there.

If you're trying to "change hearts and minds" you're going about it in the entirely wrong way. You'd be far more effective if you climbed aboard the "pro-life=health care, child care, economic justice" float, than to continue issuing preachy announcements. Please tell us what you ARE trying to accomplish.

I am not anti choice. I do however dislike abortions. I know 4 women who had them and they all have deep regrets about their choice. Not saying they would change their choice but in two of the cases it really messed them up. A third was the victim of rape by her father. She actually benefitted from being able to have an abortion while she was a minor w/o parental consent. However, I dont agree with this policy. The underage abortions. She should have gone through the motions to file charges against him and then have got the abortion. I do not believe that minors should be able to get abortions w/o parental consent.

She'd have been giving birth before some antichoice judges would have let her abort.

Seriously I understand how this can impact someones life. The girl I was talking about was my fiance at one point. She really could have been a great girl but the whole experience messed her up bad. Her IQ was off the chart almost and she was great to be around most of the time...but she suffered from a multiple personality disorder. I never met her father. I tried to look him up while I was in the town he supposedly lived in. It may be for the best that I didnt find him because I would probably be in jail still.

Despite all that...as a parent I can only say that I feel that I need to know if my daughter was pregnant and wanted an abortion. This would definetly be an issue with me. I have a son atm and we will try for another child maybe in the future. If its a girl I wouldnt want her to face that decision alone and the possible consequences.

As to the issue of incest arent there prenatal tests they can do to determine paternity?

would you want a girl in your girlfriend's situation to be forced to get persmission from an abusive parent to have before she could have an abortion?

If you are likening the boss trying to force a woman to wear make-up to work and making abortions illegal, I see nothing similar.

The boss is a jerk, she sued didn't she, and she should have won unless she signed a contract and they have a dress code, then it's company policy... I don't wear make-up and if my boss wanted to try and force me to, I'd quit.

Abortion is a very different subject. Did you see the thread a few weeks ago about it, kinda the same questions you are asking. Sorry, I'm a noob and don't know how to find it.

Enforcement of the law is the point of this thread.

If there are anti-abortion laws, they will be enforced. And so, do you support forcing women through childbirth and/or incarcerating them if they refuse to do so?

and her boss, if she signed a dress code or something like that, then the boss may have a leg to stand on..If there was some kind of contract then court ruling is right. I am not sure of all the reasoning. I personally would have just told him he was a jerk and quit.

Hypothetically, IF abortion were illegal, then the court would be within their rights to give punishment where due in the case of someone accused of murder. And would I support that, yes.

not "pro abortion" and I'm sick and tired of the anti choice community using the term "pro life".

I'm not letting anti choicers taking the word, "Life" from those of us that would prefer that safe and available access to an abortion.

By restricting access to an abortion you make it more likely for women to find unsafe means to obtain one. The only way to prevent abortion is by meaningful sex ed and better access to contraceptives and I see "pro lifers" rarely saying anything about that.

Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that has been performed for thousands of years. There is a right to privacy that every citizen has, regardless of his or her gender. If a woman and her doctor decide upon a medical procedure then that medical procedure is privileged, between the patient and her doctor, no one else. The anti-choice crowd is opposed to who gets to make the decision, not the procedure itself. And I will say to all of the anti-choice individuals, go to hell.

The reason being we believe it's taking the life of another. That "medical procedure" has someone else involved...the life that is being taken, and that is who we would protect.

Funny you would tell us that would save the life of another to go to hell while you would kill that life...

"Are you content with your advocacy for federal legislation to outlaw abortions knowing it will result in either forcing women through childbirth or in criminalizing them and/or their physicians?"

question not long ago and had a very nice discussion with someone about this issue. What I said then was IF abortion were made illegal my idea of punishment should be sterilization, for the woman. IMO many a woman puts her own self into this position. If a woman doesn't want to GET pregnant, then there is one guaranteed foolproof way not to..

I don't go out and protest for the govt. to outlaw abortion, but if it came to a vote I would vote in favor of outlawing it.



In answer to the main question.

"Are you content with your advocacy for federal legislation to outlaw abortions knowing it will result in either forcing women through childbirth or in criminalizing them and/or their physicians?"

Yes.

Well, if that don't tell all, I don't know what would. Why stop half-way, after all? Just make women slaves and their bodies subject to their master's whims.

any help from me.

and defining women as chattel who do not have basic human rights, an agenda in total opposition to the fundamental principles of Constitutional Democracy. Punishment under law is fundamentally different than whatever sort of self-inflicted psychological/emotional servitude to which I presume you refer. And punishment by bodily mutilation such as forced sterilization is a barbarism that civilized societies have long repudiated.

Such a suggestion does indeed reveal the agenda of the anti-choice movement*, which is inherently anti-woman, anti-human rights, and antithetical to any principles of self-determination and autonomy for one half the human race.

To have the agenda so clearly stated, stripped of the mock concern for women, for children, for families behind which anti-choice proponents so often hide is at least honest.

*by whom I mean those who actively seek to change the law, not those who may have personal beliefs that they are content to follow for themselves while leaving others to their own choices.

what, exactly, is your punishment for the men who create the baby? Sterilize them, too? Since dna is court approved, and can prove paternity, why not force the man to undergo sterilization, too?

You have objections to that, or do you just have such a contempt for women and men are blameless?

to ancient treatments, back alley doctors, and crude instruments.

Your "solution" does nothing, nada, zilch--except harm.

Abortion is what is doing the harm.

besides people who believe their beliefs give them the right to make decision for other people?

the life being killed.

but despite that argument, it doesn't give you the right to force YOUR morality on others. What about the mother's life? I guess that's not important to you...

You remind me of the Mother Superior character.

Pinched
Judgemental
Vindictive
Self-Righteous
Eaten up with hate.

The character I thought was the most vindictive was the father whose daughter managed to escape, make it home, and then he brought her back, beating her and screaming at her that she was no longer his daughter.

Presumably she told him the reality she was enduring and yet he didn't care. He loved her so little that he didn't give a damn what happened to her.

Abortion-Criminalizers need to see it. I'm grateful the director made this film; too often the truth of what happens to women is swept under a carpet, or deemed not good box office. But I'm not gonna start myself on that rant again. ;)

The girl raped at the beginning and then "sent away" for her "crime" had me crying right from the start.

from the opening scene to those horrid/crazy nuns. POWER, it's all about an abuse of power.

If not for that director, would we ever know about this? The abuses against women happen in a vacuum. And the boys getting away with everything. You're right, it was infuriating. And this happening in the 20th century.... the powerlessness of women, and the general refusal to hear women's voices ...and the end notes about how some of those young women's lives turned out--such a waste. And how heroic of them to escape; yet usually women's stories of strength of will and character, overcoming suffering, breaking out of victimhood like this never make it to anyone's attention.

ah gee, it's late now and my thoughts aren't very clear...been reading Cornell West and he's got me thinking. Just thoughts swirling around, nothing I can put into words especially this late.

:hi:

would that still harm you and your beliefs? is her life worth less than your beliefs?

the percentages of abortions for this reason are low...we have wonderful medical care and doctors in this country that many mothers are able to be safely brought through pregnancy...I have a SIL who would be a good example here.

Is mine? You think many times when a woman gets pregnant that she doesn't have the thought that it may kill her...a woman can have complications and die any time during a pregnancy or delivery. I have a physical handicap and faced this twice. My children and giving them life was more important to me, yes, than my own life. Do I believe other woman should feel the same, yes.. Do they...I am sure they do not.

Do I believe other woman should feel the same

And you're willing, nay, eager to legislate my morality, aren't you, because of your beliefs?

I'm not sure if you said so or not, but you're anti-choice. I don't care if you call yourself pro-life, I really don't. But the fact that you are against choice for everyone (presumably) means you will let people die. Not a clump of cells, but real living people.

You, madam, are the reason I am political. To stop people like you from trying to run my life for me.

out of context..

What I said was..

Do I believe other woman should feel the same, yes.. Do they...I am sure they do not.

You assume I am trying to leglisate morality, I am more than willing to leave things as they are (unless the issue were to come to a vote), because as a Christian I believe everyone makes their own choices for every sin they commit and each person has to answer to God for their own, not others. I believe the way I do because I believe God teaches me to be. I am trying to run no ones life, I have a hard enough time dealing with my own...I am just answering questions posed on how I believe and how I see things. Nothing more.

Also, you refuse to hear when I say I believe there are TWO lives there..and BOTH are made up of living cells..one just happens to be inside the other.

in your view: the existing life or the possible one? and are you the one designated to make that choice for every woman? is it a sin for a pregnant woman to choose her own life over that of her fetus, even if the fetus is endangering her life? which life is more valuable, from your christian perspective?

What would God say? Whose life would you think God would say was more valuable? I believe God teaches me "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and to me that means anyone.

"we have wonderful medical care and doctors in this country that many mothers are able to be safely brought through pregnancy..."

yeah, if you can afford it through private insurance... or you have a job which has a fabulous medical plan. Or you live near a large metropolitan area that still delivers babies, and not out in the sticks, 30 minutes away from a hospital that will deliver your baby.

If you're poor with medicaid being cut every damn year, you are SOL.

and my ob/gyn took my card. Had gestational diabetes and a c-section. Plus my incision didn't heal properly and had to be treated for that for 3 months. Never had one problem with medicaid. We do live in a smaller part of the country, and though the hospitals are all 30 minutes away (heck, everything is here) we have access to 4 hospitals and two of those are teaching hospitals and three of them do deliver babies.

I had private insurance with my first pregnancy and had to pay a co-pay every visit as well as 10% up to $10,000 (doctor and hospital separately) and having an emergency section after almost 15 hours of pitocin induced labor wasn't cheap.

Compare our doctors to doctors in other countries and tell me who has the best.

Making it illegal won't stop it.

I'm a nice Christian soccer type mom, and even I know some methods.

legal and we have to work with what we have for now..

I also said elsewhere (cannot remember if I said it here) that I am not one of those who stands outside clinics and threatens women and doctors...I said if it were to come to a vote I would vote to make it illegal. BUT I would support methods of dealing with the issues that entailed.

would you be in favor of that option? Boys could freeze some sperm and then get snipped. That way should some woman ever agree to have their child, she could. In the meantime she could enjoy sex without fear.

although...then i wouldn't ever have to worry about getting someone pregnant, except by freak accident or intentionally....
O.o...

countless women who will seek an illegal abortion if it is made illegal?

What makes her life any more important than the child, the fact that she's already here living and breathing?

You want to talk about a choice, okay, lets give the child a choice too. Sure you're sitting there reading this thinking I'm a nut case, but that is because you are not seeing the child as a life. I do. And since I see it as a life and want to protect it, you would label me a nut, that I want to legislate morality and turn away without even considering for one moment that we, all of us were once just like that life.

that the death of the mother AND the loss of the fetus inside her is better than just aborting the fetus?

I don't think you're a nut case, just a bit idealistic about your own morality.

>>The reason being we believe it's taking the life of another. That "medical procedure" has someone else involved...the life that is being taken, and that is who we would protect.<<

First, let me say, I am PERSONALLY against abortion and can categorically say I would never have one.

POLITICALLY, I believe EVERY woman should be free to make that choice for herself.

As for taking the life of 'another', I believe that is the root of where the pro-lifers run off the rails.

As a woman who has given birth, I believe deeply that until that fetus is viable without the host organism, it cannot be qualified as 'another'.
Therefore, it is my strong belief that it is a medical procedure which should remain between a woman and her doctor, and should not include some holier-than-thou, sanctimonious opinions of 'others'.

You are free to make that distinction for yourself, but not for me.

-chef-

chefgirl gets to the heart of the matter. if you don't like abortion, don't have an abortion...simple.

I was beginning to think everyone here had lost their ability to reason.

-chef-

While I, personally, am against abortion, I certainly do believe it is a matter of choice. Criminalization is not an appropriate solution.

Thanks to you 2 for a dead-on statement.

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

is all that should count.

No one should ever make that decision for any individual woman.

an 'old' read............"Our Bodies, Our Selves"

When you refer to "anti-abortion activists here at DU" I'm sure you're referring to people like me, since I've posted several articles calling for revisiting the abortion issue.

I am not, however, an "anti-abortion activist." Nor are most who share my views. We are Democratic activists. We are loyal, outspoken, lifelong Democrats. We believe the party has strayed from its need to emphasize responsibilities, not just rights, and in the process has lost the allegiance of many of its one-time supporters.

Nobody here on DU is "advocating federal legislation to outlaw abortions." If you're talking about Roe v Wade, it doesn't deal with federal law. It effectively says to the states: you may not prohibit abortion "on demand" (meaning without the extenuating circumstances of rape, incest or endangerment of the life of the mother) within the first three month of conception. Its reversal would simply permit state laws to hold sway. Most red states prohibit abortion on demand during the first trimester. Most blue states do not.

But we're not even addressing Roe, since that's not even in our hands to decide. In fact, Roe has the Republicans by the short hairs right now. If they kill it to satisfy the fundies, they lose their strongest issue. If they don't kill it, the fundies will--presumably--be infuriated.

Nobody on DU--NOBODY--is calling for "crisp and clear and new federal laws prohibiting abortion." That's probably why you've "never seen one, not one actually address this issue." Federal laws are not the issue. Not at all. Period.

Now follow closely, please. Don't give up yet. You've gotten this far, and if you want to really know what's going on, please read a little further.

What most of us are saying is that Democrats are seen by many Americans as believing abortion is a blanket right, with total indifference as to any commensurate responsibility.

And maybe they have a point.

Many liberals I know refuse to even acknowledge that at some point during a pregnancy, abortion is murder.

Many liberals actually believe the current law permits abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy. And they think that's fine.

That's the kind of mindless amorality that people have a perfect right to be upset about. It's that kind of ignorant, licentious, willful indifference to moral issues that has driven so many out of our party. How on earth can any conscientious "liberal" possibly ignore the fact that at some point the fetus becomes a human being, and human beings may not be killed at the whim of any other person?

So what do we want our party to do? Several things.

We need to make clear that we oppose abortion after the point at which the fetus is deemed--by law--to be human (currently at 3 months). We need to outspokenly support laws against partial birth abortion EXCEPT when the life of the mother is at stake. We need to support parental notification UNLESS there is no convenient, affordable mechanism for judicial exception in the case of incest or an abusive parent.

We need to make clear that no roll-back of Roe should take place in any community unless there is adequate sex education in the public schools and access by teens to birth control measures.

These are just a few of the steps we can take to make clear we DO care about the morality of this issue; about responsibilities and establishing limits. That alone will draw back to our side many religious people who have given up on us because our party's deliberate silence on these issues is seen as willful moral indifference.

You don't understand it, I get that, but you've already bought in to their propaganda.

Approximately 90% of abortions happen in the first 3 months. That's when the "abortions on demand" happen.

After that, abortions occur for medical purposes. I can't say 100% because nobody can ever say 100%. But for the most part, it's true. It isn't a question of "abortion on demand" after the first trimester. It's a question of a woman and her doctor making her medical decisions. I don't want one woman's life put at risk because her doctor is afraid his decision to recommend an abortion will be misconstrued and he'll be termed a murderer.

The right has framed the debate and convinced you murder is taking place. It isn't.

That's the position of abortion rights advocates.

Try thinking about this, just once, please:

If, as you imply, you have no problem with the current policy of "abortion on demand" being limited to the first trimester, then what is wrong with saying so loudly and clearly? That's one of the things I called for

Do you have any idea how many DUers are totally ignorant of that simple concept? Do you have any idea how many liberals actually think abortion is and should be legal at all times during a pregnancy? Try asking around. You'll see what I mean. Shouldn't we expect better from our side?

If you have no problem with restricting "partial birth abortions" (except when the life of the mother is at risk) then what is wrong with saying so loudly and clearly? That's another thing I called for.

Instead of making clear to all that we in fact DO have a conscientious and morally respectable grasp of the issue, and we DO believe in rational restrictions, too many of us deliberately and defiantly give the impression that we won't tolerate any limits at all.

The world doesn't work that way. We live in a nation of laws. All of us have to comply with the law. That's the way it is. By suggesting a pregnant woman is above the law and only has to answer to herself, or by relying upon the "slippery slope" argument, rather than rationally discussing the issue, we contribute to the impression that we liberals are amoral and indifferent to the responsibilities involved in parenthood.

It should not be too much to ask that my fellow liberals look at this from the standpoint of somebody else for once, rather than just from our own selfish pov. There is way too much at stake. Too many good and decent people have deserted our cause over what they perceive to be our "anything goes" morality when it comes to abortion.

I said, "abortion on demand" ONLY happens in the first trimester. It's comical to me, actually, that the pro-lifers completely ignore the fact that the sluts and whores are getting their willy-nilly abortions in the first trimester. (apply sarcasm please)

AFTER that, abortions occur for medical purposes, which is why I DO NOT support limiting them at all. It has nothing to do with any slippery-slope bullshit. It has to do with women and doctors making medical decisions. I don't want any woman's life or health put at risk because a doctor is afraid to be charged with murder because he does a late-term abortion.

You've bought into the phony "partial-birth" issue, which isn't an issue at all. Women are not getting late term abortions, willy-nilly. It's getting all in a tizz over something that doesn't happen. We used to have empathy for women who had complications late in pregnancy, it used to be a horrible tragedy. Now we label them murderers. All because the right wing idiots wanted to create a political hot button issue and people like you lapped it right up.

You said, and I quote:
"Approximately 90% of abortions happen in the first 3 months. That's when the 'abortions on demand' happen. After that, abortions occur for medical purposes. I can't say 100% because nobody can ever say 100%. But for the most part, it's true."

My response to that was:
"If, as you imply, you have no problem with the current policy of "abortion on demand" being limited to the first trimester, then what is wrong with saying so loudly and clearly?"

Now you say:
"I said, 'abortion on demand' ONLY happens in the first trimester."

And I ask you again:
"If, as you imply, you have no problem with the current policy of "abortion on demand" being limited to the first trimester, then what is wrong with saying so loudly and clearly?"

You say "partial birth" is a phony issue. I don't deny that. But I ask you again, if you're opposed to it, then what is wrong with saying so loudly and clearly?"

I'll wait for your answer.

Please note: I will not respond to insolence and disrespect. Instead I take that as an indication the other party doesn't really want to discuss the issue, they just want to rant.

I think both of you are saying similar things but using rhetoric. We have to agree on some core rights:

Dems support abortion to protect women's health or life

Dems support women's right to choose until the fetus is viable outside the womb.

Dems support education

Dems support womens' economic opportunity.

I think we all can agree on thse. Then let's debate the rest.

But please, if you are choosing to debate women's reproductive rights, please don't use right wing rhetoric. It's not partial birth abortion. It's not really a question of abortion on demand. Let's reframe the debate.

>>Too many good and decent people have deserted our cause over what they perceive to be our "anything goes" morality when it comes to abortion.<<

I find it unendingly fascinating how easy it always seems to be for someone without a uterus to throw out the 'morality' straw man when it comes to abortion. You do understand that there are plenty of pregnancies which occur, which women feel the need to terminate, under fully accepted 'moral' conditions, do you not?

I, for one, don't give a shit what those so called good and decent people think of my morality for supporting a womans right to choose....and frankly, neither should you.

If they were really so good and decent they would realize that NO woman makes this decision lightly, even those of the most questionable 'moral' fiber. If they were truly so good and decent they would learn to stop trying to regulate and legislate everyone elses 'morality'. If they can't manage that, then, IMO, the Democratic party is/was the wrong place for them anyway.

It is, quite simply, none of anyone elses fucking business if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, save that of the baby's father, and even then, IMO, his input does not carry as much weight as hers. I will allow that it is probably the touchiest of areas, 'morally' speaking, but that is my personal opinion about a father's rights.

To all pro-lifers, especially the ones who base their opinions on 'moral' issues, I say "You stay out of my uterus and I'll stay out of yours, thank you very much".

-chef-

Listen to yourself:
"It is, quite simply, none of anyone else's fucking business if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, save that of the baby's father..."

That's just plain false, and only your blind fury keeps you from seeing that you are absolutely wrong.

A pregnant mother is in a unique situation. She carries in her womb an entity which becomes at some point a human being. The government in all civil societies, is morally and legally bound to protect the lives of all human beings.

Therefore at some point during the pregnancy abortion (absent mother's health issues) is the equivalent of murder.

Why do you defiantly refuse to acknowledge that truth?

I'm no pro-lifer. What I DO care about is winning elections. And I'm sick and tired of people I've known for decades telling me they can no longer support our party because we are callous and morally indifferent over abortion.

I don't even try to argue anymore. I just read stuff like what you've just written and I realize they are absolutely right.
You actually think a pregnant woman only has to answer to herself! You actually think she has no moral or legal responsibilities at all!

It is incredible that such thinking comes from people who claim they are LIBERALS!

>>You actually think a pregnant woman only has to answer to herself! You actually think she has no moral or legal responsibilities at all!<<

I believe what I said was that the pregnant woman has only to answer to the baby's father, and when YOU and all those so called 'good and decent' people (or the fat white men in government who oppose my right to choose) share the responsibility for feeding, clothing, raising, teaching and worrying over the child I might be carrying, THEN and ONLY then will I feel like I have some responsibility to answer to anyone other than the baby's father if I were to choose to have an abortion.

As for legal responsibilities, right now I have EVERY legal right to choose an abortion, and I intend to fight people like you every step of the way to ensure that it remains that way.

You made MY point for me very succinctly on another level, however.
You wrote:
>> She carries in her womb an entity which becomes at some point a human being. The government in all civil societies, is morally and legally bound to protect the lives of all human beings.<<

You are absolutely right. I couldn't agree more. That entity will "AT SOME POINT" become a human being, but not until it is fully viable outside the womb. You're the one who knows so much about the law, right? Why did you conveniently dismiss THAT one?

You and I are NEVER going to see eye to eye on this because to you its the "cause du jour" by which you see an avenue to possibly winning more voters, while I, on the other hand, will have to live with the consequences of some idiotic, reactionary position you've taken while NEVER EVER having to face the consequences of it yourself.

I say again, stay out of my uterus and I'll stay out of yours. Oh, wait, thats right...
Go sell it somewhere else.

-chef-

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

nor does she owe the religious right or politicians who want to use her to score morality points. she is not public property anymore than you are, nor are the contents of her body owned by anyone except her. you argument is disgusting...and hardly "liberal." a preganant women is still in charge of her own destiny, just as you are.

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

the curent law provide sufficient protections, so save your ridiculous sanctimony for the people who want to overturn roe vs. wade.
no woman needs a lecture from you about her body, or the contents therein, and if you still think so, perhaps there is something else coloring your "liberal" beliefs.

It's no "strawman" when the people I'm addressing--and perhaps you as well--refuse to acknowledge publicly that there are in fact responsible limits which they (will|will) not abide by; limits accepted by the voting public at large, but which many "liberal" extremists feel utter, arrogant contempt for.

The child in the uterus is more than just the "contents" of some woman's body. At some point it becomes a human being. Nearly all women will gladly concede that, just as nearly all men--even stupid, red-state white guys--will concede the man has a duty to support and protect the child he fathers.

But that's also precisely the point that many radical "liberal" women defiantly refuse to concede. Their refusal is evidence of the absurd amorality they try to promote as "liberalism."

Sadly, our party "leaders" seem to fear such loud, ludicrous, extremist, irresponsible voices.

even for those with lurid imaginations and hysterical ravings. concede control of my body to rw assholes...never. perhaps if it was a concession you'd have to make...
alas, it's easier for "liberals" to concede the rights of certain others than their own...just another consequence of certain priveleges.

You just more or less, by implication not outright admission, ever so stealthily, backasswardly but nonetheless actually acknowledged that you respect and abide by legal limits on the "right" to have an abortion! Congratulations!

You have done what none of the other posters would do.

True, you did it kicking and screaming, careful--ever so careful--to couch it within a shroud of spitting hellfire and defiance. But you did it nonetheless.

It's a good first step.

Some day maybe a person like you might actually be able to stand up at a Democratic convention and say loudly and clearly for all the world to hear:

"We Democrats believe in abiding by responsible limitations on abortion. We oppose any abortion after the point at which, under the law, the fetus becomes a human being--unless it is to save the life of the mother.

"We are happy to join with responsible Republicans in banning what some call 'Partial Birth Abortion.'
"Why can't we pass this ban right now?
"I'll tell you why.
"It's because Pro-Death Republicans are standing in the way.'
"Pro-Death Republicans are blocking an agrement.

"It's long past time for Pro-Death, right wing extremists to agree that if there are complications, the mother's life life must be saved first, wherever possible.
"It is time for all Republicans to stop their Pro-Death obstruction and join with us in passing this measure.

"We Democrats believe in life. We have a long tradition of preserving life wherever possible.
"-- Life in the womb--with access to health care for both mother and baby, whether or not they can afford it.
"-- Life for the infant with affordable health care for both rich and poor.
"-- Life for the toddler with Head Start wherever needed.
"-- Life for the child with a good education in decent schools.
"-- Life for all children everywhere, free from hunger and bombs and bullets and disease.
"We Democrats are pro-life not just before birth. We are pro-life throughout the lifetime of all God's children.
"Life is what we Democrats are all about!"

though he continues to invoke you, he still is in denial about doing so
:nopity:

As in:

Democrats are amoral hedonists.
Liberals are anti-family. They despise your Christ!
Look at how they promote abortions as birth control.
They are baby killers.
They have no regard for human life whatsoever.
Liberals have no moral boundaries.
They are afraid to say no to their own people.
They have no regard for God's gift of life.
They are anti-life, secular humanists.
Democrats detest the 'culture of life.'
To Democrats, families and children are mere nuisances.
When have you ever heard a Democrat speak out against abortion?
Never. They only know how to promote murder of the unborn.
Democrats are even opposed to banning partial birth abortions.
Can you believe that! Take a look at these photos.
Look at this mutilated fetus; a baby whose life was taken by a sinful, Democrat woman late in her pregnancy. Look at this murdered little child!
Democrats did this. They killed this child! They hate life!

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

Merlin wrote:
"The child in the uterus is more than just the "contents" of some woman's body. At some point it becomes a human being."

1. It is not a "child" until it leaves the womb. Until then, it is a "fetus". If you look it up, you'll find I'm correct.

2. My eggs at some point have the potential to become a human being, as do your sperm. That doesn't mean they are entitled to legal protection. Only human beings are under our laws. If you seek to change this and give protection to cells that may eventually form a human being, then I hope you're prepared for the consequences to your gender as well.

3. "At some point it becomes a human being." Are you sure about that? I believe the more correct phrasing would be "At some point it may become a human being.", keeping in mind stillbirths, miscarriages and other natural, apparently god-sanctioned forms of abortion. Conceiving and carrying a fetus in your womb does not guarantee that you will bear a child.

He just tries to dress it up in liberal clothing. But there are some ugly things that can't be dressed up. And his no-choice policy is one of them. It's hideous that an obviously educated man would choose to insist that women are vessels in service to a glorious "compromise" to win elections. I just wish Merlin (it grinds on me that he's appropriated the name of one of our greatest archetypes) would answer the OP's question: WHAT SHOULD THE PENALTY BE FOR WOMEN AND DOCTORS WHO ENGAGE IN ABORTION?

See how quick they change their tune.

Anti-choice men should emasculate themselves as a gesture of compassion for all the dead fetuses. :D

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

provides the protections they keep screaming about? makes you suspect they don't know :wtf: they are talking about.

It doesn't matter if they understand the current law, in my experience, all that matters to them are the emotional issues they bring to the discussion.
You can discern THEIR emotional issues by how often they resort to attacking another person's 'morality', and making accusations of 'ignorance' and 'insolence'. (that was my favorite one, by the way)

They also are not in it for ' equal protection under the law', which you correctly point out, exists already.

Here's my solution:
NO ONE without a fully verifiable uterus should have any decision making power on the issue of abortion.
To be perfectly fair, I am willing to abdicate a woman's right to decide whether or not castration should be the sentence for a man who impregnates a woman and refuses to take responsibility for the resulting child.

Considering that women are the majority in this country and we, supposedly, live by 'majority rules', I realize I am giving ground on legislation that would probably stand a VERY good chance of being passed, but I'll make the sacrifice. :eyes:

Makes about as much sense as some of the other arguments I've read in this thread, no?

-chef-

about as fair as someone without a uterus claiming to know more about pregnant women than pregnant women know about themselves. if i called that argument misogynistic, i am sure more insults would be forthcoming, but if the shoe fits...

Well, now you're just being insolent. ;)

-chef-

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

Merlin,

I agree that "choice" and "autonomy" as arguments do not speak to anyone who is not already pro-choice. I think we need to reframe this in terms of our progressive values. We support our policies because we value empathy, responsibility, the health and safety of women and children, honesty in problem solving. There is much more morality in our position than in the pro-life position.

1. No woman wants to be pregnant when she does not have the means to raise a child. Because we value empathy and responsibility, we treat that woman with empathy and we take responsibility to help ensure that we reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies. Because of our values we take it upon ourselves to help reduce human suffering.

2. We value honesty and effective problem solving. Preventing pregnancies is the most effective way to reduce abortions. Legal restrictions do not reduce abortions, the only increase the number of women dying. We support the policies that are effective in preventing pregnancies.

3. Becaue we value life, we find it inappropriate to deliberately increase unintended pregnancies, STDs, and abortions to serve as punishment for women having sex we don't approve of. This is what the pro-lifers are doing and it is immoral.

4. Earlier abortions are safer, less difficult, and more ethically desirable than later term abortions. That's why we support measures that allow women having abortions to obtain them earlier (support funding for women who need to delay in order to save money, oppose waiting periods, oppose parental consent because it results in more later term abortions, support earlier prenatal diagnosis when possible). Our first goal is preventing pregnancies. Second is making sure abortions occur earlier.

5. As progressives we support what is most effective in preventing pregnancies and lowering abortion rates. Comprehensive sex ed (about contraception and abstinence), access to contraception and emergency contraception, and improving social safety nets and community assets so it is easier for women to raise their children in healthy environments.

6. Second trimester abortions to protect the life and health women are still necessary. As are abortions for fetal conditions. These decisions are best made by physicans who are trained in pregnancy complications and have managed life-threatening medical situations. To have these decisions made by lawyers with no knowledge about the issue is ill-advised and dangerous.

7. Reveal that pro-lifers oppose *all* of the measures that are effective in preventing pregnancies and abortions They support measures that increase pregnancies and abortions and impair the safety and health of women. Their policies *increase* the risk of preg, abortion, STDs, and make the consequences of each more deadly. They do this because they feel that punishment is necessary to teach the lesson that nonprocreative sex is wrong. Increasing abortions, to them, is a justifiable loss in teaching this lesson. Increasing abortions and increasing deaths of women as a tool is not acceptable to progressives because we value life more than that.

8. Furthermore, the pro-lifer positions are not founded on the science and usually founded on lies and misrepresentations. Honesty would be harmful to their cause. I believe people have the right to argue against abortion. However, they do not have the right to lie about what the science shows to bolster their cause.

Democrats do far more to reduce pregnancies, prevent abortions, protect the health and safety of women, and use honest and scietifically accurate information to back their policies. Why would anyone who cares about the issue of abortion *not* vote for Democrats?!

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

"The government in all civil societies, is morally and legally bound to protect the lives of all human beings."

Nice try.

Yes, they are bound to protect human beings... and the judge in Washington state who denied a pregnant woman a divorce from her abusive husband (the baby isn't even his) is protecting her how? Until the 1970's, it was legal for a man to beat his wife black and blue and there was nothing in place, govermentally speaking, to protect that woman's life and safety.

You might recall that the philosophy BS you keep wanting to bring up is what Roe left up to a woman her conscience and her Dr.
It's not a part of the equation, because it can be kicked around endlessly with no resolve.
The question comes down to what is reasonable?
Is it reasonable to force a woman surrender a large percentage off her bodily resources in order to serve as life support for an entity that she has no interest in seeing be born?
Is it reasonable to force her to do this for something that has little to no chance of survival?
When people ignore the woman and only factor in the fetus and begin to consider a philosophical debate on the value of human life of it to the complete exclusion of the woman who may be someone's mother, daughter, granddaughter, wife, friend, etc - they have lost all perspective and fallen into fetal worship.

I want no one to respond to my post. I just went through an abortion thread and I'm tired. Its not easy being "the different one"

I am only owning up to what I believe and have posted and I am only answering the original posters question.

First, I think the news story has nothing to do with the issue.

Yes, I feel abortion should be illegal except for the life of the mother.
Yes If doctors do it, when its illegal I think there should be consequences.
If women have illegal abortions I think there should be consequences

If someone believes abortion is murder then there should be consequences for murder.

Please do not start another abortion topic from this post. If you want to know what I have posted on this issue just search it, I don't want to go over the whole thing again.

Thank you

Being told that if I become pregnant, I should be forced to carry the baby against my will. I bet it would be a whole lot different than having your opinion that you should make that decision for other people debated. It's not easy being told that you have no say and should not have any say about other people's medical decisions about their own bodies? Too bad.

Instead of calling it a fetus, or unviable tissue mass, or parsite. We all of us walking, breathing, living, were once as they are.

You know what...there shouldn't even need to be this discussion. Morally, everyone should see abortion for what it really is...legalized murder.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now i don't have to think at all. I'll just think whatever Mabelline tells me to think.
The Professor

You can believe whatever you want. I will never believe that an egg and a sperm are not sacred, then suddenly become sacred when they join into a blastocyst. Blastocysts pass with a woman's menstrual cycle by the millions and nobody bats an eye. So don't tell me that just because a woman chooses to remove that same blastocyst, it's murder.

Had to look that one up (never heard of it)...had heard of blastoshpere or blastula..you meant the stage of an embryo before it implants, right? We are talking about a natural process there. Though I think there are birth contorl pills that can keep implantation from happening (if memory serves).

Yes, there are those among us pro-lifers that believe life begins at conception.

Though I have never heard that a womans body releases millions of eggs every month...biology class missed that one...gotta do more research on that.

Not sure, but isn't it like a week before women can even know they are pregnant...after implantation?

It can't be not life on one day, then magically life the next day. And if you're saying that it can, then that's all the more reason to leave that decision for the individual to make.

I never said millions of eggs are released from one woman every month. I said millions of blastocysts pass with women's menstrual cycles and nobody bats an eye. Clearly the issue of life is subjective and highly politicized.

left on it's own the unfertilized egg will pass with the menstral cycle, likewise left on it's own the sperm will (if ejaculated into the woman during intercourse) die and pass with the cycle also, but if the egg and sperm meet they do create a new life. It probably has a lower chance of making it to the uterus and implanting than we all realize.

IMO it is a case of the most basic of cells that make life, and when they meet it's a miracle in the works. The cells are from a living man and a living woman..so in a sense they are alive, but not a life unto themself. All a sperms function is is to find that egg and inseminate, all the eggs function is is to be there to receive the sperm... the odds of that happening are great, but when they do it is a new life. (To me anyway..)

Again what you were saying with the millions of blastocysts thing is nature taking it's course, not the unnatural process of abortion, they are not the same.

Funny how we make choices to use medical science to interfere with death, or our health, all the time. But if a woman chooses to use medical science to interfere with her own death or health, it's a sin against nature. That's what women do with late term abortions. You want to get in a tizz over "abortion on demand", that would be the abortions in the first 3 months. That's the hypocrisy of the "anti-liberal murdering babies with partial birth abortion" crowd. We want to save lives, you're so confused you don't even understand which lives are truly at stake.

the one that cannot speak for itself. If you want to save lives start with those who cannot ask for help.

IMO those who are confused are the ones that think it is okay to murder another human being and use the argument that it someones choice.

I am so weary of all these arguments for abortion due to the risk to the womans health...

These are the statistics on abortion;
(Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion, U.S.)
Source-http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

See how small the percentage of women having them for the risk to their life...2.8%..3.3% risk of the fetus not living..

The argument could be made if these numbers were higher, why not just admit the real reasons for wanting to have it? Women want to go out and party hardy and have no care to the responsibility and consequences of their actions...really mature.

"Women want to go out and party hardy and have no care to the responsibility and consequences of their actions...really mature. "

But again, how do you know that? There's statistics, but can you be certain which set of statistics applies in a specific individual already-born female human being's situation? You don't. Grab yourself a set of percentile dice and roll them. That's about what chance you have of knowing the exact situation of any given woman unless she confides in you.

Any time some third party tries to decide that yes, a woman can abort given the situation, that third party is making the choice. Not the woman.

Abortion is a choice. The difference is who is making that choice. I say it should be the woman.

>The argument could be made if these numbers were higher, why not >just admit the real reasons for wanting to have it? Women want to go >out and party hardy and have no care to the responsibility and >consequences of their actions...really mature.

Mabelline,

You are incorrect in your assessment. Have you spoken to these women?

Women use contraception to delay having a child until they are in a position to provide a stable environment for their children. Women space their pregnancies so they can maximize the attention and resources they can provide for each child. Unintended pregnancy is a threat to the ability to take care of their existing children and a threat to the ability to take care of the children she will have in the future.

It is an enormous responsibility to be a good parent. It is because women recognize this, value children, and want to be the best parent they can be that they use contraception to prevent pregnancies and turn to abortion if pregnancy occurs when they are unable to provide for a child. This is why they will risk their lives to do so even when abortion is illegal: Defending their children.

It is responsible to value the importance of parenting. It is responsible to plan and delay pregnancies until one can properly provide for one's children.

Let's take a more realistic look at these reasons for abortion. This comes from a deep respect for what a raising a child entails and the desire to be a good parent and provide the best environment for one's children:

>* want to postpone childbearing.
Why? because they do not feel that they are able to provide at this time for what a child needs.

>cannot afford a baby.
Unable to provide financially for a child.

> have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
Unable to provide a two parent environment to raise a child.

> too young
Do not feel that they are mature enough to be as good a parent as they would like to be.

> a child will disrupt their education or career.

And the education and career is so that they can be better providers for their children.

>want no (more) children.

Because having an additional child would impair their ability to care for their existing children.

It is unlikely that we will be able to change a woman's desire to be a good mother and provide for her children. It is possible to help her control her fertility (with access and education about contraception). It is possible to improve the resources that make it easier for all parents to raise children.

How the hell is that women wanting to "party hardy"? A woman brings a baby into the world that she can't afford to feed, seeks government assistance to feed said baby, and she's called a welfare bum. People say "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em". (I know you have to have heard that little catch-phrase before.) So which is it gonna be? The women having abortions because they can't afford another mouth to feed DO care about their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions...it just turns out that they're apparently choosing the wrong definition of "responsibility".

One thing that's rarely mentioned by the anti-abortion group in these abortion discussions is that most of the reasons women have abortions are related to things in society that need to be changed. If the so-called pro-life contingent wants fewer women to have abortions, they have to support social welfare programs that allow women to afford to keep their babies. They have to stop stigmatizing women who have babies too young. They have to support programs in the workplace that don't make it so difficult for women to have babies and careers. Take a look at the countries where abortion is legal but the rate is lower and you'll see that they have the programs in place that aren't so at odds with motherhood. The US pro-life movement is essentially telling women "keep your baby, accept whatever criticism you get for not doing it at the so-called 'right' time, and do it without any help whatsoever". That's not going to solve the problem.

edit to fix html

That is just about how I see it.

I have two boys and even though we would love to have a girl we don't think we can afford anymore, had my tubes tied. Responsible decision?

I cannot believe everyone thinks abortion can be justified by saying it's okay for a woman to go get pregnant and have an abortion because she cannot afford another, good grief, a woman knows most of the time when she has sex if she can or cannot afford another mouth to feed, and I am sure almost every woman who has sex knows that sex makes babies.

I also disagree with the pro-choice movement when the womans health is used as justification for the argument for abortion...as I posted before the percentage of abortions based on that reason is low...and IMO not a good argument since it IS so low.

(Dunno how to quote, so used the *..)
*One thing that's rarely mentioned by the anti-abortion group in these abortion discussions is that most of the reasons women have abortions are related to things in society that need to be changed. If the so-called pro-life contingent wants fewer women to have abortions, they have to support social welfare programs that allow women to afford to keep their babies. They have to stop stigmatizing women who have babies too young. They have to support programs in the workplace that don't make it so difficult for women to have babies and careers.*

You will find that upon discussion, I do agree with this. I also, as I told LisaLL, support better sex/reprodctive education, done by both the school system (would rather see the kids separated for this) and the parents.

Mabeline,

It's time to reveal your sources. You mention frequently the stereotyped bad women who face unintended pregnancies: irresponsible, partiers, ignorant, immature, selfish. Where do you get this information? Have you talked to these women? Do they exist? Or are you getting your information from some dishonest "pro-life" organizations with a vested interest in promoting these mythical stereotypes to make it easier to blame, judge and punish women. Perhaps seeing situations and women realistically would result in some empathy rather than hatred and contempt.

Please, reveal where you get your information and I will reveal where I get mine:

I am a board certified physician who cares so deeply about the health and safety of women and children that I dedicated 8 years of my life to the rigorous training of medical school and residency to best learn the science, medicine, and clinical care of how best to ensure the health and safety of people. I'm trained to evaluate the strength of evidence in research and read textbooks, journals, and scientific evidence about these issues. I've counseled hundreds of women with unintended pregnancies, managed complications of pregnancies, taken care of life-threatening situations, understand fetal conditions and outcomes as well as prematurity, viability. I've delivered over 900 babies, I've read the research on maternal mortality and on the policies of many countries on these issues.

When I talk about the reasons women choose abortions it is from experience from hundreds of patients and the research on the subject.
When I talk about what is effective in preventing abortions, that legality doesn't impact abortions rates and that illegality causes more women to die it is from extensive research and understanding.
When I told you about women risking their lives with their pregnancies--those were patients that I met.
When I say that "pro-life" organizations distort the science and medical information it is because I know what the real information is and can recognize when it is misrepresented.

I believe that many of your opinions are based on some misinformation that you have been given. Be careful what you get from "pro-life" organizations, websites.

but have never found a desire to go back.

The experiences I have seen of abortion are mostly family members who have had abortions. I will not name names, they have their right to privacy. One never wanted kids, was and is a "redneck babe" and had frequent unprotected sex with many guys. I don't know an exact number for her beyond one (her sister said 2). She's been married for quite a few years now and still has no kids, I haven't ask her why. Another cousin is plain and simply a whore. She will have as much and as many men as she can, again using no protection...she had two children by a married man after her first two (rumor was 3) abortions, simply to try and break a marriage up so she could have the husband..she did use abortion as her birth control. Another cousin, well her I simply cannot figure out. I myself had infertility problems for many (13) years and that gives one a very healthy respect for being able to conceive and a big reason for not supporting abortions. For some reason we finally did conceive and I have 2 children now.

In high school, of course this was in the early 1980's, it was nothing for a girl to either disappear for a few days/upwards of a week for an abortion and then there were the girls who would simply disappear to resurface months later. Of these I have personal knowledge of some others were rumor.

I would be a sad individual if I took my oppinion from some web site, wouldn't I? I have always tried to base my oppinions on my beliefs and what I learn from my life experiences as well as my Religious beliefs. I am absolutely pro-life (someone called me anti-choice here the other day, maybe so) I also don't believe in the death penalty. I believe all life is sacred and as such should be allowed to live or die as nature (some say God) intends, absolutely with the help of doctors to save as many as possible, without taking one life to save another.

In my oppinion it is a very worthwhile profession (I suspected you were a doctor.) to want to help women. My own ob/gyn is a fertility doctor first. Though they have come out and stated they don't do abortions. (I know your next question on that and I have no idea.) I realize that many of your life and professional experiences have also helped form your oppinons, and you have every right to them. We all tend to be made a little prejudice one way or another by them.

Tell me you have never met a woman who wanted an abortion just because she didn't want the child she had conceived. Then tell me that in some way that didn't effect you in some way.

M,
you are drawing your opinions on a very small number (4?)of women you do not like or respect. I am drawing opinions on the personal experience of hundreds to thousands and the research experience of populations (much larger numbers).

Women have many reasons for turning to abortions. The vast majority of women I know have had valid reasons in my opinion. Being unable to care for a child, support a child, not ready to be a good parent because they value the dedication and resources it takes to be a good parent--are acceptable to me where they are not to you. There has been a rare patient that has had a reason that I don't personally agree with their reason for abortion and that is, of course, sad. However, it, it is an extraordinarily rare event and it does nothing to invalidate the thousands of women whose reasons I feel are indicated, and the thousands of women I feel are sincere, compassionate, wise and are making the best decisions for their particular family situation.

that even though most of these are family, I have no respect for them, now. Which is a result of their decisions that put them in the position to get pregnant as well as the decisions they made after they did get pregnant. The girls in high school, never respected or particularly liked to start with.

We all garner our opinions from lifes experiences and just like mine are with 4 among many, your experiences are also from a percentage. Of all the women who get pregnant in the US you are the physician to only a percentage of them.

I don't know if you are a specialist or not but if you are wouldn't that make the percentage different, as I believe many women don't have to go to see a specialist unless there IS something wrong. I was sent to see a specialist for an in depth ultrasound while pregnant as well as a neurologist (sp?) because my OB wanted to know if and how my CMT would effect my pregnancy and/or delivery.

"The vast majority of women I know have had valid reasons in my opinion. Being unable to care for a child, support a child, not ready to be a good parent because they value the dedication and resources it takes to be a good parent--are acceptable to me where they are not to you."

If this is what they tell you, I'd say they were bull**iting you. But you have your right to believe what they say as much as I have a right not to. Curious to know how many "repeaters" you see.

I guess I'd go back to my original belief that if they don't want to find themself in the position of supporting a child they don't think they can they should not be performing the act that could possibly get them that way. My goodness, my second pregnancy was just like this, my BC gave me migraines and I quit, I knew when I quit them I could get pregnant again if I had sex with my husband, and I did at a most inopportune time, DH was a coal miner and got laid off, no real income, no ins. We had to move out of our house back to our home town and in with my family so DH could begin a new job, but to have an abortion because we were having financial difficulty never crossed my mind. That makes money more important than a human life to me.

>We all garner our opinions from lifes experiences and just like mine >are with 4 among many, your experiences are also from a percentage. >Of all the women who get pregnant in the US you are the physician to >only a percentage of them.

But I read and evaluate the research on US data as well as other countries--which encompasses millions of people.

>>"The vast majority of women I know have had valid reasons in my >>opinion. Being unable to care for a child, support a child, not >>ready to be a good parent because they value the dedication and >>resources it takes to be a good parent--are acceptable to me where >>they are not to you."

>If this is what they tell you, I'd say they were bull**iting you. >But you have your right to believe what they say as much as I have a >right not to. Curious to know how many "repeaters" you see.

What benefit would there be to lying to me? And why, if, as you believe, women take this decision so lightly, why do women risk their lives to have abortions when it is illegal? 70,000 women a year die from this, internationally. Life and death decisions are not taken lightly.

I'm going to have to take offense at your implication that my first hand, experience with 100s of women--that they are liars; that the investigations nationally and internationally about reasons for abortion are lies, and that I am gullible. I am an extremely astute judge of character. Compared to your experience, the depth of experience and level of conversations I have with patients and medical information I have researched are not in the same league as your experience with a few women (fewer, yet, that you actually spoke with). Given this *huge* discrepency in experience, I believe that it is much more likely that your interpretations of women and medical issues are incorrect.

I could not imagine telling a mechanic that I (without any training) know more about car transmissions than he/she does. I would not tell a cardiologist that without any training I know more about open heart surgery than he/she does. So, perhaps you may want to consider that I may know more about why women choose abortions than you do.

know more about taking care of women and their health than you do as a doctor, I am just cynical that so many women would tell you that they feel they cannot support a baby and that is the reason many want to have an abortion. Benefit...justification for abortion maybe, and more for themself than you. And this particular discussion has nothing to do with those who have been told that continuing pregnancies would kill them. Different subjects. I feel that you are mixing them up as benefits your debate.

What I said was you have every day contact with pregnant women, and so would have experiences and derive your opinions from that, those of us who are not doctors go out and around every day and may only see one out in town.

And, by the way, my dad is a mechanic of some 50 years experience and many, many people DO try and tell HIM what is wrong with their vehicle and how to fix it. It's his biggest pet peeve.

Also, since I live in the US and I assume you do also, please lets use statistics from the US. I have never been to another country and even though we do send monies for help to other countries they are not soverign to us and so I have a problem adding their stats to ours when we discuss issues we have governed by our own government and theirs by their own govt.

How many women in the US die a year from continuing pregnancies and not aborting when doctors tell them they should? How many die from abortions gone wrong? How many die from chidbirth where they had no problems diagnosed? In the US only please.

And gee, most often I go to the doctor and they ask me what seems to be the problem. If I may make an assumption here, most often it starts with "Tell me what's wrong and we'll go from there." Then they start looking for what causes it.

>I am just cynical that so many women would tell you that they feel >they cannot support a baby and that is the reason many want to have >an abortion.

This is what they tell me. This is what I hear. This is what I understand. This is consistent with people I know personally. This is what the research shows. You have expressed that you feel women who choose abortion are "selfish, partiers, whores, immature, etc" and you don't want to know that many are good and decent people who value parenting, families and their children. What exactly would it take to change your mind? If nothing will, then it isn't worth discussing.

> And this particular discussion has nothing to do with those who have been told that continuing pregnancies would kill them. >>>Different subjects. I feel that you are mixing them up as benefits >your debate.

Not at all. I know what I am talking about and I am not mixing them up. Perhaps you misunderstood me. You feel that abortion is taken too lightly. I am informing you that it is not. Women take this as a life and death decision. This is why when abortion is illegal, women are desparate enough to risk their lives. Women don't risk their lives for "convenience". In places where abortion is illegal it is quite risky and women will risk their lives when faced with unintended pregnancies to have abortions. 70,000 is the number of women who die each year from the *complications* of illegal abortions for all reasons, total. Deaths from abortion in the US were 200/year when illegal in 1965 and plummetted to less than 10/year when it became legal--a 95% decrease . When Romania went from legal to illegal and back to legal the maternal death rate sharply went way up and then sharply decreased in the year of policy change. Women risk their lives. The alternatives are that devastating to them.

>Also, since I live in the US and I assume you do also, please lets >use statistics from the US. I have never been to another country and >even though we do send monies for help to other countries they are >not soverign to us and so I have a problem adding their stats to >ours when we discuss issues we have governed by our own government >and theirs by their own govt.

You are arguing to make abortion illegal in the US. Our experience *now* is that it is legal. We get our information on what *will* happen if we make it illegal based on the experience in the US prior to 1970 as well as what happens in other countries that make abortion illegal.

International data and experience are important because other countries have tried what we are trying and the results are important for us to learn. We don't need to make a change x and increase the death rate when we know that whenever any country does that, it increases the death rate. I'd rather learn from others mistakes so I don't have to repeat the same mistakes. We also should learn from what works. It is important to recognize that unintended pregnancy is a *universal* problem. Abortion is a *universal* issue. This has existed for thousands of years. Making it illegal increases maternal mortality and doesn't decrease abortions. We know from country after country what measures reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce abortions and decrease maternal mortality. This is relevant. I value life too much to "play" with other peoples lives because I refuse to learn from all the relevant data.

Risk of death for a legal abortion in the US 1/100,000. Risk of death for continuing a pregnancy past 20 weeks in the US: 10/100,000. Risk of death from pregnancy-related causes in the US: 13/100,000. Risk of death from an illegal abortion in a developed nation--what would be if it were illegal in the US: 50/100,000.
Making abortion illegal in the US will increase the number of young women dying 10-50x what it is now with absolutely no benefit to anyone.

Thank you for your time, sharing your thoughts, and the discussion.

I would like actual numbers...since abortion is legal in the US and you are a doctor you should have the actual numbers for 2004 or 2003 but I ask for actual numbers, not some statistical numbers.

How many women in the US die a year from continuing pregnancies and not aborting when doctors tell them they should?

How many die from abortions gone wrong?

How many die from chidbirth where they had no problems diagnosed?

In the US only please.

And isn't any woman risking her life during every pregnancy, not just having abortions?

Thanks.

BTW-you are assuming again that I am arguing for making abortion illegal...that assumes I am out lobbying for it, I told you once before that and I am not, but would vote in favor IF it came to a vote.

doesn't having your tubes tied interfere with the birth process in an unnatural way? in an unrelated way, doesn't taking the pill or using a condom interfere with the birth process in an unnatural way?

i want to know where you draw the line between *murdering a fetus* and *not allowing the child to be conceived*...either its one way or the other, you can't have it both ways...

an egg is released and starts its journey down the fallopian tube and never meets a sperm ...is that a life or the potential for life

You're trying to nitpick, because that is all the potential for life, not a life. It didn't interfere with the natural "birth process" but the conception.

And I have no problems with using BC or condoms or anything that prevents women from conceiving if they dont want to. I just don't believe if they do decide to use them and DO get pregnant that abortion is right.

it just seems like a narrow line to me...why wouldn't potential for life include conception too? i don't agree with abortion personally, but then, it's not really my choice, is it? (i'm male)
it seems to me that when people get onto abortion (a volatile issue, true) the conversation quickly sidetracks into nuances of "potential for life" or the difference between a fetus or a baby, when the original topic is whether women should be trusted with a choice in the matter...
women (perhaps with input from their SO and doctor, or maybe their family) should be trusted to do what they feel is right by them, and what is best for the baby (in terms of the situation the baby would be born into)...

does our niggling over particulars in regards to abortion truly have any effect on the women whose choice it is?

is late term abortions and a percentage of second trimester abortions. 91% of abortions are in the first trimester and done for a variety of reasons. So that leaves 3% where the fetus is dying or will die shortly after birth. I read about one disease where the heads of the fetus fill with fluid and it's impossible to give birth and they will die anyway. At most, 3% are aborted after the 12th week for other than health reasons, but all but 1% of abortions are by the 20th week.

Which is exactly what I said. The "abortions on demand" are in the first trimester. The "partial birth murders" where women are "killing babies the day before they're born" are 1% of abortions and are done for health reasons. Outlawing them puts women's lives at risk. You might be willing to let women die for some religious notion of self-righteousness, but leave my daughter's life out of it. She's pregnant and I trust her and her doctor to make appropriate medical decisions. They don't need you or any group of politicians interfering. In fact, you've already interfered enough because should she need an abortion for some medical reason, she'll have to go 60 miles to get it. They won't do them at our local Catholic hospital unless she's literally dying. I hope she's never in a precarious situation where she has to choose whether to drive 60 miles for complete care, or seek emergency care from local idiots who might wait too long to make the proper medical decision.

Keep pushing it, you'll change your tune when it's your wife, daughter, or granddaughter who dies.

You had two complications in pregnancy that required abortion? You had a family member die because they couldn't get adequate medical care during pregnancy? What? I don't know what you're saying.

I was that pregnant daughter, wife, granddaughter with family and a doctor worried about complications..who has a physical disability... no, my pregnancies went fairly well (had GD with the last though), DID almost lose me and my first baby...


*You had a family member die because they couldn't get adequate medical care during pregnancy? *

Happened many times during past generations, my grandfather lost his first wife, mom's aunt...but medical care is so much more progressed now.

I don't know about all states now, but where I live if a woman gets pregnant and cannot afford care, she gets medicaid (my last pregnancy I had to depend on this) and good medical care as well as WIC.

And I wouldn't call almost losing you, a pregnancy that went fairly well. But if an abortion would have saved your life or preserved your health, at least you would have had the choice. Older generations didn't have the same kind of choice. With more progressed medicine, we can diagnose many pregnancy problems and prevent women from being in a position of life and death in the first place. These women should continue to be able to make the decisions whether to abort or carry a pregnancy. I lost my pregnant mother when I wasn't even 2 years old. I don't know what all complications she had or whether an abortion would have helped or if she even would have had one. I do know she didn't have that choice. I also know my daughter doesn't have that choice, were she to have some complication. She'd have to travel 60 miles to exercise her right to protect her health.

If pro-lifers want to make an issue of the 90% of "on demand" abortions that happen in the first trimester, have at it. But leave the late-term abortions for medical purposes alone. You want to risk your life to give birth, that's up to you. Let me and my family make our own decisions.

# 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.


http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

"Women want to go out and party hardy and have no care to the responsibility and consequences of their actions...really mature."

Links... data... case histories, please. Identify who you are talking about in this sentence. That is such an irresponsible, blanket-generalization.

I want to read the data and interview these women to whom you refer for myself.

But what about postpartum breastfeeding as contraception. Aside from inhibiting ovulation, it also changes the lining of the endometrium so that if an egg were to be fertilized it might not be able to implant. Is this an unnatural or a natural loss?

OMFG, it's not a "miracle," it's a basic biological process that's been happening on this planet for millions of years. Get over yourselves, humans!

I know all about that, how it almost tears your heart out every month when you sit and wait for that menstral cycle not to begin and the devisating pain when it does. Sex becomes an means to an end, a child. Couples who are infertile would do alost anything to conceive a child. Knowing they will never see their likeness in that tiny face, holding their own child close to their heart, never hearing their child say "mommy" or "daddy".. Those of us who could not afford fertility docotrs, nor adoption. And for these reasons we DO see a child as a miracle.

by a slightly more circuitous route.

Mabeline,

I am posting the response to your former post about how to *reduce* abortions. (The thread got lost). IMO, anyone who feels that abortion is murder should be putting their efforts towards learning and doing what is effective in reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions. The question comes down to whether we *prevent* abortions or we *increase* abortions and the death of women in order to punish people for having sex. Mabeline--we made some progress, so I want to answer your questions:


>I think I understand what you were asking now. I am inclined to >agree with you on the issue that there needs to be more >effective >ways to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening, and though there >are different types of bc pills and I do have >problems with some.. >if there are ways to reduce the need/want of abortions then yes, I >support that.

Excellent! We have common ground here. Here's the thing: there *are* effective ways to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening. We can prevent unwanted pregnancies as a society by supporting the policies that rely on what's effective and *educating* everyone on what does this. The policies supported by ob/gyns, pediatricians, scientists, public health specialists, credible medical groups--(the people who know how to evaluate what is effective) are the ones that prevent unwanted pregnancies and decrease abortions.

>I also think that sex education in schools needs to be separated,

That's an interesting idea. I know the content of most of the programs but don't know which ones separate girls and boys.

>Which is another thing I think needs to be done. More parents need >to open that door and talk to their children, not just preach at >them.

I agree with you 100%. Parents *definitely* need to be doing this. Communication is a two way street, so they need to be talking and listening. Every day-not just once in a while.

One problem is that many parents are not knowledgeable about these health issues--so they should be educated and informed as well to make sure they have accurate info to give their kids. Perhaps families should go together in groups to their doctors for counselling education about this and parents continue the discussion at home.

>But I believe that if a person is under age the parents need to know >if they are asking the schools for birth control. If parents are >going to be held responsible for their children, then they deserve >this respect. After 18, then they are adults and can get bc on >their own.

In an ideal world, teens would (and many do) include their parents in these kinds of decisions. However, here is the reality: When teens are told that their parents would be told if they obtained contraception, they find that the teens say that they would not obtain contraception but would continue to be sexually active. This would result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. There was a study done to evaluate the outcome when a county made it a policy to inform parents as a requirement for contraception. Before this policy, that county had the same rates in decline of teen pregnancy and abortion as the surrounding counties. After this policy, that county had *higher* rates of teen pregnancy and *higher* rates of teen abortion relative to the surrounding counties.

So, given the choice between *increasing* abortions in order to reduce some parents feeling disrespected and actually reducing abortions, my preference is doing what it takes to reduce abortions. I value life, health and safety too much to support a policy (parental notification) that would increase abortions. I don't think it is appropriate to turn this issue into a power game because the outcomes are just too important.

> (I am curious at the meaning of emergency contraception.)

Initially, the use of emergency contraception was something we offered to rape victims in Emergency Rooms. After an unprotected incident, a victim could take a medication (now we use progesterone) to reduce the risk that she would become pregnant as a result of the rape. The way it works it that the med prevents the release of an egg, delays the release of an egg by several days until after the risk of pregnancy has passed (after the sperm dies), or by impairing ovulation which renders the egg less "fertilizable". There is a theoretical risk that in rare cases a fertilized egg may not implant. If someone is already pregnant with an established pregnancy and takes it by accident, it does not harm the pregnancy.

When this med is available to women for use after a condom breaks, a rape, or an unprotected intercourse, it is a way to prevent pregnancy from occurring. One half of unintended pregnancies and one half of all abortions could be prevented in this country by improved access and education about this. I would think that anyone who *really* wanted to decrease abortions would be thrilled at the opportunity to prevent 600,000 abortions a year. Some people don't and many are spreading lies about emergency contraception.

Other facts about emergency contracpetion: It does not cause people to be more sexually active. It does not encourage more people not to use contraception. it does not cause an increase in risk taking. When available, women do not rely on it instead of continuous contraception. It is safe and it prevents pregnancies and abortions.

>I didn't mean to come across as saying sex should only be when a >woman wants to get pregnant, sorry if I sounded that way, I was >trying to say women should be informed enough to know what the >consequences of their decision could be if they decide to have sex, >with or without bc use

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that people need to be informed and given accurate information to make good decisions about their health. Everyone should know that if you have sex, it could result in pregnancy or an STD. Everyone should know that contraceptive use and condom use *greatly* reduces the risk of pregnancy and STDs. Everyone should know that most contraceptives are significantly safer than pregnancy. Everyone should know that if they plan to abstain and then don't abstain and fail to use contraception (because they were unprepared) they are at high risk of pregnancy. When people don't understand their risk of pregnancy and when they believe myths about contraception being dangerous that contributes to unwanted pregnancies.

In the same way, all people should be informed about the consequences of the policies they support---whether they increase or decrease abortions. Sadly, many National pro-life organizations are supporting the policies that increase abortions in the name of being "pro-life". As someone who is dedicated to helping women prevent unintended pregnancies and someone who knows the medicine, science and research about what is effective, I find that very upsetting.

good to see you back..I hope when this all comes down to brass tacks you and I can agree to disagree on the fact that I believe pro-life and you believe pro-choice and it's being legal/illegal...

because you have caused me to think about something I don't believe many pro-lifers (and I am sure many pro-choice people too) do, how we need to address the issues that would be the result of having no "choice" and the resulting pregnancies, as well as what to do NOW to reduce the need even though it is legal.

I saw that you addressed me a couple of times, but when I saw this I decided it would be the best one to respond.

In all cases of either unwanted pregnancies where the woman was using contraception, we who have used it are all told that no contraception is 100% effective. No matter what, whether contraception failed or whatever, you know I am and will be anti-abortion.

*But what about postpartum breastfeeding as contraception. Aside from inhibiting ovulation, it also changes the lining of the endometrium so that if an egg were to be fertilized it might not be able to implant. Is this an unnatural or a natural loss?*

Natural...

Mabeline,

Please answer my post about revealing your sources. (I think is is #126)

> you and I can agree to disagree on the fact that I believe pro-life and you believe pro-choice and it's being legal/illegal...

It's not that "I believe pro-choice" and you believe "pro-life"

My statements on what is effective in preventing loss of life and in reducing pregnancies and reducing abortion is based on extensive evidence, reasearch and clinical experience. I know how to tell the difference between what is true from what is propaganda. To call it a "belief" diminshes the truth and tries to make it even with a belief that is not based on facts or evidence.

We disagree on when abortion is appropriate or the best option available. But my information on effectiveness, legality, medical risk, safety, why women choose abortions, and outcomes of policies is fact.

I meant I would like a reply to my post #165---revealing your sources. Thanks.

are two drastically different things.

In an idealized, fantasy world full of sunshine and no bad hair days, yeah... but we don't live in an idealized, cotton-candy, fantasy world... we live in the real world and getting a grip on the 'real' serves everyone best.

What do you believe the "consequences" should be for the doctor and the woman? Should they be punished for capital murder? Should they be executed, or jailed for life. Show us the courage of your strong convictions and tell us what the penalty should be.

Yes I think there should be jail time involved. How much I'm not sure

So, in your opinion, does capital murder warrant, say, life in prison?

Cags,

It appears that to you, punishment (for sex, unintended pregnancy, abortion) is more important than actually doing what it takes to prevent and reduce abortions. Why do you choose that priority?

If you read my other posts on this issue you would know that I am all about prevention, and that is the #1 priority. This thread was specifically about illegal abortions nothing else.

Making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions. It does however increase the number of women who die. Net loss of life *increased*.

So what benefit is there to making abortion illegal?

I believe along with better prevention it would decrease net loss of life.

"It does however increase the number of women who die"
by thier own hand, no one is killing them. Its not the same as taking the life of another.

I agree to just make abortion illegal without support would increase the number of women who die.
But with prevention and support I am behind making it illegal

Cags,

>I believe along with better prevention it would decrease net loss of life.

You are wrong. Prevention decreases the loss of life. Making abortion illegal increases loss of life. Your belief is contrary to all the evidence and experience of countries making abortion illegal. Your belief is really just wishful thinking. So, if your goal is *truly* reducing the loss of life, you owe it to yourself and to society to educate yourself about what is effective, what is ineffective and what makes the situation worse.

>"It does however increase the number of women who die"
>by thier own hand, no one is killing them. Its not the same as >taking the life of another.

Given that making abortion illegal does NOT reduce abortions, your purpose of making abortion illegal seems to be to punish women, even if that means death. Since it doesn't prevent or reduce abortions, I can only conclude that you support this punishment because you think it feels good to punish people for doing something you don't approve of.

>I agree to just make abortion illegal without support would increase >the number of women who die.

Absolutely will. It would be a disaster. Hospital ERs would look like battlefields.(I know physicians who practiced medicine prior to Roe)

>But with prevention and support I am behind making it illegal.

Let's talk prevention for a moment. Most pro-lifers think they are supporting things that reduce abortions while actually doing the opposite. So, here's a list of measures that are effective. Please answer if this is what you support and oppose.

1) Increasing funding and access to family planning clinics
2) Increasing the use of the comprehensive sex ed programs that reduce pregnancies.
3) Opposing any funding or use of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs because they are not effective, use lies and inaccuracies, and withhold important information.
4) Supporting over the counter approval of Plan B emergency contraception and education about it. (This alone could prevent one half of all abortions).
5) Opposing parental consent for medical care and contraceptive use for teens
6) Making contraception cheaper or free to teens.
7) Opposing the organizations that spread lies and myths about contraception (exaggerating dangers and failure rates)--women believing these lies leads to non-use of contraception and increased abortions. These organizations are primarily "pro-life" organizations. We should all demand honesty in this debate--this should be a common goal not just a "pro-choice" goal.
8) Support all the social safety nets to improve resources for families and communities.
9) Adopt the policies used by the Netherlands because they are most effective in preventing abortions.

so I absolutely support every single one of those prevention methods.

I do not support religious pro-life organizations.

"Given that making abortion illegal does NOT reduce abortions, your purpose of making abortion illegal seems to be to punish women, even if that means death. Since it doesn't prevent or reduce abortions, I can only conclude that you support this punishment because you think it feels good to punish people for doing something you don't approve of."

This is bullshit

Repeating it over and over again does not make it true. It has nothing to do with punishment. Its only about taking anothers life thats it, period. I feel for all women who find themselves in a situation they didn't plan for, as I myself was in that situation. If I wanted to punish women I wouldn't be supportive of help for them. I wouldn't have wasted my own time and money to help support young mothers. There is just no good reason to willingly take the life of an innocent child.

Cags,

I agree that being a pro-life Democrat and supporting preventive measures puts you head and shoulders above the other kind of pro-lifers. However, why would you not consistently support the option that results in the absolute *fewest* numbers of deaths? That's what I don't understand.

>It has nothing to do with punishment. Its only about taking anothers >life thats it, period.

What do you mean, by "It's about taking another's life"? What about taking another's life? I think it follows that because they take another's life, they should be punished for it. It is the only reason to increase the risks associated with abortion by making it illegal.

Given the two choices of

A) Maximizing Prevention/Keep Abortion Legal and
B) Maximizing Prevention/Make Abortion Illegal

Choice A has the fewest number of deaths. No question.

Why would you deliberately choose an option that has more deaths?

The only answer is that you feel that increased deaths is a justifiable loss to you in order to teach women a lesson about abortion by using death as a punishment (even though it fails to teach any lesson). The Punishment aspect supercedes the goal of preventing deaths and valuing life. To me, preventing deaths and valuing life is far more important.

>If I wanted to punish women I wouldn't be supportive of help for >them. I wouldn't have wasted my own time and money to help support >young mothers. There is just no good reason to willingly take the >life of an innocent child.

I appreciate that you help young mothers. As do I. However, it sounds like you do not want to punish women for having unintended pregnancies by helping young mothers(This also sets you apart from other pro-lifers). However, it still seems like you do want to punish women for having abortions. That's the only reason that given two policies--supporting the one that results in more deaths instead of the least possible number of deaths--makes sense.

"However, why would you not consistently support the option that results in the absolute *fewest* numbers of deaths? That's what I don't understand."

Your argument says the ends justify the means. Its Ok to kill innocent babies if it means less adult women would choose to harm themselves. Thats basically what your saying. Thats not OK with me.
That adult woman's life is in her own hands. The babies is not

> Its Ok to kill innocent babies if it means less adult women would >choose to harm themselves. Thats basically what your saying. Thats >not OK with me. That adult woman's life is in her own hands. The >babies is not.

My policies result in the fewest number of abortions and fewest number of deaths. The fact that you are finding this consistent with saying it's "ok" to have abortions is because I am not choosing to punish the women who chooses this.

You are saying abortion is OK if it reduces the number of women who choose to harm themselves.

I'm saying its not OK if it harms babies who have no choice, even if it reduces the number of women who choose to harm themselves.

Cags,

We are close on many issues.
We are trying to reduce abortions. Our policies should result in roughly the same numebr of abortions. You are taking offense that because I fail to punish those women who do choose abortion (by supporting policies that increase their risk of death), you consider that the same as giving people permission which it is not. You are choosing policies that punish women for having abortions.

We are all responsible in the outcomes of what we support. My question is what do you gain by applying punishment by making abortion illegal? It's putting the principle of saying, "Oh no, that's wrong" above peoples lives.

the children who are not aborted will be gained.

And it is "giving your permission" to support keeping it legal.

Cags,

First I want to say that I appreciate your dedication to prevention of pregnancy and help with women having children. Sad to say that it is rare amongst pro-lifers but if more pro-lifers were like you we'd be in a much better place on this issue. So, thank you.

One final thing I wanted to explore about "women choosing to harm themselves" and who is responsible.

Is a woman driving a car "choosing to harm herself" because she could get into an accident and it was her choice to get into the car and drive on a highway? Does that mean that we shouldn't reduce her risk of death by making sure there are seatbelts and airbags and that everyone knows traffic rules before getting a license? If she gets into an accident, should we refuse to bring her to a hospital for medical care because she chose to "harm herself" and accepted that risk when she chose to drive? Should we support policies that prevent us from giving medical care to car crash victims because they chose to drive and therefore should accept the damages that occur? Everyone is aware of the potential risk of a car accident when they drive. They try to minimize the risks but sometimes accidents happen. This doesn't, to me, mean that we can use that as an excuse not to help reduce the loss of life. Even if they chose to drive, forgot to wear a seatbelt or ran a red light.


If a car company decides to install faulty seatbelts to save money when they know that this will increase the number of people who die in car accidents--don't they have some responsibility for this? In addition to the person who chose to drive, I also hold people who support the policies that result in more deaths as responsible. So, knowing that a policy increases the risk of people dying and suporting it anyway, to me, means they are also responsible for the outcomes.

Anyway, we will probably agree to disagree but I wanted to raise that issue anyway.

Women don't choose to have car accidents any more than they choose to have pregnancy accidents. But they accept the small risk when they choose to drive or have sex. Now if a woman got in a car accident, then got out of her car and deliberately stood in front of oncoming traffic then she chose to harm herself.

Taking a small risk does not equal choosing to harm yourself.

Everything in your post is all about prevention of the accident, and support after the accident. Everything that I support

I'd also like to thank you for having a reasonable debate, many just resort to name calling and rudeness, and you've been very respectful, and I respect that in a person

Thanks for the respectfulness.

I disagree about the analogy.

I think if we vote to remove traffic lights, allow car companies to use faulty seatbelts that we are also responsible for the deaths that occur. The same way voting to make abortion illegal will result in more deaths.

Choosing to have an abortion does not mean women choose to harm themselves. It means that they think that it is the best option for their family and will assume some risks (while hoping for the best) to defend their family. If *we* choose to make that procedure riskier, we own some of the responsibility for the increase in the number of deaths because it is an outcome of *our* actions, as well.

Saying that people who get in car accidents who didn't use their seatbelts or who drove too fast are not allowed to have lifesaving procedures because it's their own fault would be analogous to my analogy and the outlawing of abortion. Their injuries are perceived as deserved because they choose to drive too fast, leave off their seatbelt, or run a red light. That's how the argument that women who are injured by having illegal abortion are choosing to harm themself sounds to me.

Thanks for a respectful debate. Happy New Year.

Thanks for the respectfulness.

I disagree about the analogy.

I think if we vote to remove traffic lights, allow car companies to use faulty seatbelts that we are also responsible for the deaths that occur. The same way voting to make abortion illegal will result in more deaths and we, as a society hold some responsibility for that.

Choosing to have an abortion does not mean women choose to harm themselves. It means that they think that it is the best option for their family and will assume some risks (while hoping for the best) to defend their family. If *we* choose to make that procedure riskier, we own some of the responsibility for the increase in the number of deaths because it is an outcome of *our* actions, as well.

Saying that people who get in car accidents who didn't use their seatbelts or who drove too fast are not allowed to have lifesaving procedures because it's their own fault would be analogous to my analogy and the outlawing of abortion. Their injuries are perceived as deserved because they choose to drive too fast, leave off their seatbelt, or run a red light. That's how the argument that women who are injured by having illegal abortion are choosing to harm themself sounds to me.

Thanks for a respectful debate. Happy New Year.

"I think if we vote to remove traffic lights, allow car companies to use faulty seatbelts that we are also responsible for the deaths that occur. The same way voting to make abortion illegal will result in more deaths and we, as a society hold some responsibility for that."

Seatbelts and traffic lights are prevention, like contraception. I can't even relate that to abortion

"Choosing to have an abortion does not mean women choose to harm themselves. It means that they think that it is the best option for their family and will assume some risks (while hoping for the best) to defend their family. If *we* choose to make that procedure riskier, we own some of the responsibility for the increase in the number of deaths because it is an outcome of *our* actions, as well."

1 abortion = 1 loss of life. I don't think a legal abortion = a woman choosing to harm herself, just choosing to harm the child. An illegal abortion = a woman choosing to harm herself because she is assuming a greater degree of risk. You can't take responsibility away from the individual. We have to be responsible for our own actions. Women are not mindless people who can't be responsible for what they do.

"Saying that people who get in car accidents who didn't use their seatbelts or who drove too fast are not allowed to have lifesaving procedures because it's their own fault would be analogous to my analogy and the outlawing of abortion."

I think its more analogous to people that get pregnant/car accident because of irresponsible sex/speeding, and denying them support/medical care. Abortion is not like lifesaving procedures.

"Their injuries are perceived as deserved because they choose to drive too fast, leave off their seatbelt, or run a red light. That's how the argument that women who are injured by having illegal abortion are choosing to harm themself sounds to me."

No one is saying "Women deserve car accidents or accidental pregnancies because of risky behavior so we should just ignore them" Abortion is not the only choice. It is a choice when a woman decides to dangerously end the life of her child and possibly her own.

At this point, I am going to agree to disagree. I understand your point of view but do not share it. I do think I figured out where we are similar and how we differ and I just posted it.

Anyway, a goal I have is to get more self-described pro-lifers to support the preventive measures. Many of them are supporting the opposite deliberately but many are supporting the opposite out of being lied to/ignorance. Any ideas on how to educate them?

Most of thier views are coming from a religious perspective, and thats something I can't understand. Well I can understand and its hard to break through that.

I haven't looked into the stats on the rates of abortion and teen pregnancy, but I'm willing to bet that they are higher in more conservative areas where there is no sex education and access to birth control.

Maybe the plain and simple facts could make them compromise. If preventative measures were packaged without legal abortion attached I think a it could change some minds.

Cags,

>I haven't looked into the stats on the rates of abortion and teen >pregnancy, but I'm willing to bet that they are higher in more >conservative areas where there is no sex education and access to >birth control.

I'd like to work on this. Some states, like California (which refuses to accept funding for abst-only programs) had very steep declines in teen pregnancy where Texas had a very minimal decline.

>Maybe the plain and simple facts could make them compromise. If >preventative measures were packaged without legal abortion attached >I think a it could change some minds.

Well, research papers have started coming out measuring outcomes in "pregnancies averted", "abortions averted" and "health care dollars saved" which I think is promising. Title X funding has always been about family planning and money is not linked to the provision of abortions. (They are required to provide accurate information, which some pro-lifers have a problem with.) Unfortunately, pro-life groups continue to slander this.

So, I guess, more publicity about this. More outcomes measures. And somehow work on the whole "distrust of science" thing many of them have. More speaking up when these groups pass around lies.

Thanks.

Policies that result in more women dying is also the responsibility of those that support it.

By Jove I think I've got it!

Cags,

I think I have this figured out. We definitely have many similarities but a few differences that I figured out how to articulate. Again, this is meant for understanding and I certainly don't want to alienate you because I see you more as an ally than as an enemy in our goals.

We both equally value the lives of women trying to avoid pregnancy, pregnant women, mothers, and fetuses. We both value empathy and responsibility which is why we support the prevention policies and social support nets that we do--and walk the walk by helping people. It's because of the value of empathy and responsibility that we are motivated to reduce human suffering. Agree?

Our differences are:
1) Where we feel our responsibility ends when supporting policies with known outcomes.
2) How much we value the life of women who choose to have abortions.

On responsibility, If I were a hospital CEO and I supported a policy that, in order to save money, had us *not* sterilize instruments used for plastic surgery--the known outcomes would be increased injury, complications and death for those patients. Even if I said that those women were choosing to harm themselves because I felt that plastic surgery was not warranted, or wrong----it does not remove the responsibility that there would be an *increase* in injuries and death caused by *my* action of changing the policy. I feel that I am still responsible for that outcome.

In our two scenarios (prevention plus legal abortion, prevention plus illegal abortion) the only reason I see for making abortion illegal is for punishment or revenge. Perhaps a feeling that those bad women who choose to have abortions deserve to suffer more than they suffer now. I think that because you are a kind person, that even if you felt like this deep down, you would be uncomfortable about it.

So here's what I think the bottom line is:

Your empathy and responsibility encompasses everything up until a woman chooses to have an abortion and it ends there. (Maybe you can't forgive someone for making that choice?)
My empathy and responsibility encompasses everything--including and extending to women who choose to have abortions.

Fair assessment?

"In our two scenarios (prevention plus legal abortion, prevention plus illegal abortion) the only reason I see for making abortion illegal is for punishment or revenge."

Not at all about punishment or revenge, it is only about not being able to legally take the life of another. Thats it

"Perhaps a feeling that those bad women who choose to have abortions deserve to suffer more than they suffer now."

I do not feel that women who feel they need an abortion are "bad women" and deserve to suffer. I have 6 sisters, 4 of them have had abortions. I don't see them as bad women. I understand exactly what it is like to be in that situation as I have been there, 16 and pregnant. I understand the desperation and the fear involved. I just cannot justify taking the life of a child so that someone can ease thier struggles. It is only about taking the life of an innocent child, nothing else.

:thumbsup:

I detest thread drift....

You started a thread about your horrible experiences in the Metroplex. My kindergartener came home one day and said one of her friends told her John Kerry kills babies...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2880932

Now you say that abortion is murder & there should be consequences. However, your feelings of alienation come across in that thread & in this posting.

My daughter is in kindergarten, she or her friend are way to young to even comprehend what they were talking about, that was what that was about. My other post was about fundies.

protects the rights of women (to make their own healthcare decisions), and still gives YOU the option not to have an abortion? this is what i never understand: why should your beliefs determine my reproductive choices? when abortion is legal, you still have the option not to have an abortion, in accordance with your beliefs. what's with the compulsion to limit other people's options because you feel your beliefs are superior? what's so difficult about accepting that other people do not believe as you do? again...the current law doesn't "force" anyone to have an abortion, so why isn't it "common ground?" do yu really want to see women dying in back alleys again? is that really a "pro-life" position, or is it just pro-fetus?

If a person believes that abortion is murder. How can they just sit by and not at least say "Hey, I think thats wrong" when they believe babies are being murdered every day in this country.

There are people in this world that believe in female circumcision, should we just sit by and say "Oh well I don't have to do it" and do or say nothing.

Can you understand that side of it. When people really believe that something wrong is happening they will try to change it.

I understand your side of this issue because you don't see it as murder.

it's all the same...the belief that women cannot be trusted to control their own bodies and their sexuality. in countries where female circumcision is common, abortion is probably illegal. i understand your side of the issue also.

Why does everyone try to change the issue around and make it about something else. Its not about controlling women, or punishing women, or turning them into incubators.

Thats bullshit,

Its about taking the life of another, plain and simple. Thats the argument.

You (I'm not talking you specifically but your side of this issue) always change the argument to control, punishment etc, and leave out the basic argument. The taking of anothers life.

Theres no good reason to kill innocent babies

I dont support changing the laws but I would encourage life over abortion if confronted with the issue directly or in speaking with someone I know about the issues.

If I would have been alive in the age of Roe vs. Wade I may have been pro-life exclusively.

to legally take away a woman's right to choose, or restrict her to the point that it becomes very difficult to obtain, and you believe that is a choice that woman should be able to make for herself, even if you don't agree with it, then you are pro-choice by definition. You do not necessarily have to approve of abortion morally and ethically to be pro-choice by the strictest definition.

Your views in the past are irrelevant, because people can change their mind. I've become much more adamantly pro-choice through the years. In fact, growing up, I felt abortion should be made illegal, but I think that was primarily because that is how my parents felt.

Edited for grammar.

then what's to prevent that same government from forcing the woman to have an abortion (ie, China)? It's all the same when the government owns your body.

The question is not choice vs. no choice. Once there is an unplanned pregnancy, there is a choice. The question is who gets to make the choice, the woman or the government?

This issue is all about power.

You make a very valid point, lulu. Thanks.

Ever heard the term "therapeutic abortion"?

Back in the bad old days if a woman was pregnant, usually an upper class unwed girl or young woman, most often living with her parents, the family would hospitalize her, claim to the hospital that she was the victim of rape (even though in some cases the father was a man the woman loved but the family didn't want her seeing) and insist that the abortion was necessary for her mental health.

The idea here is that someone other than the woman is deciding what to do. Rape or no rape, loyal boyfriend or no loyal boyfriend, rich family or no rich family, the woman is not in control of her own circumstances and she's being forced into aborting. Some of these women wanted to go through with the pregnancy, and keep the baby.

Therapeutic abortion was not decried as publicly, perhaps because it was kept quiet, but the point is: The woman herself had no choice. Her body was someone else's property and she had no say.

Those days are not days I'd like to see again.

Right. The worst case scenarios are when women are forced into a choice they do not want. Women being forced to give their babies away in adoption when they want to keep them. Woman forced into abortions when they want to continue their pregnancies. And women forced to continue pregnancies when they feel that their best option is abortion. All three are horrific and inhumane.

The girl who was pregnant had to visit three psychiatrists - this was in a state where therapeutic abortions were legal, which was not every state - and she had to tell each shrink that if she "were forced to carry this baby to term, she would kill herself."

Then, the three shrinks would present their findings - always in favor of allowing the pregnancy to be terminated, since they'd been paid in cash - to an Abortion Board (yep, that's what it was called), and the Board would vote up or down on the abortion.

It was not always an up, by the way.

If the vote was in the girl's favor, she was quickly admitted to the OB-Gyn's hospital, where she was given general anesthesia and the abortion was performed.

After she woke up and was sent back to her room, she would then discover that she was in the psychiatric wing of the hospital and the lock on the door to her room was on the outside.

Money or not, how many of us would wish something like this on any young girl?

It's about choice. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. That's all.

I didn't know this was how it was done. Do you know of any online info for this? I try to keep links on info from the bad old days. I'm afraid when our elder women die, we're going to lose alot of this information.

I'd never wish that on anyone. This is an ugly situation all around. It's very definitely about choice, and who gets to make that choice.

As long as human rights abuses are divided into two types: human rights abuses and women's issues, this will never be resolved. Too many people still value the fetus over the woman.

n/t

I remember somebody had mentioned that here. I remember watching C-Span late at night during the primaries and saw Dennis Kucinich addressing a man who was staunchly anti-abortion. His solution was, instead of outlawing abortion, to take steps to prevent abortions from happening. He mentioned things like programs, sex education, contraception, etc. The anti-abortion person seemed to be receptive.

because I believe it's a personal matter between you, your conscience and your God.

Until all the social nets have been put back in place to eliminate the necessity for an abortion, I will fight any politician who tries to change our party's stance. And I don't see many of them weaving any nets.

I hate their arguments. The silly blah blah % of women who have an abortion earn enough to take care of a kid. Rubbish. Absolute RW freeper rubbish.

So no David. No I would not be comfortable and this is precisely why you rarely hear some of us weigh in on this cleverly manipulated issue. I just want it to go the hell away so we can get people to pay a little more attention to the verses many Sieg-heiling fundies are ignoring- verses that came directly from God such as, ya'know, that overlooked one about not stealing from the widow and the orphan.

Until that verse is respected, pfffft to the Vichy estabishment and its collaborators who have begun descending upon sites like these to cow us into silence. Your intimidation won't work.

There. The pfffftt message is from an anti-abortion and an activist but never the two words shall be married. Curt the hate vote, lose mine.

it's not going away, unfortunately. i can respect people who don't believe their views should govern other people's choices, unfortunately some aren't willing to give up the promise of the privilege to control women.

Why aren't we given any recognition at all? I'm not really a single issue voter, but there are a lot of things the Dems could do better on, but I continue supporting them because of this very issue.

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

However, I believe criminalizing it would be a huge mistake. We would see plenty of backalley abortions occur if this happened which is a very disturbing thought to me.

It is foolish to believe that women will not seek out abortions if they are made completely illegal. This will render a safe medical procedure potentially fatal. If that is not murder, I don't know what is.

I understand the frustration of those Dems who want us to ease off of our position, but this is the United States of America. We are supposed to respect the personal freedoms of others. I would like to say that if you don't like that, then you should leave, but I really wouldn't mean it.

Theorizing that an employer insisting its female bartenders wear makeup is a step towards forced childbirth is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

And various employers force men to cut their hair and/or remain clean-shaven. What horrible, nightmarish human rights disaster does that portend? :eyes:

there is nothing "natural" about makeup, and no employer should be able to force a woman to wear it.

Theater. Television. Saleswoman at the department store makeup counter. I suppose these are the first footholds of the anti-abortion movement.

McDonald's make their employees wear ugly polyester uniforms. Ugly polyester uniforms aren't "natural." By your standard, nobody should have to wear them if they don't want to.

uniforms apply to both genders, makeup does not.

If you don't like them, don't work for them. That simple.

Still doesn't change the stupidity of the argument that this is a step to forced childbirth.