"Pro choice *is* pro life".

And I would have to say that I am an example of that statement. I think that along with the majority of people here that we think that abortion is wrong and is a nasty thing. Indeed abortion should be the last course of action that should be taken. However I agree it must exist and in a safe, rare and legal way (as our last real President put it).

There are times when I would say that abortion is wrong:

1) If the fetus is viable - i.e. healthy and past the point where it can live with minimal outside aid (maybe in an incubator, maybe after a pre-determined time like 26 weeks). At this stage I just have to say it is murder.

2) If the woman had sex knowingly (not including involuntary sex such as rape), didn't use contraception, didn't use emergency contraception and doesn't believe in abortion anyway. Well they're unlikely to have an abortion anyway, but if the baby is well and safe and sound then she should carry the baby to term to stick with her beliefs and adopt the baby out. Especially if she's white because quite simply there is a huge demand for white, blonde, blue-eyed newborns. Failing that any baby that is caucasian... there's plenty enough demand for those. Any other race and there's issues (just look at the numbers.... how many children waiting for adoption are non-white?)


There are times when I would say that abortion is fully justified.

1) If the fetus is in effect killing the mother. I was one of those babies. Fortunately I was only problematic later on in the pregnancy whilst I was viable, and my mother chose to carry on and have me. I was technically a candidate for an abortion because my mother's life was indeed at risk, if I understand correctly. At least my dad told me that he feared for her life at that time but not so fearful with my sister (basically because of past problems she was assigned to bed rest very early on in hospital).

2) If the fetus is not viable even if brought to term. There are babies that are born daily that just aren't going to live beyond a few days or a few weeks. This is a tough call for me, because some people believe that even those few days are precious enough to enjoy their child. However some people cannot cope with that and would be totally distraught. I know someone in my wife's family whose child fell into that category. The church she goes to preaches violently the anti-abortion message but I know she squirms in her seat every time she hears the message. Abortion is not a nice thig at all. However in this lady's case it was 100% necessary.

3) If the pregnancy itself would drive the potential mother insane or suicidal. Some women are incapable mentally of handling a pregnancy - and if emergency contraception is unavailable or didn't work, then for the health of the lady an abortion is quite probably essential in order to save a life. Better to spare one life to save another when the other choice is both lives to be extinguished.

4) If the woman was raped. I would have thought I would put this in the unjustified section but this is such a grey area that I had to make a judgement call and put it in the justified side, if purely for the fact that the woman may have been too traumatised to seek out emergency contraception or she might have even been drugged with a date-rape type drug and wouldn't even remember having intercourse that would result in a pregnancy. In which case an early-term abortion would be totally justifiable.


There are times however I cannot judge either way, and here's my positions:

1) If the woman knowingly had sex, didn't take contraception and didn't take emergency contraception even though they could get it on demand. My personal position is that yep, that baby should be carried to term and adopted out. However carrying that baby may be too financially and emotionally burdonsome on the potential mother so that is just going to have to be her call. I can't make that choice. If she's willing to carry to term and adopt out and there are support mechanisms then that's her choice. However if she aborts she ought to choose early on - not at 30+ weeks.

2) If contraception totally failed (condoms, birth control pills... certainly not the rhythm method) and emergency contraception is unavailable. I'd say an early term abortion might be better here because clearly the child was unintended and most likely - especailly if it's failed contraceptive pills - that the baby is to be born deformed and may only live so long. (Failed condoms don't usually do that though... I just have a feeling and sorry no scientific background that failed contraceptive pills might well cause deformities.

3) Babies who are viable but will be born with cogenital birth defects or other "disabilities". Should a spina bifida baby be aborted? An autistic baby? A baby with some of its organs on the outside? If we had known earlier on about my son the 'a word' would have been brought up. However we only knew at birth and personally I'm glad we didn't because he brings such light into my life I can't imagine life without him around.

4) Something that I just don't know and can't fathom out as a male. There may well be a reason here that abortion is right even though I don't know why. It's not for me, as it isn't my body.


So back to the topic. Pro life is pro choice. Choosing to procreate is an action of giving new life. Choosing to carry to term even if you can't support the child financially and may well adopt out is pro life. Choosing to allow abortions when there's a risk to the mother is pro life (better one dead than two - mothers may well kill themselves).

The two terms are the wrong terms to describe the various polarities. There are those anti-abortionists - those people who believe that abortion is wrong under all pretenses. There are those that are actually pro-abortion - those who believe an abortion should be available on demand, anywhere any time for any reason whatsoever. And there are those rest of us - the vast majority that fall in the middle. Those who favour more open abortion should be called women's health rights activists and those who favour more restricted but yet legal abortions should be called women's rights supporters.

So therefore I am a women's rights supporter. I'm not a health activist, I'm not pro abortion, and I'm not anti abortion. Maybe the correct term is 'realist'?

But pro choice is the same as pro life, and pro life is the same as pro choice.

Mark.

although I do appreciate the thought you've put into it.

Simply put, abortion is self defense. I know that's hard for men who think of self defense in terms of two bruisers in a bar fight, but that's basically what's going on when a woman seeks an abortion.

Pregnany and childbirth may be normal conditions, but they are dangerous conditions, nonetheless. As a nurse I know the complications that women face even when the outcome of survival with a baby in reasonably good shape ensue. The complications are many and the implications for a woman's overall health may be dire. Then there is the threat to her finances, career, and social support network, which can't be discounted unless one is totally heartless.

Women don't want to assume this serious physical risk unless they want the baby. That is the bottom line. When a woman chooses abortion, she is defending her LIFE.

Whether or not she enjoyed the sex is utterly irrelevant.

The original poster makes very good points. And you respond by saying abortion is an act of "self defense"? I know there are situations that delivering the fetus will seriously endanger the mother's life. But in most situations that is not the case.

Im personally pro choice and believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion in most circumstances. However, if a woman is getting an abortion because she doesnt want to raise a child becaise she is worried about the "threat to her finances, career, and social support network"- that is not "self defense." Self defense is used when your actual life is threatened- not your lifestyle. I certainly think a woman should be able to have an abortion if she's concerned about the effect a child will have on her lifestyle, but Im not going to label it an act of "self defense."

while you are there. That is self defense, even when the burglar would likely be satisfied with taking your TV and computer and leave you alone.

Don't discount the threats to a woman's life because you are anatomically exempt from facing them, please.

so the fetus is now a burglar, who is going to take away your television? The analogy between a fetus and a burglar is so absurd I do not even feel the need to expound on it.

Like I said, abortion should be legal. But you don't have to use terms which are not applicable, like self defense, to justify the procedure.

and have to spend all your money paying hospital bills, then you might have to sell your TV so you can buy diapers.

Of course, men always conveniently forget the costs of pre-natal care, giving birth (heaven forbid there are complications), diapers, clothing, strollers, car seats, bottles, baby sitters, toys, and so on when discussing whether or not someone else should be forced to reproduce.

So a woman really doesn't need to consider her finances and career (or social support network, for that matter. Hmm, "social." Sounds commie to me.) when deciding whether or not to get an abortion.

If you had just taken all of the money you have out of the bank (why, I don't know, make up a reason, like paying the hospital bill after you give birth) and someone tried to rob you, would you fight back? What if not fighting back meant losing your job and friends? Then would you? Self defense?

From my post: it's better to abort the fetus than for the mother to die. Best for one to die than to have two die. You've summed it up great: the woman is defending her life. I just put it a different way that read a little different. And you're right - enjoying the sex is irrelevant.

However I did point out that there are women who get pregnant, don't want the baby and definitely do not want to abort. In this case adoption is their choice.

But the other whole point of my post is that pro choice == pro life == pro choice.

Thanks for the comment :) Mark.

"4) Something that I just don't know and can't fathom out as a male. There may well be a reason here that abortion is right even though I don't know why. It's not for me, as it isn't my body," is why you cannot entirely understand this. But, you're thinking and you deserve credit for taking the time to do so.

Count me as a Women's Health Rights Activist.

I still believe that I'm in the Women's Health Rights Supporter category. Even though DA's working on me :)

Mark.

The fact of the matter is that here in Texas right-wing anti-abortion Republicans recently gutted state funding for private health clinics that served the needs of poor women's gynecological and obstetric needs. Although touted within the ranks of the anti-abortion movement as a victory for "life," this move deprived tens of thousands of less-prosperous Texas women access to clinics that provided pelvic exams, breast cancer screenings, and other tests that could have saved their lives, not to mention access to birth control which would have reduced the probability of abortion in the first place.

Although abortion isn't available on demand and not available unless it's life or death in 3rd trimester.... at least it's funded.

The guys who need to get a british passport: population of Texas. Including the fundamentalists. Then they can see what it's really like. (edited to add clarity).

Mark.

I understand that Operation Rescue tried to export its tactics regarding abortion clinics and the doctors who perform them ONCE--and the British authorities landed on them with both feet. The American instigator was deported within a couple of days.

Time for operations in local hospitals to regulate menstral cycles. Without a pregnancy check. So the regulation kills a 8 week fetus? Oops...

So Texas is getting third world rate medical care. That's fantastic! Three cheers for Texas!

(Ok, I've turned the sarcasm switch off now)

Mark.

with the exception of her (her fiance was working out of town at the time and could not be there), a young teenager who was accompanied by adults and one other girl who was there with a friend, the full waiting room was full of couples.

Now, they seemed to be happy couples that could have raised a child. But they were pregnant and did not want to be. That is the reason you have an abortion. A lot of time it is about love and not selfishness. They know that they would be be good parents and the time, and know that this is the best choice for them at this time.

Who cares if you blatently did not use bc. Its not like you get pg just to have an abortion.

for many reasons, but at the very least abortions were performed before Roe v. Wade - safely if you were rich/connected, and unsafely if you were not.

But I do think that most people are aware of what an abortion is and would rather not have one, even if they are pro-choice obviously.

but it sounds like you are trying to wrap your heart around something you don't quite believe (yet). That is a tough position and I appreciate your efforts.

The pro-choice stance is one that supports a woman's right to choose. It is not about choosing which women qualify to make that choice or when it is justified. The very nature of your essay, listing conditions under which you feel choice is acceptable, shows a lack of understanding. Your view of a woman's ability to make the right choice; to promote life as you would see fit, is marginal.

Only a woman is uniquely qualified to decide what is going to "promote life" when it involves her own body and personal circumstances. No one is a better judge. NO ONE. A women who falls under number 2 of your "abortion is wrong" list may very well also fall under the Number 3 category on your "fully justified" list. There are just too many variables to neatly categorize women and their choices - situations that you and I will never understand. I believe when a woman makes the abortion decision it is always a pro-life one even if we don't perceive it to be in the context our own lives.

If you truly support women. (and I believe you do) If you truly support life. If you really are pro-choice and not just pro-your-choice, then you will trust women to make the right choices for their own lives, not yours.

A few things I want to say.

Before I say anything though, I want to say this: I don't like the tone that always comes about when a man gives his opinion on abortion. While we can't get pregnant, that doesn't mean we can't take a position on abortion and it doesn't mean our points are not valid.

Now, I don't really understand some of the hardcore views some of you people take on this issue. It's always "all or nothing" and no room for compromise for some people. Hardcore pro-choicers say "aWomanHasTheRightToChooseWheneverAllTheTimeNotBabyJustAFetus!!!!" while pro-lifers say "babyAtConceptionMurderCan'tDoItEverGoingToHELL!!!".

I'm going to say a few things that may shock some of you.

THERE IS A POINT DURING THE PREGNANCY WHEN A FETUS BECOMES A LIVING HUMAN BEING.

Do we know this point? Not really. It could be when brain waves start forming. It could be when it can register pain. It could be any damn criteria. But my point is that you can't just say you're not killing a baby when sometimes you damn may well be killing a baby. If a woman has an abortion at month 8, she is killing a baby. Accept this.

Once you accept that, (and if you don't, I don't want to argue with you because you are clearly delusional), accept that to some people, that's just wrong, period. You say a woman should have the right to choose and we have no right to say when it's justified? Why the fuck not? There are points when it is absolutely not justified. At 8 months would be an example.

Again, I don't know when a fetus becomes a baby, but it sure as hell happens before birth. Shockingly enough, I'm 100% for embryonic stem cell research, because an embryo is obviously not a baby. But why can't a compromise be made here? Make it before the 2nd trimester or some shit. I don't know. All I know is I don't like the "all or nothing" stance pro-choicers and pro-lifers take on this issue.

What's the name for that fallacy, the straw-man, or is it the slippery-slope?
When I have more time, I'll find the statistics that should satisfy you that almost all abortions are done before 8 weeks.

{8 months, sheesh. What the heck is this guy smoking?}:eyes:

I don't actually think women are getting abortions at 8 months...I'm just making the point that people think it's not murder at that time. In your post you said "Women have the right to choose...WHENEVER!". I'm saying, NO, not whenever. Or at the very LEAST, if you allow whenever, acknowledge that you are indeed killing a baby. I'm just saying that both pro-choicers and pro-lifers take one extreme and stick to it without any room for compromise whatsoever, and that bugs me.

I just jumped in to this thread to put in my 2 cents about most abortions being done very early in the pregnancy.

"...both pro-choicers and pro-lifers take one extreme and stick to it without any room for compromise whatsoever.."

Actually, pro-lifers are the ones who refuse to compromise, when it comes to someone else's decision. You are making a big assumption to think that pro-choicers have no conscience about the ethics of their decision. It shows that you really don't know what it might be like to have to make that decision.

no one in this thread has said WHENEVER - except you.

Even the original Roe v. Wade decision holds states could impose restrictions in the third trimester, as long as those restrictions don't impact the health of the woman: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm.

"a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165."

I've never understood people who haven't read the decision making the assumption that women can have abortions willy-nilly right up to the moment of birth. If people would read Roe, a lot of the nattering about abortion would go away. Of course, those who are anti-choice won't be satisfied no matter what.

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

No state in the US is required, under Roe, or by anything else, to prohibit or restrict access to abortion in the third trimester / post (theoretical) viability. I gather than many US states, perhaps most (but I don't think all), have imposed such restrictions.

It's a tough question, but objections to late abortions aren't answered by saying "nobody has them". They aren't even answered by saying "Roe allows states to limit them to situations where a woman's health or life are in jeopardy", because such limits are still arguably unconstitutional.

The US SC did not offer any justification for permitting such restrictions, in point of fact. It accepted Texas's assertion that the state had an interest in "the potentiality of human life", whatever the hell that might be, without stating what that interest was. And it held that the state could restrict access to abortion in promoting that unspecified interest, without stating what justification it had found for such interference.

It is indeed more than reasonable to expect that if there were no barriers to access to abortion services -- no waiting periods, no mandatory indoctrination, no lack of availability locally, no costs that women can't afford, no mobs of scum lurking in front of medical facilities, no one unable to afford health care and thus to get early confirmation of pregnancy and information / referrals / counselling -- very few women indeed would choose to terminate pregnancies at late stages.

But undoubtedly fewer people would be holding up convenience stores if more people had better access to education and employment opportunities and to decent housing, if society were not racist, etc. Most people would still argue that robbery should be illegal.

For someone who places late abortion on the same plane as other things that are defined as crimes -- something seriously "wrong" that society must sanction by criminal law and punishment -- "it doesn't happen" isn't really an answer. It might happen, just as someone with a university degree and a good job might hold up a store.

Not for the first time I feel compelled to put "ditto" under your words. Whether articulating something that I've been unable to put into words myself or bringing something new to the table your message is always insightful and clear and one with which I usually wholeheartedly agree.

unless he supports legislation making it mandatory for men to donate blood on the first day he is eligible, every time he is eligible, no exceptions. A man's opinion is not valid unless he supports legislation making it mandatory for men to donate bone marrow and kidneys to whomever needs his body parts, to be scheduled at their convenience, and paid for out of his wallet.

Unless men support the use of their own bodies against their will to support the lives of strangers, their opinion on the need for women to volunteer the use of their bodies to sustain life is not relevant, and is nothing short of offensive sexist crap.

:)

Full proposal for those who missed it when originally posted: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x984039


Any man who has let a single day go by without donating blood when eligible to donate because he had a business meeting or a vacation scheduled, so it was too "inconvenient" to save a person's life that day - and doesn't fully support a woman's right to choose is so filled with hypocrisy that they should be ashamed to show their face in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter.

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

to support another person's life, or you don't.

Which is it?

That's a nice black/white position to take. Thank you for proving my point that there is absolutely no room for compromise whatsoever on this issue. You sound like bush when he says either you're with us or you're with the terrorists.

Do you not get the difference between killing a baby and...well...every and any other comparison of anything anybody anywhere can ever come up with ever?

Still waiting for one of you to admit that after a certain point in pregnancy there exists a baby....

Why is that?

If you can't be bothered to save a life by taking an hour out of your day to donate blood when you are eligible, that tells me how much you value life.

Shouldn't matter if it's the life of a baby, a child, or an adult. It tells me you think life is cheap - at least cheap enough that you'd rather sit around sipping coffee or watching tv or earning a paycheck for an extra hour than saving someone's life.

If you can't be bothered to spend an hour saving a person's life, you have no room to talk about making someone else spend months saving a person's life. For all you know, the blood you donate could be used to save a baby's life. And yet, you don't care enough about that to make that mandatory, not when the MEN have to do it.

That's a black and white issue, yes.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you until you admit that you can tell the difference between saving a life and intentionally killing a life. Your comparison makes no sense. It doesn't warrant an answer.

Still waiting for ANYONE here to answer my question though....

between intentionally killing a life by not allowing it to use your blood supply and intentionally killing a life by not allowing it to use your blood supply.

Do care enough about life to feel an obligation to use your body to save someone else's? Yes or no?

surrounded by hypocrites.

You know you're wrong, so why do you continue? Amazing.

In one case you're giving blood to save life.
In the other case you're taking blood away to kill life.

Not giving to not save does not equal taking away to kill. For fucks sake. We're not talking about saving life, we're talking about killing life. Quit it with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistry">sophistry.

Or would you agree with the following statement:
I don't give blood, therefore I don't value life, therefore I believe Jessica Lundsford's killer should go free, therefore I am not a hypocrite.

I didn't know you had to give blood in order to be against murder. All those people who don't give blood calling for justice against serial killers are such hypocrites who don't value life!

Stop dodging.

You are making a decision as to which is has more worth - a person's life, or a person's right to self-determine the use of their body.

In one case you're giving blood to save life.
In the other case you're taking blood away to kill life.

Either a person can be forced to use their blood for another person, or not. There is no "taking away blood". There is only "deciding to give your blood" or "deciding not to give your blood."

If "deciding not to give blood" constitutes murder in your mind, then you'd best be giving blood every chance you have. If you don't value life enough to do that. that's fine, but you have no moral superiority on the issue if you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is - or your blood where your beliefs are. No sense in pretending saving a life matters to you, if your actions prove it doesn't.

He was or has been the father of an unintented pregnancy!
Of course, it was not the fathers' intention to get pregnant, as neither it was the mothers' intention.

This is basic human rights.

No person has the right to forcibly use another person's organs, blood, etc. for any reason, against their will. Thus I cannot demand that you donate blood to save my child, even if my child has a rare blood type and you are the only person around who matches that type. I cannot demand that you donate bone marrow for my child, even if you are the only match. I can try to persuade, I can wish you would do it. But I cannot legally require it.

Even if I am the father of that child, even if you somehow directly caused the accident or disease that created the need for the child to have a transfusion or a blood marrow transplant, I do not have the right - parents do not have the right - to demand the use of another human's body to save their child's life. If you did something directly to damage my child's kidneys, and you were a perfect match for them, I could not force you to donate one of your own kidneys to save my child, even if you could do so without shortening your own lifespan in the process. Even if I'm the father of that child, and so have a compelling interest in saving that life. My interests don't give me the right to force the use of your body to save that child.

Even if it's perceived to be for a good cause, even if it would save a life, even if the other person caused the situation to being with - even if the other person is dead and couldn't possibly be harmed by the taking of their organs - human rights don't allow for the forcible use of a person's body/organs against their will.

To quote McKinnon: Are Women Human?

They are entitled to an opinion, as the phrase goes "it takes two to tango". (Except of course for those women who choose IVF through donated sperm and then change their mind).

An opinion is one thing. A decision is another. I could have all the craziest opinions in the world, like that I think that every person in the entire world should have access to decent healthcare, or that contraception should be made available free of charge upon request to those who need them, and not to rely on student unions handing out buckets of condoms. However my opinion counts for nothing on its own. It's when it is getting together when it counts.

In an abortion decision, the man can only influence without authority. It is the woman who has the authority to make the final decision no matter what.

Mark.

Through a variety of deliberate and accidental means, men can carry a developing fetus inside of their bodies for 9 months and then give birth to the child.

LOL, as if abortion rights would be debatable if men got pregnant!:rofl: Abortion would have become legal centuries ago, if men could conceive.

If he's the father of an unintended pregnancy, he certainly has a right to speak his mind and discuss his opinion with the mother of the unintended pregnancy. He doesn't get to make the decision.

I fully support any woman to have an abortion - up to so long in the pregnancy. My view is and expressed in the original piece that if the baby gets to the stage of viability, say 30 weeks as a pure number out of thin air, then it's better to have a c-section and adopt out than to abort - unless there are clear clinical reasons to abort. Abortions at 4 weeks... OK. At 12 weeks... OK. At 18 weeks, again OK, 20 weeks - fine. 26 weeks in my mind is grey area because a baby may or may not survive. at 30 weeks... if mother and baby are healthy then a c-section should be the option... not an abortion. If a mother is in danger of her life then an abortion should be available at any time... yes even at term (unless again the C-section is the viable way to go - this happened with me that I was toxifying my mother and C-section was the way I came into the world - and yes I was close to term).

(sorry my meds may confuse me: I meant line in the sand).

In fact I even would state that if a child of 14 wants an abortion because they became pregnant why should they tell their parents? That's her decision - the "father" may say something but it's down to the mother. Always.

Mark.

before I started yammering on about kidneys and blood and bone marrow. ;)

Late to the party, just as annoyed as ever.

I should probably stick with my initial (and probably better) judgment to just ignore you but I'm going to say something that might shock you...

My point was "onlyaWOMANknowsWHATisBESTforHEROWNBody!!EVER!!soTrustHERtoCHOOSEAccordinglyALWAYS!!!" not "IcanKILLMyBABYanyTIMEIwantForMyENJOYMENTBecauseIamSupidAndIt'sMYRIGHTsoJustEFoff!! and I don't much like YOUR tone either. How dare you talk down to the women here? Or is it just me to whom you feel the need to SHOUT? I highly doubt your authority to enlighten any of us here; however, your condescension precluded any value your words may have had.

When you are better schooled in the subject of choice you might try joining in on a discussion without the crappy man tone, though you would probably do better to find yourself another board altogether.

Whatever you decide to do, ixnay on the shouting.

It is you hard core pro-choice people who leave no room for compromise whatsoever that started talking down to men in this thread. I simply pointed that out. Men are allowed to have an opinion on the subject, and yes, they can be valid.

Second of all, you started shouting first. Though I would hardly consider my post to have any shouting in it. Some boldface, maybe, but not shouting. Unlike your post right now.

Thirdly, you did not address one point of my post, opting instead to make it personal, implying that I'm not "schooled" on the subject. But I never said anything against choice. I'm just bringing up two things:

1) You people can't accept the fact that after a certain point in a pregnancy, there exsits a human being.

2) Whether it's a pro-choice view or a pro-life view, there seems to be absolutely no room for compromise on either side. Either it's a baby at conception or it's a fetus all the way to the second it comes out of a vagina.

I haven't gotten ONE response here where anyone can admit that a baby exists after a time during pregnancy. I've gotten dodges and sophistry, begin called a hypocrite because apparently you have to give blood to have an opinion on the killing of a baby (an invalid analogy, in any case), but not one admittance.

Why is it so hard? Why can't one of you just say, "Yeah, you're right. Even though 99.9999% of abortions happen in the first trimester, perhaps the ones that happen after are actually killing human beings. It sucks, but the choice trumps the child for thes X reasons..." At least then we'd be having an honest debate, instead of this nonsense.

We are not interested in compromising with you about how our organs are used. Just as you are not interested in arguing with me about how your organs should be used. You see it as an invalid argument, not relevent, because there is no way in hell you would allow your body to be used that way - it's outside the realm of what you are willing to consider, or can even conceive of (no pun intended).

You have no interest in a compromise or debate as to when I can mandate the use of your kidneys, and have shown no interest in talking about whether you are killing a child by not allowing them the use of your kidney.

I have no interest in a compromise or debate as to when you can mandate the use of my uterus.

No interest in a compromise. Get it?

And I strongly feel that the statute of limitation for a pregnancy occurs when a c-section of the baby and given up for adoption is better than a straight out dilate and extract of a viable human being. Before then yep... abortion as and how seen fit. But there has to be a line drawn... I'd say it's the third trimester. Now if the baby is killing its mother, as in my case, then if the risk is so severe then yep... a termination may well be the best way to go. Best save one life than kill two.

But before then if a woman wants an abortion, and a doctor has decided it is in the best interests of the woman - mentally, physically, whatever (easy to do on mental grounds) - and should be one doctor not the arcane two doctor decision in the UK.

Then there are all those grey areas when the potential baby is deformed. Can that woman or couple cope? Would someone adopt a known spina bifida baby if the baby was identified as such at 30 weeks? What about a baby with cloacal exstrophy? All the heartache with that takes some very strong parents.

The Ohio proposals "no abortion not even when raped and even illegal if you drive to New York to get it" are clearly absurd, as are the South Dakota restrictions. I feel that free and open total abortion a.k.a. China is too open. A line in the sand has to be drawn and it's got to balance it enough evenly. And it's got to be connected with other programs such as free contraception for all - yes free condoms for men, free femidoms, free pills, free norplants, free coils, free caps. That way unintended pregnancies can be cut so that abortions can be done in regular hospitals (no need for special abortion clinics) and done under insurance or even better under universal insurance at no cost at point of delivery. However that limit when a baby can really live (say, 28 weeks - I might say 30 to be on the safe side) - if the baby is healthy and poses no risk to the mother an abortion would just not be right. A C-section would and signing adoption papers would also be the right thing to do. It has the same effect as an abortion that late in time - i.e. no baby to raise, no problems there... might be some repercussions at 18 years down the line when your child wants to make contact with you. Things might have changed back then - you might have planned a child, carried to term, delivered and had a family. Another family member that you have occasional contact with might at that time become attractive. Other families say OK, this is who we are, but given the circumstances under which we gave you up we don't really want to have contact with you.

Yep... it's getting long again, and late.

If I have any fallacies here please address them... my ears are always open and I'm always up for polite, non-slagging off, and informative debate. From you guys I learn more and appreciate this.

Sincerely,

Mark Wooldridge (yes I am going by my full name in this post; I have nothing to hide so why not?)

If a prisoner were forced to have their stomach cut open in an operation that wasn't necessary for their own health, we would call it torture.

Somebody needs to wake me up when people understand that woman are humans and are entitled to basic human rights - the same as men are entitled to. Cutting people open against their will is a gross violation of human rights. It's mind boggling to me that anyone would think otherwise.

if I'm still alive to see that day.

Isn't that a human being too?

Isn't that a viable human being at 30+ weeks?

Your analogy of a prisoner at this stage doesn't work because we're not talking about one life, we're talking about two. The anti abortionists will say that abortion is murder under every circumstance. I say it's not murder but at 30+ weeks with a healthy baby then it most definitely is murder when the baby can be delivered and it can live and be given a home to a childless couple who want a child. Especially if the baby is caucasian, because there's a shortage of white babies in the adoption world.

It's not a violation of the womans rights for her to be cut open in order for the baby to come into the world. There just has to be that point when popping a pill, or doing a medical procedure for 'menstrual regulation' should not happen because it was delayed way way way too long. Maybe because I don't know enough about childbirth and preemies that maybe an induced labour at 28 weeks would work just as well. If that's the case then maybe is that more acceptable for a live birth and for to be adopted out without a c-section?

It's at 30+ weeks (you could even say at term for all I care - there is a figure that delivery of the baby will result in 99%+ of a healthy baby - might need some help in an incubator but lots of wanted babies end up in incubators - me and my sister included).

Maybe you see it as mind boggling but I just happen to be one of those. I was a wanted baby however but I was poisoning my mother and hence a C-section at 30 weeks was necessary. Like our friend here DancingAlone would agree that abortion must and should always remain legal I agree with her on that. We may part on where an abortion should not happen but we agree again when its the womans decision to

I guess we have to agree to disagree because quite simply you believe in abortion no matter what. I believe that there should be some exceptions to having, and the one exception I feel strongly about (and feel is most obvious) is when the baby is viable, healthy and is a little premature. Then I can see a C-section, or maybe even an induced labour where the baby can be delivered (though I think with preemieis doctors would prefer a C.

As mentioned earlier I am still struggling with what should be done when a potential child that was initially wanted is found out to have a birth defect. Could the parent cope? There are some circumstances where an abortion IMO is actually humane - what's the point of deliverying a baby to term for the poor blighter to die a few hours or days later? That is of course my opinion and there are women who would rather deliver that baby, enjoy a little time with the baby and then grieve over its death. There are other circumstances where the baby has a defect that is operable or workabout around (I mention spina bifida and bladder exstrophy because I have a friend who has sd and my son was born with bladder exstrophy - I had a breakdown over that but I'm so glad about him because he's the most wonderful and precious boy to us). I wonder if we found out that our son had that condition (actually for the record until new years' eve in 2002 we were told we were having a girl - and were even given baby gifts to baby 'Emma' - because of the absence of a penis on the ultrasound scan... we know why now because the bladder and the penis were completely malformed on the outside of him) would my wife have gone through with an abortion? Because we are that close and I know her beliefs she would have found out as much about bladder exstrophy as soon as possible and made the decision. I would not have broken down as much, she probably would have opted for a c-section and still gone to the hospital where my son was operated on anyway because there aren't that many hospitals in the country equipped to deal with this rare cogenital defect.

lwfern: Thanks for expressing your point of view.. I understand that you don't agree with mine but do you at least see where I am coming from? It appears to me that there are some blinkers being worn here.

Kind regards to one and all,

Mark.

Because it is always a violation of human rights to cut someone open against their will. Even if another person will die as a result of it. I've written a number of posts on that already.

If you need my kidney to survive, there are two lives involved. But you cannot force me to undergo that procedure, even if it means you will die without me having it.

To exclude women from basic human rights is to treat them as subhuman.

Take this scenario.

A woman is 30 weeks pregnant with an otherwise normally healthy child. She wants to abort.

Would an induced labour or a c-section, followed by adoption be just as appropriate as an actual abortion?

Which is more worse? The killing of an actual child (because at 28 weeks plus they're not an embryo at that point, they are a premature child) ... or the mothers wish to get rid of the baby by whatever means necessary?

I said c-section because I was naieve and less understanding of the situation. I know I was born early because my mother had eclampsia, and I was born by c-section. However I have learned that labour can be induced as early as 28 weeks. So a normal vaginal delivery could occur.

So what would it be? Suck it out or push it out? Kill it or adopt it?

I leave this as my final point on this subject, I thank you for your input and have a great day ;)

Mark.

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

women are getting abortions at 28+ weeks for no apparent reason. I seriously doubt that many women wait that long into a pregnancy before terminating, and I trust that any woman who feels the need to do so has a good reason.

You are also completely ignoring the enormous financial burden it would place on the woman to give birth to a child - only to let it be adopted.

But again, your opinion is irrelevant, since you will NEVER have to make this decision.

Posted by Benevolent Dictator:



And again I'm made out to feel like I'm worthless and shouldn't have any part in this discussion - that it should be "women only". The problem is that men across the world are the ones making the decision whether or not women should have abortions. It also turns out that lots of men are the ones who are against abortion. Opinions should IMO always be valued... but I do share your viewpoint that women are the ones making the ultimate decision, not men. Abortions will always happen no matter what... be it by coathangers, by "menstrual regulation" or whatever. I understand this. I just feel that to reach out to the general populace there always has to be a point when a termination of a pregnancy should never happen. And that's why my opinion of this is at the point where a baby can be delivered live and healthy is when the choice of an abortion should end and the choice of a safe delivery should be the only realistic choice.

I also said that I'm talking about an extreme minority of abortions - ones in the 3rd trimester. They still happen too. First and second trimester abortions should always be available. I guess I do ignore the cost of a pregnancy and delivery since I've been used to (and indicated in my prior posts) socialised medicine such as that provided in the UK by the National Health Service.

Oh well. Like I said earlier on, some people have blinkers on. I'm trying to take mine off... please stop me from putting them back on.

Mark.

but not at all sorry if I made you feel like you shouldn't have any part in this discussion.

This obviously isn't true: "I do share your viewpoint that women are the ones making the ultimate decision, not men."
when you follow it with this: "the choice of an abortion should end"

Basically you believe in a woman's right to choose - so long as she chooses to do what you've decided she's allowed to do. Screw that.

My right not to have my belly slit open trumps anyone else's rights, period. And I'm not interested in allowing you or anyone else to slice me open in your efforts to reach out to the general populace. My belly is not a pawn for your political games, whatever they may be.

If you care so damned much about the lives of babies who you have nothing to do with, log off and go give blood.

No, really, I do! At least you're finally being honest. Basically what you're saying is that it's irrelevant whether or not your killing a child, because the use of your body trumps that. I get it.

I disagree, but I get it. I would rather have abortions be allowed only up to some specified time, as I'm not all too hot about killing babies and all. But I must once again point out to you that there's a difference between killing and saving. Me giving up a kidney would save a dying person. You having an abortion would kill a living person.

And before someone says it, no I don't think anybody here actually enjoys or wants to kill babies. All I have ever been asking here is for a simple acknowledgement that it's a baby. At least after a certain point. I'm not so stubborn as to call an embryo or even an early fetus a baby. But there has to be some line, doesn't there?

By the way, if I used the word "murder" in any of my posts (I'm too lazy to check), please disregard it. I've tried hard to use "kill" as opposed to "murder", because murder implies malice, and I know nobody wants to have an abortion.

"Me giving up a kidney would save a dying person. You having an abortion would kill a living person."

The only difference is semantics. And your worldview, which is that men's bodies aren't to be co-opted for such petty things as the saving of lives.

In each case there is - for the sake of argument - an individual who will live if another person's body is used to sustain their life. And will die if another person's body is not used to sustain their life. You not giving up a kidney would result in the death of that person. There's no getting around that. And it doesn't morally bother you to allow them to die, because you didn't want to be "inconvenienced." It's not your problem if your decision not to use your body to save them results in their death, right? Not your job. Welcome to the patriarchy.

Causing someone to die by refusing to sustain their life with your body, killing someone by refusing to sustain their life with your body ... at the end of the day, they're both dead. In both cases, you had an option to save them, you chose to not exercise that option. Other than semantics, there is no difference. Dead is dead.

And you never will.

Your giving up a kidney would save a living person. Your *not* giving up a kidney kills a living person. It might be indirectly, but it still does.

Why is it that men like to tell women what to do with their bodies for the sake of saving others, yet when the tables are turned they call it a false analogy? People die every day from lack of blood and organs and tissue, and your refusal to donate is killing living people.

they really have no interest in actually saving lives. That's why they don't get it. It's only a matter of interest if it involves controlling women, and their reproductive organs. That's why their overwhelming interest in saving lives mysteriously vanishes the second a fetus is born. If they were all that concerned about the preciousness of life, they WOULD make it mandatory to do blood donation, organ donation, etc. But they are perfectly fine with all those people dying needlessly. In fact, they don't give it a second thought. They have no moral issues whatsoever with watching tv instead of donating blood to save a 2 year old, because it doesn't matter to them at all if a 2 year old dies. They have less than no interest, because that would involve inconvenience on THEIR part. Such a thought process simply doesn't exist. That's what male privilege is all about.

Deaths that could be prevented aren't relevent if they involve men getting off their lazy self-important asses and putting their own bodies on the line. It's pretty easy from the comfort of a recliner, with a beer in your hand, to make the decision that I should be required go through major surgery, while they shouldn't be bothered to spend a half hour at the Red Cross.

These are the chicken-hawks of the abortion brigade.

I've tried hard to use "kill" as opposed to "murder", because murder implies malice, ...

I find it hard to believe you're that unschooled.

"Malice aforethought", in law, means no more than intent to do the proscribed thing. If you kill a sick person in order to spare him/her suffering, you are committing murder -- killing a human being "with malice aforethought" -- whether your heart was pure or not.

... and I know nobody wants to have an abortion.

You sure do know some damned funny things.

Until you can carry the fetus in your belly for 9 months (or hey, even 4.5, split the difference with the mother) and then give birth to it, your "debates" and your "questions" and your "opinions" ARE invalid. You will never know what it's like to be pregnant. Stop acting like you can make choices for or rationalize the feelings of people who can.

This post is interesting, do you share those same thoughts on other subjects? Concerning race, sexual orientation, or any other subject?

For instance, say an American Indian issue comes up, do you think that the only opinions that should matter are those of American Indians?

For instance, say a GLBT issue comes up, like a gay marriage amendment, do you think the only opinions that should matter are those of the GLBT community?

For instance, a union issue comes up, do you think the only opinions that matter are those who are in a union?

See where I'm going with this? I think you do, I just find this post interesting, and wonder if you share that same "train of thought" with other issues.

Those are the sorts of questions I expect to see from someone who is being disingenuous, actually.

For instance, say an American Indian issue comes up, do you think that the only opinions that should matter are those of American Indians?

Does the "issue" you're thinking of have to do with what medical services American Indians should be entitled to have access to in order to carry out decisions they have made about their bodies?

For instance, say a GLBT issue comes up, like a gay marriage amendment, do you think the only opinions that should matter are those of the GLBT community?

Hmm. Well, if the opinions of the GLBT community were as flagrantly contrary to decency and rationality as the opinions of anyone who opposes same-sex marriage, their opinion wouldn't matter much either, eh? Opinions don't override fundamental human rights, after all.

And you know, I'd bet that, all hyperbole aside, the person you were addressing would not say that a man's opinion that denying access to abortion is a violation of a fundamental human right doesn't matter.

The point would remain that a man's opinions about abortion -- i.e. about a woman choosing abortion, not about the right to choose abortion -- are irrelevant.

See where I'm going with this? I think you do, I just find this post interesting, and wonder if you share that same "train of thought" with other issues.

I certainly see where you want to be going with this, but I would hope you can see as well as I do that your conveyance won't get you there. I.e.: it doesn't fly.

Of all the opinions expressed in this thread, to pick this one to take issue with just strikes me as kinda odd.

"Does the "issue" you're thinking of have to do with what medical services American Indians should be entitled to have access to in order to carry out decisions they have made about their bodies?"

Yep, IHS funding, has a lot to do about health issues dealing with native americans. Funding is an issue, indians have high rates of diabetes, and will cause strain on the IHS system, and will in fact need more money to take care of that issue. There are a lot of cases of diabetic indians, who cannot recieve the care they need because of funding, and that issue is Entitled to them because of Trust Issue with the Federal Government. So, if this American Indian issue comes up, is it wise to say "non-american indian opinions are about as valid as the opinions of toads."


"And you know, I'd bet that, all hyperbole aside, the person you were addressing would not say that a man's opinion that denying access to abortion is a violation of a fundamental human right doesn't matter.

The point would remain that a man's opinions about abortion -- i.e. about a woman choosing abortion, not about the right to choose abortion -- are irrelevant."

The above, I agree with, was just looking for a clarification, and I thank you for that...:)

"I certainly see where you want to be going with this, but I would hope you can see as well as I do that your conveyance won't get you there. I.e.: it doesn't fly. Of all the opinions expressed in this thread, to pick this one to take issue with just strikes me as kinda odd."

My main concern was clarifying the post, that was my only concern. My first impression, was that "if you are not a woman, or cannot get pregnant you cannot talk about this issue" that was the impression I got, and I wanted a bit more clarification on that, and you provided it, and I thank you...:) There were a lot of other posts/threads that were of interest to me, but the issues at hand have been hammered home effectively, so I didn't post...:) You might find it odd, but I just wanted a bit more clarification on the post at hand, and I thank you for that...:)

Yep, IHS funding, has a lot to do about health issues dealing with native americans. Funding is an issue, ...

Yep. And if the issue that the poster was talking about had been funding of abortions, you'd have had yourself a bit of an analogy.

A real analogy would be if the issue were prohibiting American Indians from obtaining treatment for diabetes. That would be an analogy to the issue of the right to have an abortion, anyhow.

But if the issue is abortion, we might have an analogy if we were to start talking about how American Indians eat too many doughnuts and so they shouldn't be allowed to use insulin as blood sugar control, say. Or they should be severely frowned upon if they do that.


My main concern was clarifying the post, that was my only concern. My first impression, was that "if you are not a woman, or cannot get pregnant you cannot talk about this issue" that was the impression I got, and I wanted a bit more clarification on that, ...

Well, you might actually have looked at the entire discussion, and the post that the post in question was in reply to, for that clarification. Particularly on the question of what this "issue" is, which is where you seem to be having trouble.

It's not really easy to tell ... since the posts being responded to look rather more like rants than arguments. Perhaps that is the source of the difficulty in understanding a response to them. But we could try this (post 12):

But why can't a compromise be made here? Make it before the 2nd trimester or some shit. I don't know. All I know is I don't like the "all or nothing" stance pro-choicers and pro-lifers take on this issue.

or this (post 31, the one actually being replied to):

Whether it's a pro-choice view or a pro-life view, there seems to be absolutely no room for compromise on either side.

I dunno. Can you actually imagine a situation in which someone would be proposing that American Indians "compromise" on the question of when, whether and how they should have access to insulin? Let alone when an American Indian would feel compelled to make nice with such a person, and express great interest in his/her opinion, and in allowing it weight when it comes time to decide when, whether and how s/he will have access to insulin if s/he becomes diabetic?

Just curious.


There were a lot of other posts/threads that were of interest to me, but the issues at hand have been hammered home effectively, so I didn't post...

No, but interestingly, you did lock.

"Yep. And if the issue that the poster was talking about had been funding of abortions, you'd have had yourself a bit of an analogy.

A real analogy would be if the issue were prohibiting American Indians from obtaining treatment for diabetes. That would be an analogy to the issue of the right to have an abortion, anyhow.

But if the issue is abortion, we might have an analogy if we were to start talking about how American Indians eat too many doughnuts and so they shouldn't be allowed to use insulin as blood sugar control, say. Or they should be severely frowned upon if they do that."
***

There is an issue of prohibiting American Indians from obtaining treatment for diabetes, its called...funding. They have the medical condition, that they want treated, yet it isn't being addressed...:) But, your question was....
*****

"Does the "issue" you're thinking of have to do with what medical services American Indians should be entitled to have access to in order to carry out decisions they have made about their bodies?"
****

And the answer is yes.:)

****

"I dunno. Can you actually imagine a situation in which someone would be proposing that American Indians "compromise" on the question of when, whether and how they should have access to insulin? Let alone when an American Indian would feel compelled to make nice with such a person, and express great interest in his/her opinion, and in allowing it weight when it comes time to decide when, whether and how s/he will have access to insulin if s/he becomes diabetic?"
****


Yes, it has been proposed, its called, lack of funding...Indians dying for lack of treatment, that is entitled them via Federal Government, it is an issue, and diabetes is rampant through American Indian communities. The situation, is all ready there, IMO. And, we do have to give those people, who "with hold funding" their opinion, because its their opinion that the American Indian community is trying to deal with, to change.

Thank you for your time, and I appreciate posts, it is hard reading through nuance, and semantics on issues like this, when in some cases, semantic wars, or two different versions of the "truth" are being pulled into different directions. :)

Maybe I should just take all the little smileyfaces seriously, and assume you aren't?

There is an issue of prohibiting American Indians from obtaining treatment for diabetes, its called...funding.

Not knowing anything about you, I can't guess at why you would not see, or would purport not to see, the difference between:

- prohibiting someone from doing something
- refusing to pay the cost of someone doing something

Now, I really do trust that you will not read beyond what I have said here. *I* do believe that a society has a responsibility to its members, not merely to not prohibit them from doing something that is crucial to their well-being, but also to provide them with the resources that they need in order to do that, to the extent that the society is able. (That last bit, of course, will always be a matter on which reasonable people of good will can disagree, even if they agree on the principle.)

And *I* have certainly always been part of the crowd calling for free abortion on demand. Not that I've had to be, of course. Abortion was covered by Canadian public health plans even before the legal restrictions on access were removed, and still is. Obviously, the idea of anyone being unable to receive basic health care (like diabetes care) because of denial of funding is just bizarre to me.

But the two things are separate matters, nonetheless.

Your government may not prohibit you from expressing political opinions -- but it doesn't have to buy you a bus ticket to DC so you can do it.

A government may decline to FUND a medical procedure/treatment without in any way prohibiting someone from getting it. You do see this, right?

So pretending that the question of whether a treatment should be funded is the same kind of issue as the question of whether a treatment should be prohibited -- or access to it restricted by law (rather than financial means) -- just isn't wise.

There is an issue of prohibiting American Indians from obtaining treatment for diabetes, its called...funding.

No, you see. What is PREVENTING them from obtaining treatment is a LACK OF FUNDING. They are not prohibited from obtaining treatment. Surely there are some American Indians who can afford treatment, or who have employment-based health insurance -- are they unable to access treatment for diabetes? If not, then plainly American Indians are not PROHIBITED from obtaining treatment.

And what is preventing them from obtaining treatment is the lack of funding, not the "issue called funding".

"Funding of diabetes treatment for American Indians" is an issue, i.e. it is a matter about which opinions may differ. The questions involved in the issue are things like: who is responsible for the cost of individuals' health care? what resources does the society have, and how should they be allocated? what are the advantages and disadvantages to a society of covering those costs?

"Legal access to abortion" is also an issue. It's a very different kind of issue, though. The question involved in the issue is: does a society have justification for interfering in the exercise of the fundamental, human, constitutionally guaranteed rights in play?

"The morality of abortion" is also an issue, at least in some people's eyes. It is yet another kind of issue; it is a pure matter of opinion, on which no one's opinion is authoritative -- just like any other "moral" issue.

So what we were seeing here was a situation in which someone was advancing his opinion about the issue of the morality of abortion as a reason for someone else to "compromise" on the issue of legal access to abortion -- not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of law.

See how it doesn't work?

"Semantics" is all about how words have meanings, and what those meanings are. Semantics is your friend.

Semantics are your friend, actually ...

There have been countless cases, where American Indians have been denied health care, that was entitled to them, and the cause of that is due to funding, I sited diabetes as an example. They are entitled to it, and there are cases of it not being delivered, because of funding issues.

I am not debating choice, abortion, or anything of that nature with you, you are bringing that into the discussion, not I. In your first post to me, you asked...

"Does the "issue" you're thinking of have to do with what medical services American Indians should be entitled to have access to in order to carry out decisions they have made about their bodies?"
******************

The question, I answered, but by no means do you have to accept it, nor give it any credibility, its all a matter of intrepretation anyways, and thats fine, its up to your discretion.

Yes, some American Indians have other health care, and yes the diabetes gets treated, but again, there are many instances in which they are "not" treated, and they do not have "access" to those treatments. Also, they are still entitled to treatment through IHS, even though they have other health care providers, IHS, via the federal government entitles health care to American Indians.
***************

"They are not prohibited from obtaining treatment."
***************

Again, its all up to your discretion, and again in how you define prohibited.

pro·hib·it Pronunciation (pr-hbt)
tr.v. pro·hib·it·ed, pro·hib·it·ing, pro·hib·its
1. To forbid by authority: Smoking is prohibited in most theaters. See Synonyms at forbid.
2. To prevent; preclude: Modesty prohibits me from saying what happened.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Prohibited

Again, I had no question about choice, or abortion, or the morality therein. Again, it was nice talking with you, Take Care, petersond. :hi:

on edit: to clarify, and add "Also, they are still entitled to treatment through IHS, even though they have other health care providers, IHS, via the federal government entitles health care to American Indians."

between not funding something, and criminalizing it?

I said: Does the "issue" you're thinking of have to do with what medical services American Indians should be entitled to have access to in order to carry out decisions they have made about their bodies?

... and you're wanting to ignore the CONTEXT in which I said it, and pretend I said it about something other than what I said it about??

When I said "entitled to have access to", how can you have thought I meant "entitled to have funding for"?

The discussion here is about ABORTION, and the LEGAL RESTRICTIONS on access to abortion. Why would I have gone off on some tangent about FUNDING of access?

I am not debating choice, abortion, or anything of that nature with you, you are bringing that into the discussion, not I.

Good lord, chum. This is the CHOICE forum, and you're a moderator of it.

YOU are the one who jumped into a debate about CHOICE and tried to send what someone had said off down some slippery slope that it had nothing to do with.

YOU are the one who tried to draw an analogy between opinions about whether women should be prohibited by law from carrying out decisions about their own bodies and whether someone else should get funding to enable them to carry out decisions about their own bodies.

Why would I have been doing that? Why would I have been talking about anything other than prohibiting someone by law from carrying out decisions about their own bodies?? Why would you try to make me look as if I were doing that??

Again, its all up to your discretion, and again in how you define prohibited.

And yes, that's a cute little word game, and it's exactly what I was expecting. Truly. I even checked the Oxford Concise at my elbow to see what you were going to say.

I was perfectly prepared for you to pretend that there was no CONTEXT for what we were saying.

There's even a word for the game you're playing here. It's "equivocation". You can look that one up, too. It's where I plainly mean one thing by the word I use, and you pretend that I meant something else.

That math exam was a bitch.
Well you'd better get it vaccinated against rabies then!

Again, I had no question about choice, or abortion, or the morality therein.

That's as may be. What you did apparently have was an unseemly urge to portray a pro-choice poster here as being of a nasty bent, based on a curiously convoluted reading of what the poster said ... when there were just so many opportunities to question posters who could be seen to be of quite obviously nasty bent without having to break a sweat ...

Suppose a referendum were to be held next week to decide whether all men between the ages of 18-55 should be drafted to fight in Iraq. Suppose you have a female acquaintance who is strongly pro-draft but has no close male relatives in that age group. Would you find her opinion at all relevant? What if she said things like, "It's every man's duty to sacrifice his life for his country when his president declares war." Wouldn't it be obnoxious of her to so coolly talk about something that will not affect her in the least?

Others mentioned the forced organ transplant example. Would you support a bill that would make it illegal for a man or woman to refuse to donate an organ to a relative who would die without the transplant? Suppose you have a cousin who needs a kidney transplant. There is a risk of death for the donor in such a procedure, as there is in any pregnancy. Would you like the government to force you to donate your kidney, even if you don't particularly like your cousin and don't want to risk your life for him? Why should a woman be forced to risk her life for a clump of cells that want to use her body as an incubator against her will? Men so easily forget that pregnancy and child birth still carry a serious risk of death, as well as of permanent organ damage and complications later in life such as incontinence and back problems. Women who want to give birth accept these risks; but no one should be forced to accept them against her will.

You should also question your own logic of forcing women to give birth as punishment for not using proper birth control. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine for a child to be brought up by a woman who never wanted to give birth to him, who resents him and considers him a burden, who can't support him because she doesn't have a stable job. Or would you allow the government to force her to give him up for adoption? Do you really want the government to have that much power?

The abortion issue is ultimately about policy. It's not about whether you personally think abortion is right or wrong. Suppose a woman got pregnant because her pill failed (as they do 0.5% per year with perfect use); how is she to prove that she didn't miss any pills? Only 1.4% of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and nearly all of these take place to save the life of the woman. You would force every such woman to prove in court that her life was in danger?

This is why the decision to abort should be between a woman and her doctor. The government has no business in it.

The other point, of course, is that regardless of whether you think abortion is right, and regardless of whether abortion is legal, women will continue to have abortions. If abortion is banned or made too impractical, women will have them in back alleys or with clothes hangers and die in the process. Even if you manage to force a woman to give birth against her will, you can't prevent her from drinking, smoking, and living on junk food throughout her pregnancy because she resents the foetus taking over her body. Can you not see that the whole idea of a pregnancy falls apart when it's not voluntary? This is why abortion can't be banned: a ban on abortion is a futile attempt to control women and goes against the natural human right to do what one wants with one's body. Banning abortion is as reasonable as banning suicide.

You should also read the following before you so nonchalantly pass judgment:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-legal.xml

If "you people" don't want to have an honest debate, I can't do anything about it. I've given my opinions and my points, and so far have not been refuted at all. Not one of "you people" can admit that a human baby exists at some point in time during a pregnancy, and not one of "you people" have given me any reason to change my mind on this at all because all "you people" have done is dodge and waver and obfuscate.

I just LOVE how nitpicking on my choice of words makes you think you have any credibility whatsoever in this debate. You know what I mean when I say "you people", so my question now is are you just trying to stir things up or are you really that dense?

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

And we know exactly who those "you people" are he refers to. The same select group "he" speaks down to.

You people refers to YOU, specifically, and the other specific people in here who have not yet admitted that SOME abortions kill babies. I really didn't think I needed to clarify that, but there you go.

All I'm looking for is "Yes, you're killing a baby, BUT...". That's all I'm looking for.

is a definitive philosophical answer to an unanswerable question that is based in large part on people's private religious beliefs. No matter what the answer is, it's not relevent to the discussion at all. Some people believe it's a human while it's an embryo, some believe at 6 weeks, some believe at 28 weeks (apparently?), some believe at birth. Answered. Happy?

Your private beliefs on when a fetus becomes a human is completely irrelevent as to whether you have the right to slash my gut open. If we all agreed it's not a person, it would be irrelevent. If we all agreed it is a person, it would be irrelevent.

This is as irrelevent as Mark bringing up the cost of delivery, as if his right to cut me open is related in some way to how much it would cost - as if women are property and the rights to their bodies are a commodity that he can buy and sell. If it costs $5 he can force me to be cut open, if it costs me $10,000 he doesn't have the right to cut me open. I don't think so. I can't even begin to describe how offensive that line of reasoning is.

Meanwhile, I think we all agree that post-birth, people are alive individual humans. I still haven't seen you discuss whether you have a moral obligation to do whatever you can to save their lives. Do you have an obligation to donate blood?

Forget legal. Let's start with moral. Do you have a moral obligation to donate blood, knowing that it could save a human life?

I've been having power outages from the heat all week but still would not have come up with a better answer even if I'd had the chance to post one. Honestly, he rubbed me wrong from the start - if you hadn't noticed - but I really wasn't up for fighting with him. I think you've diffused him. I hope you have. Thanks.

Why is it so hard? Why can't one of you just say, "Yeah, you're right. Even though 99.9999% of abortions happen in the first trimester, perhaps the ones that happen after are actually killing human beings.

Now you say:

Yeah, you're right. Even though 99.999% of the weed killer used in North America goes on faerie-free terrain, perhaps the weed killer I use in my garden is actually killing faeries.

I will if you will.

Or I could just say:

I can't say what you said, because it's a nonsense, so I can't say it, although I guess I could make the sounds come out of my mouth.

I'll practise while I'm making dinner and let you know how I get on.

It is obvious that you know little or nothing about the complex changes that a fetus undergoes at birth. For one thing, a fetus cannot breathe air prior to birth but a born baby can. Place a baby into a uterus and it will quickly suffocate.

There are the changes in the chemistry of the blood; the reversal of blood flow and numerous other changes so complex that I'd be up typing for hours just to begin to touch on them all. Get yourself a textbook, such as Williams Obstetrics - and a medical dictionary, you'll need it - and educate yourself on the difference between a baby and a fetus. Your opinion on abortion may not change, but your arguments will be a little less dishonest.

Again, I don't know when a fetus becomes a baby, but it sure as hell happens before birth.

That just stands by itself as about the most ludicrous thing I've read in a while.

Before I say anything though, I want to say this: I don't like the tone that always comes about when a man gives his opinion on abortion.

First, that's false. Quite a few men are quite capable of giving very decent opinions about abortion. They go the same way decent women's opinions go: they oppose interference in women's exercise of their fundamental human rights. Any man who wants to say that is welcome to do so, and I can't imagine that any tone you found distasteful would come about.

Me, I'd read the entire opening screed before it occurred to me that the author was a man. It was that "Mike" that gave it away.

Once you accept that, (and if you don't, I don't want to argue with you because you are clearly delusional), ...

Hey, back at ya. That thing I quoted first kinda speaks for itself.

You say a woman should have the right to choose and we have no right to say when it's justified? Why the fuck not?

Think really hard, and it may come to you. In fact, I suspect you already know the answer.

But why can't a compromise be made here?

Here, I've got a compromise for you.

People die daily from kidney disease, for want of organs for transplant. Most healthy people could donate kidneys and be none the worse for wear.

So here's the compromise: we'll only compel you, by law, to donate one of your kidneys. You can keep the other.

All I know is I don't like the "all or nothing" stance pro-choicers and pro-lifers take on this issue.

Let me know what stance you'll be taking on that kidney donation thang.

I'd even compromise some more for you. We'll compel you to donate blood and bone marrow, but not a kidney unless there's some really extraordinary circumstance.

Why should YOU be the one who gets to decide??

and I'd like to add that all women should be trusted to decide for themselves who, if anyone, they want to confide in and ask advice from. That person might be a parent, a spouse, a significant other, or NO ONE AT ALL.

It is never going to be some stranger who she will never meet and who has no interest in her survival or her happiness.

It's intriguing how many strangers who have never met a particular woman, who have no interest in her survival or her happiness, try to make decisions for them and try to make them stick.

No stranger has, OR SHOULD HAVE, access to police records (to verify rape reports), access to medical records (to verify life-threatening pregnancies), or access to pharmacy records (to verify whether or not contraceptives were used). The government should never have access to this kind of information.

We women should have have to go to a board of self-appointed abortion approvers to convince them that her reasons are justified in their minds.

All women have the right to live their lives differently from how any other person might choose to live their own. If that means aborting a pregnancy, or giving birth and keeping the child, or giving birth and giving the child up for adoption, that is not anyone's business but the woman who is pregnant.

You hit the nail right on the head. This is the crux of the anti-choice movement (those who claim to be pro-life, the ones who think that abortion is OK only in a few decided-by-them circumstances) To them, no woman can be trusted to make the "right" decision, and thus these major life-changing decisions must be made by others, though these others are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences.

'To them, no woman can be trusted to make the "right" decision'

nor, apparently, can her doctors. Religious zealots and politicians just know things that the doctors aren't privy to. All that medical school - what a waste. It is just crazy - like everything else in this country. How did we move backward so quickly?

In Bangladesh technically abortion is illegal. However a lot are done under the guise of "menstrual regulation" - the doctors are trying to get the woman to have normal periods again and didn't do a pregnancy check.

I seriously hope that we don't go the Bangladesh route.

The only day a man gets to decide for sure if he wants to have an abortion is when he gets pregnant. And there aren't many men who can get pregnant yet. And if it's me I want a huge bunch of cash for doing so. Until then, the potential father is in the right place to influence but cannot and should not make the final decision.

Mark.

Really good to see you.

Bangladesh or something like it is exactly where we're headed.

Before Roe v Wade, while abortion was still illegal in the US, doctors were performing "Therapeutic Abortions" (defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health). In California, 3 or 4 years before abortion was legalized, the door was opened to essentially any woman who was seeking abortion with the financial means under the guise, if you want to call it that, of preserving the mother’s health, be it mental or otherwise.

I was pretty young at the time but I knew a few older girls who had TAs.

Women have known since the beginning of time that abortion is necessary. Outlawing them never has and never will change that truth. Like in Bangladesh, women (and doctors) find a way around the extremist’s idea of what we should do with our bodies whether it be by way of a safe and legal loophole or not.

Sometimes I wonder if this is how it has to be for the upcoming generations to learn. Kind of feels like taking the long way home.

And yes, a wad of cash would be smart.

Oh, ok... it's only justified when it meets your critera!??! :wtf:

:hi:
How's your summer going for you? It's so good to see you. Hope all is well with you.

the point of being "Pro-Choice" is exactly that no one comes up with the criteria for determining when an abortion is "okay" and when it is not but the woman - in consultation with her doctor and when appropriate, the man who got her pregnant (which should be most cases), her family and her clergy.

It is not for the government to say her health faces a significant enough risk that abortion is okay, or the risk is minimal. It is not for us to judge a woman, to slice and dice her justifications and determine if they meet our standards. Everyone's situation is different.

The only place at which I do draw the line and think government regulation is okay is viability. And even then I think we need to be careful about passing any laws because viability is still uncertain and open to interpretation.

kind of contraception people use?

Why did you post this? Are you going to sit as a judge for every woman who wants an abortion? This is a private, complex decision that can't be deduced down to a few general rules to cover all cases.

I think that along with the majority of people here that we think that abortion is wrong and is a nasty thing.

I, and quite a lot of other people, couldn't care less what you and whatever majority or minority may agree with you think. And I, at least, am perpetually gobsmacked by the need that people who think as you do seem to feel to blat what you think around in public constantly.

What does it matter what you think about abortion? Why should anyone care what you or anyone else thinks about it?

What would you think about someone who maundered on and on and on about how people of colour are intellectually inferior and smell bad, hastening to add that they should not be denied equal access to housing and employment?

Well friend, that's exactly what you sound like to me. You are saying that millions of women worldwide, every year, do this "wrong" "nasty thing", and that is absolutely no different from saying that those women are intellectually inferior and smell bad -- in fact, it's a whole lot worse. It's saying that those women are evil.

I don't want to hear you tell me how evil women are. Thanks all the same.

I DO NOT think that abortions is "wrong and a nasty thing", and I don't invite you to tell me that you think so. I invite you to hush, and if you won't, I'll tell you what I think about what you think.

There are times when I would say that abortion is wrong:

1) If the fetus is viable ... At this stage I just have to say it is murder.

Say it's a doughnut, if you like. Your saying it don't make it so. I will not agree that an abortion is either a murder or a doughnut, and I couldn't care less that you disagree with me. Your flowery descriptions of things are of no significance and carry no authority.

2) If the woman had sex knowingly (not including involuntary sex such as rape), didn't use contraception, didn't use emergency contraception and doesn't believe in abortion anyway.

What is that all about?

If a woman doesn't believe in abortion, then one might think that her having an abortion would indeed be "wrong", since, presumably, someone would be compelling her to do it. And compelling people to do things they don't want to do, when those things are none of anyone else's business and there is no justification for them to be compelled to do them -- by the state, which is about the only thing with authority to compel adults to do things -- is, yes, wrong.

Well they're unlikely to have an abortion anyway, but if the baby is well and safe and sound then she should carry the baby to term to stick with her beliefs and adopt the baby out.

Actually, you should refrain from sticking your nose into places where it doesn't belong.

Women who don't "believe in abortion" have abortions all the time, and quite often turn around and continue to be the anti-choice scum they always were. Their business -- not yours, and not mine. If they choose not to "stick with their beliefs", I don't care and you have no reason to care; if they suffer, tough shit -- that's what mental health professionals are for. If they're lucky, they'll find some sort of rational emotive practitioner who will help them to adjust their value system so that they can stop being scum and let go of the shame that their scummy value system is directing them to feel. That would be nice for them, and I don't like to see people suffer needlessly, but it's up to them.

There are times when I would say that abortion is fully justified.

Again -- why do you imagine anyone cares???

I can't imagine what makes you feel qualified to assess the "justification" for a decision made by a stranger in circumstances you know precisely fuck all about -- but then I can't imagine why you'd want to do that in the first place.

There are times when I would say that abortion is fully justified.
1) If the fetus is in effect killing the mother. I was one of those babies.

Here's one for you. My niece was one of those babies. Were it not for miracles of modern medicine, she would have killed my sister. She wouldn't come out. Had my sister been stranded somewhere without medical assistance instead of in a wondrous big hospital in Toronto -- in fact, she planned a home birth, with the blessing of her doctor and midwives, and only went to hospital when it was apparent it wasn't working -- that fetus would never have come out and there'd be an extra headstone in the family plot right now. That was in the final stage of labour, and was a surprise to everyone despite all the ultrasounds and measuring and every other variety of prenatal care known to woman. The 10+ pound fetus simply had an enormous head that no one had detected.

If my sister had wanted to terminate her pregnancy and been prevented from doing so because of laws against abortion, she could have been dead after having no opportunity to plead her case as being a woman (NOT mother; my sister had no children) whose pregnancy was killing her. NO ONE CAN PREDICT when pregnancy will kill a woman, and which women it will kill.

Do you have a crystal ball no one else has? If not, how exactly would you determine who falls into this category?

2) If contraception totally failed (condoms, birth control pills... certainly not the rhythm method) and emergency contraception is unavailable. I'd say an early term abortion might be better here because clearly the child was unintended and most likely - especailly if it's failed contraceptive pills - that the baby is to be born deformed and may only live so long. (Failed condoms don't usually do that though... I just have a feeling and sorry no scientific background that failed contraceptive pills might well cause deformities.

For the love of all the deities -- you know nothing about what you're talking about, and you say it anyway? The pill causes birth defects?? What planet do you live on?

I have never been able to figure out what makes a z/e/f that comes into existence despite efforts to prevent it from coming into existence less worthy of the concern of the anti-abortion / anti-choice brigade. It flummoxes me every time. Somehow, the virtue of the woman in whose body it is -- her good intentions -- become determinative of its value. I dunno.

3) Babies who are viable but will be born with cogenital birth defects or other "disabilities". Should a spina bifida baby be aborted? An autistic baby? A baby with some of its organs on the outside?

Should you mind your own business? YES.

Should a woman be PREVENTED from terminating a pregnancy when the fetus suffers from serious defects? NO. No more than any other woman should be prevented from terminating a pregnancy. NO ONE is saying that a woman in that situation should terminate a pregnancy, so what's your point? To whom are you speaking? *I* am not going to say what *any* woman "should" do about her own pregnancy. The question is loaded with the false premise that there is some standard by which women's decisions about their own pregnancies are to be measured -- AND THERE ISN'T.

4) Something that I just don't know and can't fathom out as a male. There may well be a reason here that abortion is right even though I don't know why. It's not for me, as it isn't my body.

There may be a reason that abortion is RIGHT FOR THE PERSON CHOOSING IT, yes indeed. But I think that you're talking:

right
1. just, morally or socially correct

while I'm talking:

right
4. more or most suitable or preferable

#1 doesn't come into it. The question is what is suitable for or preferable to THE WOMAN.

The two terms are the wrong terms to describe the various polarities.

Got it in one.

The two poles are:

PRO-CHOICE
ANTI-CHOICE

Too obviously.

Those who favour more open abortion should be called women's health rights activists and those who favour more restricted but yet legal abortions should be called women's rights supporters.

What a dog's breakfast.

Those who favour interfering in women's exercise of the fundamental human right to make choices about their own bodies and lives should be called scum. Because that's what they are.

And people who find abortion distasteful but do not wish to look like scum should shut the hell up if they can't just say that they oppose interference in women's exercise of the fundamental human right to make choices about their own bodies and lives.

Wouldn't it be fun if we could all make major decisions for other people, people we don't know and will never know? Wouldn't it be fun to make life-altering decisions for others and never have to see or live with the results?

That's exactly what the "abortion is only OK if I approve of the reason" crowd is doing. They are presuming to make a life-altering major decision for you and never have to see the results.

They are saying: I get to choose, you get to live with my choice. I get to choose, and suffer none of the consequences. I get to choose, and get to feel self-righteously good about myself while you are struggling with paying the bills, fighting for life with a dangerous pregnancy, or trying to start over after your parents disowned you and kicked you out on the streets.

Iverglas--I wanted to stand up and shout Huzzah! Who died and left Mark in charge? You know what I say? If he doesn't like abortion, he shouldn't have one.

Those who favour interfering in women's exercise of the fundamental human right to make choices about their own bodies and lives should be called scum. Because that's what they are.

Couldn't've said it better myself without getting my post deleted.

I stand with you.

I have to laugh..."believe in abortion"...as if it were a religion instead of a surgical procedure?
I guess I have to "believe in appendectomy" too...

I think that along with the majority of people here that we think that abortion is wrong and is a nasty thing.

Whaaaa? Abortion is neither wrong nor nasty, and I imagine most people do not think it's wrong or nasty. Where did you get the idea that abortion is wrong and nasty? Did you have one? Oh, I see you're a man, so probably not. Actually, when abortions are performed legally by a competent doctor in a clinic or hospital, they are clean and righteous for the women who made the decision.

They are nasty and wrong only when women are forced to self-abort or go to the butcher on the outskirts of town who charges a fortune to do a procedure on a dirty kitchen table and isn't there for follow-up if a woman needs it. And even then, it's not the abortion itself that is wrong; it is the conditions under which a woman is forced to get one that are wrong.

I've read this entire thread now and I have only two things to say.

First, I think an abortion should be legal always, under any circumstances. I also believe that the fetus does become a baby at some point in the pregnancy but since I have no idea when that is I can't rule out late term abortions or anything like it. For all I know, the thing could be a fetus right up until the point of birth. Who knows? But I'm pro-choice all the way. I guess a Women's Health Rights Activist or whatever you called it.

The second thing I have to say is directed to lwfern. Frankly, your attitude towards men is terrible and false. It is a broad generalization and those are always wrong. ALWAYS. There are always many who do not fall into the generalization. I can not abide by your bullshit stance toward men. It is simply wrong and offensive. Okay, so you think men don't have valid opinions about abortion. Thats fine, but to say that they all just sit around and drink beers and tell women what to do and feel som sort of superiority complex is fucked up. Because of opinons and generalizations like that, I have lost all respect for you and any opinions you have. You wanna get something done about an issue, you reach out to people and get their support you don't piss them off and marginalize them. If you want ANYTHING to happen with abortion, you WILL have to get the support of men whether you want to or not. Just the way it is. Not enough women in positions of power yet unfortunately. Hopefully someday that will change, but for now, if you want anything done, you'll have to go through men. However much that disgusts you.:rant:

If you assumed I was talking about all men, you assumed so wrong it's beyond laughable. Without the righteous feminist men in my life, I would not have read Audre Lorde, Catharine MacKinnon, or Dworkin. The men have been shameless about stuffing my head full of all manner of dangerous ideas. :evilgrin:

I've been talking only about those men who feel that women's bodies - and only women's bodies - are property of the state to be used against their will as a parts shop. I have an openly terrible attitude toward those men, as I do toward white folks who think it's acceptable to make reproductive decisions for black folks "for their own good" or "for the good of society." I generalize about those folks also. Not all white folks, but those ones. The generalization for them is that they are racist bastards, and I don't much go out of my way to make friends with them either. If you got an opinion about my uterus, you can be damn sure I've already marginalized it. Without apologies.

If you fall into either of those above categories, what I wrote applies to you. If you don't, then it doesn't.

Some of them don't drink beer, though, I will give you that. I was probably drinking a guinness when I wrote that, to be honest, and just had beer on my mind. :)

At first, I skipped right to the replies, and posted, without reading your OP. Now I can see why you were rightfully criticized for some of your statements. However, I don't retract anything I said, in context.

As a man, you naturally haven't been required to expend any thoughts on abortion, except hearing the admonishments, since you naturally wouldn't have to worry too much about getting pregnant unintentionally, as a man, and all...and if you did happen to be an unintentional dad, the mother of your child would sacrifice a lot more (understated) than you would have to.

Furthermore, no one on the Left is "pro-abortion". It may seem like a good idea to me sometimes, but I am certainly not going to suggest it to anyone. Your notion of women slacking until 30+ weeks to get an abortion---where do you get that? Goddamn, I see enough people under the guise that 6 month pregnant women get abortions, I really need to compile info to finally convince people they have been sadly misinformed by zealots. Most abortions happen in the first 9 weeks.

Oh, but thanks so much for adding that the woman should have a choice if she is raped. How gracious of you.

Your little comment about race being relevant to whether abortion is justifiable? That comment alone shows that you have no concept of what it's like to be a woman. What do you suppose is going through a pregnant female's mind? 'me and baby daddy are both white, so I'll keep it'? I'm sorry to tell you so bluntly, but even if both parents are white, it's none of anyone's business to say we should keep it.

You are right about there being anti-abortionists. They're called anti choice. You, yourself, are pro-choice, to a degree.


I would argue that you are definitely not a "realist", because I am the true "realist", and your views do not completely agree with mine.

And, thanks, for (sort of) supporting women's reproductive rights, even though you you don't fully support women making their own decisions.

...unfortunately, there are too many who disagree with you, Mark. It's sad, really, that to argue they have to make those of us who agree that a woman should have control of her own body (and the right to do with it what she pleases) are in the business of "extinguishing babies," as one such writer has put it.

This woman is completely off her rocker. She posts a lot on this particular site, then deletes any and all comments that might disagree with her ideas.

The inability to have honest, open debate is what leads to Fascism.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/69722/the_innocent_victim_of_reproductive.html?post=true&#comment

Please. Read some of her articles. Comment on them. Write some of her own. We cannot let the debate on this issue be one sided, not anywhere.