Which statement best describes your view on abortion.

Remember, I'm talking specifically about abortion. Not any political agendas, personalities, or movements. As far as you are concerned, what's your opinion on abortion?

What others do with their bodies is not my business nor the governments.

What others do with their bodies is not my business nor the governments.

Absolutely!

and didn't vote in the poll because of the wording and it is about reproductive rights.

This one's non-negotiable. Although it should indeed be referred to, always, as reproductive rights.

The argument here is that the body of the baby in the womb does not belong to the mother, but is an entity of it's own. As a society this nation and many other nations for that matter have determined that fetuses are not to be killed, because they are human-beings.

The Constitution has declared that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights...right?

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...but not at the expense of others.

BTW, this issue is killing our party and is driving Hispanics, African-Americans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. from the party. How can they side with us when this crap is in our party platform. B. Clinton was right to take the middle / libertarian stance on this one.

..specifically, the quote from the constitution that doesn't exist.

Which renders your point impotent.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."


Is a fetus a person?? This argument is a real stretch....always has been. can a fetus live on its own? If you could take that fetus/baby ( whatever you choose to perceive it as) and give it to someone else to "grow/incubate" and give birth to him/her, then I'd say it doesn't belong to the mother. But the fact that it IS "attached" and dependent on her body for life, then I would say it DOES "belong" to the mother.

For a woman to make choices for her body and her life, it is not "CRAP". The decision should be up to every woman and not to anyone else. Whether she chooses to exercise that right is between her and her conscince and/or god.

It really doesn't have to be all that complicated. This whole thing is simply a major sidetrack to keep women from exercising their own power over their own bodies.

Who else but me should have ANY say over my reproductive choices concerning my body?

...only the the constitution.

The whole crux of the debate is whether women can be sexually empowered. That is why there is also a movement to restrict birth control.

Do you think in the near future that we will be able to build a "womb" in the lab sufficient enough to "incubate" a fetus? Would this change your definition of life or what is a person?

If the child/fetus is still dependant on someone or something else for survival, then I doubt it would change my definition of life which involves so much more than a technical scientific definition.

I seriously hope science doesn't get to that point. Nurturing a growing fetus or an unborn child involves much more than just a "womb" - artificial or human.

That invention would eliminate the problem. Any woman who does not want to carry a fetus past viability could then give it up and have it attached to the machine.

Are you saying we should ignore the Declaration of Indpendence?

...it isn't a document of our laws. Even if the D of Ind flat out said "no abortion" we would not be bound by it because it isn't the constitution.

The D of Ind was really only an official accounting of the reasons why we sought our independence.

It says that we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights. The government cannot legislate, or make laws that over-ride those rights.

Our constitution, the paramount law of our land, doesn't recognize a "creator" and draws its power from "we the people."

and the laws not given to the Federal governement are to go the states. All 50 states acknowledge God in their Constitution.

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ..

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ...

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .

Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine
Guidance . establish this Constitution

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ..

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government..

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ..

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts,
acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe...in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota,
grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to
perpetuate its blessings

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness .. establish this Constitution ..

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . establish this Constitution ..

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey,
grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings .

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ..

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences .

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South
Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties . establish this

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we
establish this Constitution .

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the
individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other
blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator . can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ...

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington,
grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution .

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God.

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution.

Sorry you put so much time into that post only to find it dispelled with one line.

Before the constitution, the US was a group of semi-independent states operating under the Articles of Confederation.

The U.S. Constitution styles itself the "supreme law of the land". Courts have interpreted this phrase to mean that when laws (including state constitutions) that have been passed by state legislatures, or by the (national) U.S. Congress, are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, these laws are null and have no effect.

This would include a recognition of a "creator" to justify laws that would conflict with the constitution - including (for the purpose of this thread) abortion which the Supreme court has ruled legal and constitutionally protected.

Our constitution in no way recognizes a creator and it does draw it's power from "we the people."

The US Supreme Court is charged with intepreting the Constitution.

I never said the recognition of a creator conflicts with the constitution. YOU can recognize a creator all day long.

However, the recognition of a creator in a legal sense and for the purpose of making laws is a violation of the etablishment clause.

But, just to be sure, the constitution is not "unchanging." There have been numerous amendments to it.

illegal or legal and the repercussions of that. Will making abortions illegal reduce the number of abortions or instead cause more women's death. I think if you are against abortions than work to improve sex education and make birth control available.

I voted for abortion without restrictions. I think a woman, her family, and her doctor know what's best. I don't want women going into back alleys or worse increasing infaniticide by ridiculous laws.

a million times. You say a baby in the womb is an entity of its own. I say it's not.

As far as "we are endowed with certain unalienable rights". Do we as a society give the same rights to minors as we do adults? And "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." Well, how about the life and liberty of the woman? Should she be forced to carry to full term? For me, I feel if I am going to tell someone how they must live their life then I should take responsibility for how that life turns out.

The Democratic Party should do what they think is right on the reproductive rights issue. No matter how they come down on the issue I will still support reproductive rights for women. I feel they would be making a big mistake if they choose to take this issue out of their party platform. I believe most people support reproductive rights.

"The argument here is that the body of the baby in the womb does not belong to the mother, but is an entity of it's own."

Hardly. It is still technically a parasite depending on the woman's body for life support and draining her's of nutrients, causing damage that will be with her the rest of her life. She has the right to decide to make those sacrifices freely - but no one has the right to impose them on her.

I've had an abortion and I've had two children. No one has the right to tell me, I have to sacrifice my health or my future for something that cannot live without feeding off of me. That is slavery. We already outlawed that.

First--I support women's reproductive rights

Your use of the term parasite is "technically" INcorrect.

Parasitism is an interspecific relationship (between members of _different_ species), not an intraspecific (between members of the same species) relationship.

Parasitism is distinguished from commensalism or mutualism (the other forms of symbiosis) by the negative impact of the parasite on it's host.

I am not sure about your claims that pregnancy drain's (so much so as to result in a deficiency) nutrients or causes irreversible "damage" are true of pregnancies in all healthy women. If you have a link to a medical/scientifically credible source I'd be interested in reading that.

I think that the "technical" correctness of the biological basis of your argument is that the fetus of _Homo sapiens_ has an obligate dependence on the support of the female's body.

the women who, while I was pregnant, recalled the old addage - "have a baby, lose a tooth." I heard that all over the place - as an encouragement to take more calcium supplement. I've had two babies and no abortions. I also have a number of those unalienable rights - including the right of free will (hey, even my church acknowledges that one).

I always believed it was MY body, so it was MY decision. Going through two pregnancies, both of which took a tremendous toll on my body, I became, if anything, even more ARDENTLY pro-choice than I ever was before that. It proved to me that no woman should be compelled to go through that ordeal unless she freely chooses to.

We outlawed slavery and fought against that form of thinking, but you are doing the very same thing. You are trying to determine what is and what is not human...you are trying to define who is to live or die, and who is worthy of life.

We are no better than slave owners if we think this way.

Pro-choice didn't start the "what is and is not human" question. Pro-choice isn't about determining for others whose fetus is worthy of life. Pro-choice gives every woman the freedom to decide these things for themselves.

It's Pro-lifers who want to legally define what's human and impose it on everyone else. It's Pro-lifers who want to tell all women that the fetus they carry is now the master of their life.

I'm all for choice. Let freedom ring!

...instead of abolishing slavery we should have left the decision as to whether or not black people are worthy of freedom up to individuals. If you believed black people were worthy of rights, you shouldn't own any slaves. If you personally believed that black people had no rights, then slavery would be ok. Do you honestly think that this sort of reasoning is acceptable. I don't.

What you fail to realize is the the assertion that the choice is up to the women and the women alone presumes that the fetus has no rights. That, unfortunately, is the crux of the argument.

is that the slaves were not INSIDE the bodies of the people claiming ownership of them.

The slavery analogy does not work as you present it. The pregnant woman is the slave if she is forced to breed against her will. THAT is the crux of the argument.

...is that unless the women was raped, the child is inside the body of the women by choice.

stealth poster wouldn't.

What if: The mother's life isn't in danger, but the baby isn't developing from the waist down. It has zero chance of survival for more than a few hours outside of the womb and those few hours will be spent in agony.

You'd insist that this child be carried to term?

I believe you can make the same sort of terminal life decisions with a fetus that you can with an adult. Personally, I see nothing immoral about "mercy" killings. I know that probably isn't majority opinion in the US, but that's the answer. I have to point out however, that your example is extremely rare. The reality of abortion is that 99% of all abortions are not performed out of medical necessity.

doesn't really matter how it got there.

Parents have always been required to care for their children. Failure to do so is considered negligence and in extreme cases, murder.

The injustice of slavery is not analogous to the abortion issue. Slaves did not come from the wombs of their owners. They were forcibly kidnapped from the land of their birth, bought and sold at the leisure of wealthy whites for economic gain, and were quite capable of independent survival. How, please, does this equate in any way to a non-viable fetus and the woman who hosts it?

Endowing the fetus with individual rights would necessarily impede the rights of the woman whose body it needs to survive. Automatically it becomes the life of the fetus at all costs...To hell with the woman and her circumstances. How is that any better than slavery? It also overlooks the rights of the future child to a good home with loving parents and adequate care in a stable environment, something Pro-lifers never seem to consider.

I also disagree with you about the crux of the argument. It isn't about whether a fetus has rights; it's about getting rights granted to fetuses in steps, a promising wrinkle in the anti-abortion movement, which is determined to force its beliefs on everyone else.

Here's the reality: no matter how many laws are passed or rights granted to fetuses, abortions will still happen. Guaranteed. Because like it or not, there will always be women who aren't willing to see an unwanted pregnancy through and will risk their own lives if needs be to end it. That's not a choice any woman should feel compelled to make.

The injustice of slavery is not analogous to the abortion issue. Slaves did not come from the wombs of their owners. They were forcibly kidnapped from the land of their birth, bought and sold at the leisure of wealthy whites for economic gain, and were quite capable of independent survival. How, please, does this equate in any way to a non-viable fetus and the woman who hosts it?

By this logic, anything that is incapable of independent survival has no rights. That would include the handicapped, the elderly, and children. Is that really the principle you are espousing?

The handicapped, the elderly and children are all valid human beings. A fetus is not. MHO.

Perhaps now you can speak to why you think a fetus's rights should trump a woman's, and how this will stop abortions.

The handicapped, the elderly and children are all valid human beings. A fetus is not. MHO.

The status of the fetus is the only issue here. A person that believes the fetus is not a human being will most likely believe that abortion is perfectly moral. A person that believes that the fetus is a human being will most likely believe that abortion is immoral.

As to whether the fetus's rights "trump" the women's, it depends on what part of the pregnancy you are dealing with. The text of Roe vs. Wade outlines the rights of each party very clearly. The fetus has some rights which gradually increase as it develops. In the first term the woman's rights trump the fetus's in every regard--the woman may choose whatever course of action she wishes. Beginning in the second term however, the state has the right to regulate abortion in the interest of protecting the fetus. By the third term the rights of fetus are such that the state may outlaw abortion if it so chooses, provided that the life of the mother is not in danger.

I have always agreed and supported the principles outlined in Roe vs. Wade. It is unfortunate that so many pro-choice people have never actually read the document and believe it asserts an absolute right to abortion throughout the entire term of a women's pregnancy. It does no such thing, but rather makes clear that the key pivotal issue surrounding abortion is the constitutional status of the fetus.

...when I felt it was appropriate for a woman to have an abortion, and if I knew how that conformed to Roe vs. Wade, instead of trying to be clever and roundabout to gain the information. I could have saved you a lot of time.

I may not have specific knowledge of the wording of Roe vs. Wade, but I am familiar with the ruling's outline; I was a teen in the early 70s. My personal beliefs regarding abortion evolved from RvW. You'll note I referred to a non-viable fetus. I am not an absolutist.

You might try being a little less equivocating when you want to make a point.

I think you'll see that the origin of our post exchange was your assertion that pro-choice didn't start the "what is and is not human" question.

From post #69:

Pro-choice didn't start the "what is and is not human" question. Pro-choice isn't about determining for others whose fetus is worthy of life. Pro-choice gives every woman the freedom to decide these things for themselves.

As I pointed out, this post is incorrect. Pro-choice did start the "what is and is not human" question. It started it in Roe vs. Wade.

...that the "what is and isn't human" question started long before what we commonly refer to as the Pro-Choice movement evolved in the late 60s. It can undoubtedly be traced back to Christians and their belief that life begins at conception. I mean, honestly. "This isn't a baby, it's a fetus" is hardly what one could call a productive pro-abortion argument.

From what I read, the Supreme Court set the limits on abortion in Roe vs. Wade according to standards held by physicians, based on viability -- not on what Pro-Choice groups said. And as I mentioned, the Pro-Life movement has been using this question to chip away at abortion rights ever since.

So I repeat: Pro-Choice did NOT start the "what is and is not human" question. It merely responds to that question, which can be answered many different ways by those seeking refuge under the Pro-Choice umbrella.

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

abortion should be safe, legal and rare

I am much more supportive of sex ed and contraception programs than I am of abortion.

And on top of that BOTH sides of the issue should stop USING partial birth abortion as the defining issue. I am well aware that the practice is virtually non existent in this country. Because the conditions and dangers to the mother are almost exclusively better remedied by cesarean section. This is a hideous practice of the PAST.

It may still happen in OTHER countries, but not here in America. Your own Democratic leaders have used it as a wedge to make you believe they are too stupid or too unwilling to form the words of a bill/amendment that forbids it and it alone. They aren't that stupid and they ARE creating problems by continually telling you id you touch this one it opens the door for the rest. It isn't true, but I can see MANY of you believe their rhetoric STILL!

I have and will do everything in my power to see that it is "safe, legal and rare."

I voted "other."

As an adoptive mom, I will be eternally grateful that my son's birth mother had a choice and that she chose adoption. I also strongly support those who make the choice to terminate their pregnancy.

People sometimes find it odd that I'm such a proponent of abortion rights, given that my birthmother bore me and placed me for adoption back in 1968. But I figure, it was illegal back then and I don't know her or if she WANTED to have me or not so I just feel grateful to her that she did. To me, it was not her obligation to carry me in the womb and give birth to me, though I'm glad she did.

Personally, I believe abortion should be a legal option during the early stages of pregnancy, when nearly all elective abortions occur, and should also remain legal thereafter whenever medically warranted. But it's easy for me to take this position, because I don't believe aborting a pre-viable fetus to be tantamount to murder.

If I truly beleived that abortion was the killing of a human being, I just don't see how I could support legalized abortion except in the rarest of circumstances, where the life of the mother's life was at risk.

Frankly, I've never really understood the position of politicians who claim, on the one hand, that they accept the Catholic church's teachings on abortion, but on the other hand claim that it simply isn't their role to legislate their religious believes.

Bullshit. A lot of abolitionists opposed slavery on moral and religious grounds. Churches were deeply involved in the civil rights movement as well. Frankly, you can't easily separate legislation from morality, since policy positions so often reflect moral judgments. There's a moral basis for everything from the minimum wage to environmental protection. How can abortion be any different?

Personally, I think a lot of these "personally pro-life, publicly pro-choice" politicians don't REALLY agree with the Catholic church, but aren't willing to come out and say so.

...all moral judgment is not based upon religious belief.

I am not troubled by the perceived inconsistency among some Catholics with respect to abortion.

Does it follow that a vegetarian would not seek a safe food supply; including stringent laws governing the production and sale of meat. This despite objections of conscience associated with the slaughter of animals.

Can the greater good of a society be the motivating factor? I think it can,
Despite surface inconsistency.

I would like to see the incidence of abortion decrease. I do not think outlawing it is the most effective way to achieve this. An outright ban drives women to back alleys, torturous and dangerous "at home" procedures and poisoning. I don't have stats at my finger tips but I would expect a rise in the already high rate of assault of pregnant women.

When economic and social conditions are "more just" and equitable the rate of abortion has trended down , " a 17.4 percent decline {in abortion} during the 1990s. This was a steady decrease averaging 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies.)."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2851283

Providing education and access to safe and reliable birth control, the rate of unwanted pregnancy also trends down.

I prefer to protect the health and safety of women while working to eliminate the underlying causes of abortion. I feel safe in assuming this is the goal of many Catholic politicians.

the argument is not about logic, it is about finding emotional issues to garner support overall.

It is a medical issue, not a governmental one.

as I support a woman's right to be able to obtain an abortion if she feels it's the right decision for her. I would like to see policies that would reduce the need for abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place, or by improving the social safety nets so that more pregnant women on the economic margins would feel that they could afford to keep their babies, but I absolutely want the option to be preserved.

Third trimester abortions already are highly regulated and I'm comfortable with that as long as exceptions are made for the life or health of the mother.

I think this post is a perfect example of how the issue needs to be reframed by the pro-choice side. It seems like it's adopting too much of the framing used by the anti-choicers. I refuse to let my views be defined by their frames.

I agree with "safe, legal, and rare."

I don't believe it is my business or government's to prohibit a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

At the same time however, abortion is one issue in which I understand and appreciate the other point of view. If you truly believe that a fetus is a human life imbued with a soul, then prohibiting its termination should be law the same as the prohibition against murder. I don't share this view, but I understand it.

This is the overriding issue for a significant number of voters -- probabaly enough to sway the last election. I'm not suggesting we cave on this issue, but I think we can make the case that the democrats can do more to prevent abortions through education and economic justice. Even if Bush appoints three Supreme Court Justices, what are the chances that abortion will be outlawed in the United States? Even if Roe V Wade is overturned, abortion will be legal in many states.

This issue is not as simple as "supporting" abortion.

with the right of women to control their own bodies.

I support abortion rights without restriction.

"Abortion should be safe legal and rare." If these so called lifers would get off the idea that birth control and sex are evil we'd have a lot fewer abortions.

Traditionally, westerners have accepted the morality of abortions BEFORE the time of "quickening"-- the moment when the mother first becomes aware of the life inside of her. That coincides with the beginning of the 2d trimester. That "comfort zone" was based on natural human reaction, not by the self-appointed moral authorities.

I think modern science has shortened that "comfort zone" for most people by a few weeks. Those pictures look way more human than tadpole-ish. I think people make a mistake when they think that its only religion that drives opposition to abortion-- I think its just basic human nature. Its sad and tragic and just doesn't feel right.

I think first term abortions are well within that comfort zone. We should think outside the box and find a better way to empower women in their health care decisions. Let's discover safe, efficient "morning after" or week after, or month after pills that will make abortion a non-issue. Why fight when you can just eliminate the grounds for disagreement?

and her guest was a man who had written a book about gestation. The pictures of fetal development were remarkably detailed, unlike anything I'd ever see. The well-dressed, middle-to-upper-middle- class women in that studio were noticeably shocked (discomfited?) by the images.

I certainly don't have any real answers here, but I agree that labeling opposition to abortion (particularly in the later months) as simply a product of fundamentalism or paternalism fails to take into account various advances in scientific knowledge/technology.

It's intellectually dishonest to pretend you aren't dealing with a baby after viability.

We would look like the reasonable ones if we said we'll give you partial birth if you stop jamming up the morning after pill and other forms of early intervention.

I have always been uncomfortable about talking abou this issue in terms of rights. It's a right the way smoking is--society needs to allow it, and to the extent that it's legal, make it equally available to the poor.

Clinton's formulation was right, "safe, legal, and rare." The later it is in the pregnancy, the more I agree with the rare part.

but what kind of man would I be if I forced a woman to carry a fetus to term?

How can I choose so she can't?

"I am a man who opposes abortion in many circumstances but what kind of man would I be if I forced a woman to carry a fetus to term?
How can I choose so she can't?"

Before conception, when does she not have the choice to carry a fetus?

at that point s/he deserves the protections given to all citizens of the U.S.

Of course, with everything else in life, when a blob of cells becomes a human being is something that not everyone agrees on, in fact, rarely agrees on.

Perhaps some research could provide an estimate which the legal system can use.

BTW - this doesn't depend on rape or incest. I hate that argument because it suggest to me that people who believe that base their opinion based on responsibility and not the child.

Friends-
this debate is *completely* colored for me by my experience with abused and neglected children. I think it's pathetic that the right isn't doing more about the horrible caseloads of social workers, the deaths while in foster care etc. This innocent vs original sin idea-how can the left counter it? Why is the fetus innocent and the foster child not? That's why I question "protections given to all citizens." Babies and children are NOT protected. I'd rather a woman abort than abuse-is that catchy??

BTW, where I work, some teenage girls were telling me about a friend who was pregnant and was trying to drink the baby to death. PLEASE let this little gal have easy, safe access to abortion-esp the morning-after pill-rather than produce another fetal alocohol baby. Do youall know how impaired a person with fetal alcohol syndrome is?

murder.

.... would be that when a fetus could possibly survive on its own, with current medical technology and care.

As far as I'm concerned, when a fetus reaches that point it is a human being and I could only "support" it's abortion in the case of a serious health issue for the mother.

I have NO IDEA where the law currently stands on this issue, I assume that there is a generally accepted point at which an abortion cannot be obtained legally.

For me, this is the one and only compromise on the issue I could make.

of the U.S., in my mind.

If you're sick, do you have the right to attach yourself to someone else in order to keep yourself alive? No, you don't. You'd be violating that person's rights.

So then why would a fetus/baby have that right? Why can't a woman detach that fetus/baby from her body, whether it's a person or not? It doesn't have a right to be attached to her body.

The baby isn't 'sick' and doesn't 'attach' to the mother. In most cases, the woman voluntarily had sex. Perhaps there were preventive measures that failed but such is life and if you want to enjoy sex, learn to live with the fact that babies come with the territory. If the 'thing' passes the test of being considered a human, don't penalize it for an accident.

Women are the childbearers of our species - there are benefits and downsides to that.

Men and women are politically equal but vastly different in other ways. Why do women clap when someone points out a male quality that is lacking (doesn't listen enough for example - ugh) but jeer when negative sides of being a woman are pointed out? (Had to throw in the rant) Nature isn't sexist - and I think life can be better understood and easier to enjoy if we stop trying to make men and women equal in every way and better appreciate the differences.

But I'm a man and therefore be given a whole lot of say in the matter.

Abortion should be legal, safe & rare.

but would most likely not have one myself. I firmly believe it's too difficult a decision to leave in any hand's but the woman's.

I believe we all ought to work toward making abortions less necessary

So, really, pro-choice whose choice is pro-life.

Anyone who doesn't want an abortion should choose not to have one.

:kick:

when a growing fetus can be transferred to a man and thus relieve the woman of that task. When that day happens, or when men who wish to keep women as second class citizens by attempting to curtail their reproductive rights stop controlling them, perhaps the issue of abortion will come to an end.

Personally, to me it IS a control issue, more than any other issue, and I don't think ANY man should tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body and by extension thereof, her reproductive organs. Whether I, personally, would have ever had an abortion is not the issue--the issue is that a right to choose should be the woman's and not society's. There IS no argument when it is presented in such a fashion.

In a marriage, there is some room for argument that a husband should have some say in whether the fetus continues to grow or not. However, ultimately, it boils down to the woman's decision in the end--it's not a 50/50 burden in reality, and if the woman decides that she can not carry the fetus to term, she should have the right to make the final choice.

There are some who would argue that women should be better informed about their rights, and that if reproductive education was given a proper place, less abortions would be happening, and more contraceptive methods would be enforced. This is completely true, but there are always exceptions to the rules: many women who are taking contraceptives DO end up pregnant because of error in one form or another, and the question of why they should be "punished" is raised. In truth, they shouldn't be punished, but allowed to make whatever choice they decide at that point in time.

Some will argue that there are loads of people who want to have children and can't, and would welcome the chance to adopt an infant who is not wanted........well, I say that is the most ridiculous and most blatantly irresponsible argument yet--there are hundreds of thousands of orphans the world over--from the former Soviet Union, to eastern European countries, to Africa, to Asia and the entire world over that would welcome the chance to be adopted. But these people who say they would adopt a child are looking for a WHITE baby, and are too full of themselves to reach out and take on the responsibility of adopting a child in need if he/she is NOT a WHITE child.

CHOICE--it's what women want--and need, without any restrictions placed on any part of their bodies. The conservative motto has always been "barefoot and pregnant"--the only way they like to see women.

I think we should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions in this country because I think it is immoral to end what I see as human life. At the same time, I don't want to see women going into the back alleys again and dying from botched abortions.

having a soul is a religious concept. i don't believe in a 'soul' so that argument doesn't fly with me. this is pushing someone else's religious concept on my body.

safe and rare would be great. however, those people who oppose abortion should put up or shut up . . . like the man who contributed the sperm, the demonstrators that harass patients and clinic workers, the churches that condemn abortion . . . they should all step up and help pay for the medical costs and the costs of raising the child. NONE OF THEM DO. i was an escort at a family planning clinic for years and the only thing those protestors offered was humiliation and harassment.

one more thing . . . if a fetus is a human being at conception, why doesn't our government give the parents an immediate deduction on their income taxes? no one has EVER suggested that, which suggests to me that the government does not consider a fetus a human being.

when the government and the churches and all those people who decry abortion step up and offer complete support for the mother and child . . . with no moralizing and no social stigma . . . then we'll talk, but i can tell you right now that will never happen.

ellen fl

period. I'm in favor of universal health care, so I think society should pay for all kidney transplants. This does NOT imply a right to coerce anyone with compatible tissue to be a donor, however. Similarly, no fetus has the right to life support from its mother, regardless of status as a "person."

Unless, the mothers life is in grave danger.

If I support a woman's right to choose and butt out of her private life and body, do I check "I support abortion?"

I support reproductive rights if that is what is meant here.

I mean, do you support the woman's right to have an abortion? I'm talking just about abortion, not the whole fabric of reproductive rights issues.

but with minor reservations

we need less people.

after it is born, and it's the only way to keep it alive?

Let's say it's just three weeks old.

The mother's life isn't in danger, but the baby isn't developing from the waist down. It has zero chance of survival for more than a few hours outside of the womb and those few hours will be spent in agony.

You'd insist that this child be carried to term? How cruel.

I support providing for all of our children in a loving and welcoming world

I support universal health care

I support federally funded family planning clinics (with money being the feds only input)

I support a livable minimum wage

I support AFDC

I support WIC

I support food stamps

I support Section 8 housing

I support FLMA

I support childcare assistance

I support early childhood education programs

I support special education

I support school breakfast & lunch programs

I support after school programs

I support college financial aid

I support veteran’s benefits

I support senior’s rights

I support Social Security

I support environmental protection

I support renewable energy research

I support the Department of Peace


As far as abortion is concerned, my reproductive choices are between my physician and me. Stay the hell out of my doctor’s office.

I'm a proud liberal...was pro choice in college, but I'm not anymore.

Or legal in some circumstances?

It's not about being FOR abortion. It's about a woman's right to have this option is she so CHOOSES.

1. Making it illegal didn't work. All we got was endless tragedy. If the right wingers get their way and it again becomes illegal, we will get the same result.
2. The decision to have one must be the most heart-wrenching thing imaginable.

I've heard on NPR(?) that while Clinton was in office the abortion rate went down. Clinton supported programs for the poor. Abortions have gone up since Bush has taken office and there have been drastic cuts in programs for the poor.

It seems that, on the surface, there is a correlation between having the resources to raise a child and wanting to have that child.

This really takes the discussion out of the rhetorical argument of when life begins and puts it into a class issue.

If abortion is outlawed, it will be the poor that suffer. The only legal choices are to keep it (draining resources that much more) or put it up for adoption.

Rich women will always have access to abortion because they will be able to financially obtain one, though illegal. Poor women who take this route are reduced to the back allies.

In my opinion you can't take the abortion question into the rhetorical without first addressing the reality that upperclass "life" seems to have more value than lower class "life."

If a society is going to pass a law that a woman must bring to term an unplanned pregnancy, then it cannot wash it hands of that "life" once it takes it's first breath. To do so is as morally corrupt as it is unfair.

That however, has nothing to do with 'supporting abortion'.

Your poll sucks.

3 I believe it was. I oppose abortion but the choice is that of the mother. I would like to edit this to read the choice of the parents because I feel the father of the child should have some say in the matter, though I understand why he does not.

Personally have made a decision that everytime I choose to have sex I know and understand that no contraception is perfect and their is always the possibility that a child may result from my actions. Being that I take responsibility for my actions and the result of my actions I must take resposibility for that child.

I am all for having sex, perferably in a caring relationship (but who hasn't had a one night stand), but when I decide to do so I am also deciding that a baby may be the result.

I don't think abortion should ever be made illegal.


Personally, I think abortion (when the mother's life is not in danger) is THE MOST SELFISH ACT on Earth. We're all grown-ups. We know what happens when Tab A is inserted into Slot B without "A" being wrapped up or "B" being on "the pill". The abortion of convenience I personally find a reprehensible action.

But, that said, I don't think it should be illegal.

I intensely dislike abortion, but in a secular democracy cannot limit the rights of another person to do with their body what they wish.

Therefore, I push for better sexual education in schools and more, easy access to contraception as a way of limiting unwanted pregnancies (75% of abortions)

a situation where the baby will likely not survive and therefore would make no sense to harm the mother. I also support pushing the line for state control back into the second trimester because of medical advances pushing back viability and the level of fetal brain development.

...pragmatically, I'd take whatever compromises I could get to reduce them. Rape, incest and the life of the mother issues only constitute about 3-4% of all abortions. Most are done for issues of convenience, lack of family support, financial issues, etc. So any common sense restriction like no abortions after the earliest stage of viability or none after the first trimester, etc. would be ok with me.

I also think we need to find ways to deal with the financial, family/emotional support factors as a society so more women won't be forced to choose between two rather awful outcomes. There is a better way.

I also think that people who say they are staunchly pro-life should keep quiet unless they're willing to adopt at least one child themselves.

- that 66% of DUers support reproductive rights without restriction

Not 66% of the public at large.

Not 66% of everyone but rabid fundamentalists.

Not 66% of Democrats, even.

66% of DU, of the ideological core of the party.

Slim chance of winning a national election with a hard line pro reproductive rights policy at that rate.

I sensed bias in the framing of the poll question. It asked about supporting or opposing abortion, rather than reproductive rights. I voted 'other', and posted my comments earlier. Others have also expressed their dissatisfaction with the question.

Perhaps a lesson to be learned from this poll is to reframe the debate in terms that express our principles, rather than using the divisive methods of the radical right.

to the poll.

I support a woman's right to choose.

I came close to having to be in that position - bad ultrasound results at 18 weeks. Not something I ever wanted to face, but I have a lot of empathy for people who ever find themselves in a similar situation.

I'm for choice.

it is one of those areas like drugs that society can't control very well. The only enforcible laws would be those protecting children ( wouldn't you want to make sure that if a young girl comes in for an abortion that the father isn't a her father?) The only way to fight abortion is to teach respect for all life and act upon that teaching. What have we done as a society in the last 30 years to support mothers and children?

others when you can't ever walk in them shoes. All the ignorance on the use of late term abortion on this board is highly diiscouraging. Honestly, if you don't know the facts, just STFU, please.
To you 19% of responders-- you would not let this couple abort? You want them to wait for the next five months until at some point it dies? You would call them murderers?
And you think this is somehow taking the moral highroad, forcing people like this to fly to another state for the abortion... because this is what's happening in America right now.

Goodbye Too Soon
By JONATHAN TROPPER
"?What we saw on the monitor looked more like a cinematic alien than a 20-week-old fetus. Instead of arms, there were truncated flippers, and it looked like those drawings I've seen demonstrating how close man and dolphin are on the evolutionary scale. The legs were gnocchi-shaped buds that barely protruded from the pelvis. The chest cavity was deformed as well, although we wouldn't know that until later.
??
? You've seen this before: a young couple staring in wonder at an ultrasound monitor, getting a first, magical glimpse of their unborn child. It wasn't like that for us. ''What I'm seeing is a fairly significant abnormality,'' Dr. Eddleman said, shaking his head sympathetically. Tears ran from my wife Liz's closed eyes as she wiped the blue goop off her swelled belly.

We walked on rubber legs down the hall to Dr. Eddleman's office, where he emerged from behind his veil of jargon just long enough to impart that we hadn't done anything wrong. Osteogenesis imperfecta type II was his diagnosis, a freak mutation over which we had no control. I could see in Liz's expression that it would take some time for her to believe him.

The fetus might make it to term or die in the womb. Either way, it wouldn't survive for long after birth. This disease, the doctor said, is ''fatal in infants.'' You know you've arrived in a different universe when the word ''fatal'' comes as a relief. Because until that moment, I had been trying to extrapolate what the flesh-and-blood version of this baby would look like in the maple crib we'd ordered, asking myself if we had it in us to raise such a severely compromised baby. Liz would later tell me that she was also sadly relieved. ''Fatal'' was our absolution -- we would not have to learn darker truths about ourselves."
more......
"http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/magazine/06LIVES.html?oref=login

But since there isn't such a method, they must remain 100% unrestricted.

What happens when you ban abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and threat to life of the mother? You suddenly get a lot of women with unwanted pregnancies filing false rape charges.

Don't mean to sound anti-woman, but it's true.