Warning! Long post with unpleasant images. The squeamish should beware.

In order to fix something, you have to diagnosis the problem first. For instance, if your computer is not working , because the power is out, replacing hardware will not make a difference. If a child can not study in school, because he is too hungry, providing better textbooks and more teachers will not fill his stomach.

Many people wade into the abortion rights yes or no debate without understanding the issue. Abortion is not the problem, as some people like to claim. Abortion is one solution to the much broader public health problem of unplanned pregnancy. Wherever women become pregnant accidentally, there will be elective terminations.

Fact



http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Fiction

Rove v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision guaranteeing a woman the right to an elective abortion has increased the total number of the procedures performed in the country. Here is a site which attempts to make this argument.

http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/making-abortion-illegal-reduces-the-abortion-rate/

Fact

We can not say that total abortion rates in this country increased, because no one was measuring illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. Instead, those who claim that legalization increases the procedure have to rely upon statistics about the number of legal abortions done. And yes, more women were able to have a legal, safe pregnancy termination after 1970 than before. (see the Alan Guttmacher link above).

One indirect way to measure the total abortion rates in this country is to look at the number of women who developed medical complications from illegal abortion. When the procedure is performed in someone’s kitchen using non sterile technique, women risk bleeding, infection, sterility and even death. The graph on page 3 of this Alan Guttmacher document

http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf

Shows that legalization cut the rate of abortion related medical complications by 90%.

Since “complication” is a cold, scientific word which does not even begin to describe the human cost of back alley abortions, here is the image which represented the potential plight of American women before Roe V. Wade.



This is not a peculiarly American problem. A recent global study found that abortion rates were similar in countries where the procedure was illegal and in countries where it was legal, suggesting that women faced with an unplanned pregnancy largely ignore the law, perhaps because health and economic factors force them to do so.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

So, the next time someone tells you that abortion rates went up in the U.S. after Roe v. Wade, say “We do not know the rates. We do know that women suffered 90% fewer health complications after Roe. In other words, making abortion illegal kills women.” Any public health policy decision which reduces the incidence of medical complications (including death) by 90% is a very effective one.

Fiction

Because of the risk of contraception failure, the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancies is to tell girls not to have sex.

Fact

Abstinence only sex education accomplishes nothing, and it is inferior to birth control in reducing the rate of unplanned pregnancy.

Congress did a study which showed that children in abstinence only sex education programs had outcomes which were exactly the same as kids given no sex ed.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html


So, telling someone not to have sex has no effect whatsoever on the rate of sexual intercourse. That means that we might as well have been throwing close to $200 million a year (the amount the feds spend on abstinence only programs) into the toilet. That money would have bought a lot of condoms.

On the other hand, making contraception more readily available does decrease the rate of unplanned pregnancies. This in turn decreases the abortion rate. From the New York Times link above:



The Netherlands has the lowest abortion rates in the world at somewhere between 5-7%. The Dutch achieved this by making heroic efforts to disseminate contraception to everyone, including young people. Note that universal health insurance was part of their formula for success.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

Universal health care is important. If poor women are denied preventive health services including birth control, they will have more unplanned pregnancies and give birth to more children whom they can not afford.



http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/05/04/contraception/

The Republican Party, which claims that its goal is to eliminate abortion, actually increases the abortion rate in this country by increasing the rate of unplanned pregnancies. They do this by wasting money which could be spent on effective sex education on ineffective abstinence only programs. And they deny necessary contraception services to the women who can least afford to get pregnant. The latter is accomplished in part by stigmatizing various birth control methods such as the IUD, the morning after pill and, in some extreme cases, even regular oral contraceptives as "immoral". Insurers are allowed to opt out of birth control coverage. Pharmacies and hospitals can refuse to provide family planning supplies. Funds for family planning are cut (often on the grounds that the same facilities also provide legal abortions).

The net result of Republican Party policy is to increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions, while stigmatizing the women who fall victim to their bad public health policies. Poor women are told, in effect, It is your own fault that you and your children are poor. They are told If you get an abortion so that you can continue to work and feed your other children, you are an unfit mother. Blaming victims for their own oppression is an invaluable way to decrease the self esteem---and demands---of the nation’s low paid female workers. They become a more compliant labor force, willing to settle for whatever crusts their employer tosses their way.

Fiction

Abortion is a moral issue. Policies need to be set by spiritual and moral leaders.

Scan any right wing site and you will read that abortion providers are “Satanists” and that women who have elective terminations are “murderers.” Opponents of abortion rights love to quote the Pope. But note that many so called “Right to lifers” ignore the Catholic injunction against violence and the death penalty and war. They also get divorced, even though the Catholic Church forbids this. In addition, they are indifferent to the treatment of children once they are born, endorsing public policies that doom poor children to lives of deprivation. How can they select one moral issue out of many and ignore the rest? They can do this, because their primary focus is not on morality or spirituality. Restricting women’s right to choose is a purely economic/political issue for many.


Fact

Abortion is a public health issue. It is a marker of the unplanned pregnancy rate, which is at epidemic levels in this country. When society is not doing enough to help young women avoid getting pregnant, public health policy experts need to step in, the same way that they would intervene when people catch salmonella from their food.

Fiction

Spending time and money changing public health policy is not necessary. We can just pass laws against abortion and women will change their behavior and stop getting pregnant.

Despite international evidence to the contrary, the anti-choice movement seems to be convinced that the most effective way to cut down on the number of abortions performed is to make it hard or impossible for women to get the procedure. Is there a way to test their hypothesis? Counting the number of abortions in states with restrictive laws will tell us nothing , since these states often create economic conditions that drive providers out of state. A more reliable estimator of the effect of these laws comes from the unwanted pregnancy rate. Since the federal courts allow states a great deal of freedom in restricting the abortion rights of minors, the rate of teenage pregnancy can be used as a marker for the “success” of anti-abortion legislation in cutting down those unplanned pregnancies.

Fact

There is no statistically significant relationship between the severity of a state’s anti-abortion laws for minors and the teenage pregnancy rate.

Here is a list of abortion regulations by state.

http://www.essortment.com/articles/abortion_laws_100000.htm

Here is a site which gives statistics about teenage pregnancy rates by state.

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/advanced-search.aspx?state1=alabama&state2=mississippi&state3=texas&18=3&x=35&y=13

The most restrictive laws are so called “parental consent”. A girl can not get a legal termination unless a parent says she can. If her parents object (or can not be found or are incompetent) she usually has to go to court. These states include Alabama (Teen Pregnancy Rate or TPR 90), Idaho (TPR 62), Indiana (TPR 73), Kansas (TPR 69), Kentucky (TPR 76), Louisiana(TPR 87 ), Maryland( TPR 91 ), Massachusetts (TPR 60). Michigan (TPR 75 ), Mississippi (Both parents have to give consent TPR 103), Missouri (TPR 74), Ohio (TPR 74 ), Pennsylvania (TPR 60 ), Rhode Island (TPR 67),Tennessee (TPR 89). Average 77.

States with no restrictions include California (TPR 96), Connecticut(TPR 70), , Hawaii (TPR 93), Illinois(TPR 87), Montana (TPR 60 ), Nevada (TPR 113 ), New Hampshire (TPR 47 ), New Jersey (TPR 90 ), New Mexico (TPR 103 ), New York (TPR 91), Oklahoma (TPR 86 ) Oregon (TPR 79), Vermont (TPR 44 ), Washington (TPR 75 . Average 81

77 versus 81. Virtually the same rate. So much for making girl’s jump through hoops.

Fiction

Anti-abortion laws may not stop women from getting pregnant, but we can damn well make sure that if she conceives, she will not be able to get an abortion

Since a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words, here is a map of the United States with a color code to represent abortion legislation.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_minor_abortion_laws.svg

Note that every state in which a girl must obtain parental consent borders one which does not have this requirement (except Mississippi, but it is only a short drive to Florida). That means that a safe, legal, consent free abortion is available for every young woman in this country if she travels a few hours.

Fact

The Republican Party will continue to give lip service to the notion of outlawing abortion, but it will never actually make the procedure impossible for women to obtain in this country. That is because if women ever find themselves unable to get a legal, safe abortion, they will start having the old fashioned back alley kind--and they will start dying, at which point, the tide of public opinion will turn, as it did in the early 1970s.



The bad news is that the GOP will continue to push policies that increase the rate of unintended pregnancies for young and poor women---unless we stop them. The first, most important step is universal access to health care, including contraception for all women of reproductive age, including minors.

Is that a woman who died after a home abortion?

IIRC, her daughter posted her on DU at one time regarding the picture.

I could not find the thread, but this person posted a touching message about it.

In their references:

5. ^ Joannie Santoro, June 8, 2006: Remembering 42 years ago today

The link goes to this DU post, in her journal: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/dancingAlone/4

There's a picture of her mother there.

I remember when she posted that. I wonder how she's doing.

it could have been me.

Wonderful that her daughter came to tell something about who Geraldine Santoro

really was -- a mother of two who loved her.

Politics effects your life every moment of your life -- and especially patriarchal politics.

Patriarchs decide -- women die.

This is a picture of a woman on patriarchy's cross -- and though we have Roe vs Wade,

still women die because of patriarchy's notification laws and patriarchy's war on women's clinics.

since at least the 80s and probably the 70s. THAT is the true face of the anti-choice philosophy.

She died in a hotel room after she and her "boyfriend" tried to self-abort a 5 month pregnancy in 1964. She had run away from an abusive husband, taking her two young daughters with her. She later became romantically involved with a man and became pregnant.

Fearing that her husband might find her pregnant by another man, they (Santoro and friend) tried to access an abortion early on. They could not find a doctor who would help them, so they got a hotel room and hired an illegal abortionist. By this time, poor Ms. Santoro was 5 months along, presenting further complications for the "doctor".

When it became obvious that Ms. Santoro had suffered dire complications from the abortion, the doctor ran away, fearing prosecution. And very shortly thereafter, so did the "boyfriend". Ms. Santoro was left alone, in agony, dying from a hemorrhage due to a botched later abortion... The famous photo is a crime scene photo gathered by the police after the body was found by hotel housekeeping the next morning...

And as someone else above mentioned, one of her daughters does post here at DU, so please keep that in mind when you wish to post on abortion issues here.

It was peformed by her husband and she bled to death she was around 25 years old at the time.I have heard there were a lot of bedroom abortions back then.While I wish no one had to have an abortion making it a crime won`t stop them from happening they will just be more dangerous.People should look back at proabition remember how that worked out or the so called war on drugs.We can not legislate morality.

In America...

Incredible post. Thank you!

the procedure of abortion bothers me a great deal, though I do support it for women in the cases of rape and the mother's life being in danger.

That said, at what point during the pregnancy is the fetus considered a fully formed human being capable of surviving outside of the womb, i.e. premature birth or c-section? More to the point, what gives a person 'A' the right to end the life process of person 'B', when the development of person 'B' was made possible only by a very specific action undertaken by person 'A'.

I ask because a some point at or after the moment of conception, the fetus becomes more than just a collection of cells.

Regardless of the method of contraception used, when a women consents to sex with a man, there is a chance that she will become pregnant. This is also a fact and it needs to be part of the discussion.

Certain questions are met with extreme responses from some members here.

If the host isn't willing, the host is under no obligation to risk losing her life or becoming maimed because someone else considers the fetus more important than her. The definition of conception includes implantation....and a woman must be willing to continue the pregnancy in order for it to advance. Take away that choice and you are talking about forced pregnancy and birth.
Most anti-choice arguments totally ignore the fact that the woman has a right to self-determination.

what is a "forced pregnancy"?

I know....she should have kept her legs together. :sarcasm:

I'm interested to know when you think responsibility ends and forcing begins.

Never mind...

But thank goodness there's a "sarcasm" smiley here!

:sarcasm:

I was just curious about your reasons and the words you chose in support of it.

We'll leave it at that, I guess.

either you're ignoring it or are incapable of understanding it --

FORCE occurs any time a woman is prevented from self-determination over reproduction.

Is there no self-determination over reproduction before conception?

Is that what you're talking about . . .

Or are you saying that males too often refuse to use condoms?



PS: Fear of caps, eh?

The best contraceptive can fail.

The most desired pregnancy can go horribly wrong.

Or are you suggesting that a woman should be punished for terminating an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy? And just how does that work for the man who impregnated her? Surely he had some self-determination at some point?

Grow a garden. Adopt a pet -- and don't alter or spay it. Go to the zoo and watch the animals. Then ask yourself why sex is such a mighty drive. It just is that way in many living beings. Even in my garden, I see the drive of tiny shoots to push up out of the earth and assert their aliveness. That's what life is about. That is what sex is about.

The sex drive is what is natural. It's delaying or abstaining from sex that is not natural. If you have never had an unwanted pregnancy or fathered an unwanted child, that is what is "unnatural" in terms of the elemental biological drives and internal instructions. If we want people to abstain from having children, we have to intervene because having children, the more the merrier is what nature dictates. That is why it is absurd to withhold birth control and all-encompassing sex education from people. If we do not give people the tools with which to avoid unwanted pregnancies, we put them in an impossible bind -- between what nature demands and what society demands. The result is that many people become angry or feel guilty. That is counterproductive in a society in which cooperation is needed.

Granted, the sex drive is stronger in some than it is in others. But that is another story. If you want to know about weak sex drives, read the Apostle Paul in the Bible. He explains his own uniqueness in that area. There are lots of people like him too. But that is not the most common experience.

Sid

it's permissible for women to fornicate? And that would be, when the circumstances of a woman's life all line up so her physical/emotional/mental/financial situations make giving birth a viable option. That's when she ought to be exerting her "choice" right?

Since accidents will always happen, regardless of precautions taken -- I guess this must be one of those "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" deals, eh?

I'm questioning the use of the word "force," as though there was no choice before conception.

This stems from the invalid argument that usually comes up in these debates where some people assert that it's the male's responsibility to prevent conception.

And I always wonder why the people who make that argument view women as incapable of making that choice, too.

I never get a coherent answer to that. Oh well. I'm off to watch some TV. Have a good one. :hi:

or die or get maimed, her options are cut off, thus being "forced". Not too hard to understand.

FORCE is preventing self-determination as to whether or not to reproduce --

Yes, it is the male's responsibility to prevent conception if a pregnancy isn't desired --

and same for the female --

but we do not have 100% accident-proof, user-friendly birth control --

and I guess you haven't heard that many males don't like to wear condoms.

If you're missed that bit of info -- I'm delivering it to you now.

And, very often young males hold a belief in "pulling out early."

:eyes:




PS: Bold and italics -- run away, run away!!

as I read it, you appeared to be questioning whether that was even a possibility. That if a woman consents to sex, any resulting pregnancy isn't "forced", it's something she should take "responsibility" for... am I reading this correctly?

And furthermore, you've reiterated a couple of times that "some people" assert it's the male's responsibility to prevent conception, women are incapable of making the choice blah, blah. Can you post links to that assertion? I haven't seen that argument made on DU a lot.

In answer though you're making huge assumptions that anyone who gets pregnant has access to birth control, or knowledge of it. Or that their circumstances are exactly the same the day they had sex vs. the day they discover they're pregnant, or that their birth control method worked, or... a million other different scenarios. You can't possibly know them all, and just because you want to be nosy and in everyone else's business doesn't mean you have that right. Even though you don't perceive privacy as a "coherent" answer, it's a valid one.

"That if a woman consents to sex, any resulting pregnancy isn't "forced", it's something she should take "responsibility" for... am I reading this correctly?"

This is essentially my argument. If a woman consents to sex, knowing that regardless of the method of contraception used, there is a chance she may get pregnant (i.e. begin the process of a new life), then I believe she should 'take responsibility' for this new life. Obviously, this goes for the man who impregnated her as well. I also believe a woman should have the right to an abortion if her life is threatened by the pregnancy (consensual or not). Rape violates the woman's choice to have sex and thus unwillingly puts her in a situation where she may become pregnant. I fully support abortion rights in this case as well.

I'm not making any assumptions regarding any individual's specific circumstances. I'm saying that if a woman chooses to have sex, she and the man must accept the fact that a human life may result from their decision.

Or to boil it down as Dem629 has, I believe there is a 'choice' before conception.

I welcome your comments.

On edit: corrected Dem629's name.

Now do you wish to criminalize all of those that don' agree with it.


The question is not to decide finally the question of abortion but simply to decide who gets to answer that question.


Once we have decided that it is a woman's right, and that there are lots of health related issues that cannot be simplified but that should be decided by the woman and her doctor, then we can concentrate on working together to reduce the need to use this option.


A wise strategy advocated by President Obama.

There's a chance they'll die if I choose to allow them to continue riding horses. I could point out a million potentially hazardous choices that can be made that would jeopardize "life". Does that mean men and women cannot ever "risk" any activity that may end in the death of a being they are responsible for? All anyone can do is take the precautions they can, and then live with the outcome.

Sex may result in pregnancy. That pregnancy may end in abortion. In my mind, it's the same argument as a person engaging in any other activity. We assess the risk, make a decision and then have to live with the consequences of our CHOICES. But that's exactly what the issue is - choice.

I believe most people understand that sex may result in pregnancy but they choose to take a chance. Abortion is one of the options available to people in handling the situation. Especially as giving birth can be deadly. I'm of the opinion that grown humans get precedence on making medical decisions about their body.

Lastly, the logical extension of your argument is also that women who choose to get an abortion (and outlawing them won't reduce their numbers, it will just force them underground - take my word as an old feminist on this) should face some kind of legal consequence if they have an abortion from a pregnancy that isn't from rape or that doesn't stem from a medically life threatening condition. What jail term are you thinking of?

Up thread, Batgirl replied to you that basically since there are no guarantees on ANYTHING whenever a woman has sex that, it seems, according your statements that you believe a woman should completely abstain from all sex except only during the specific times in her life when she may actually be desiring a child. This could be never or only a few times in her whole life.

You replied to Batgirl that you are not advocating for strict conditions on fornication.

Now you are saying again, that if a woman has sex - EVER - that even if she does everything in her power to prevent a pregnancy before intercourse, that she must still accept any pregnancy that might result. No matter what.

The two statements completely contradict each other.

Because there are no guarantees, there are too many variables for anyone to ever be 100% sure that they won't get pregnant, then the only way to be ABSOLUTELY sure is to remain CELIBATE. So you ARE advocating that women remain celibate at all times EXCEPT when she may be desiring a child. According to you, the only choices a woman has are celibacy or risking being FORCED to carry any pregnancy to term. Those seem like pretty damn strict conditions to me.

I bet you feel it is perfectly acceptable for men to go around screwing anything that moves as often as they want though - am I right?? Hmmm???

in your eyes for teh sin of FORNICATION! Hear ye, hear ye. Verily, it is so. Glad to hear you admit it.

Because if it had anything to do with the "life" of the little glob of goo, you wouldn't believe in killing little goo just because his daddy was a bad man and his momma had an unfortunate evening. Little Goo's life would be precious to you too.

EVERY pregnancy carries with it the possibility of death. Your admission that you think that "killing" the precious little children of God conceived in rape is perfectly O.K. reveals your true feelings on the matter.

You think pregnancy is a proper punishment for females who get themselves knocked up.

if we aren't willing to squeeze out a crotch dropping, we better not have ever, ever, ever have sex.

i welcome your comments.

:eyes:

Gonorrhea is particularly nasty... or so I've read about, but that doesn't stop some people anyway...

else i don't know what the fuck you are prattling about....

You keep harping about "no choice before conception" which has little to do with the topic.

The choice to have sex does not = the choice to conceive, because conception is not controlled by the woman.

When she ovulates, how conductive the cervical mucous is, the motility of the sperm...

Sorry, there are many factors involved in conception, and only one is subject to choice, the timing of intercourse.

Then, IF the ovum implants, and IF the endometrium is hospitable, and IF there are no genetic issues that will cause issues with implantation and plancental development, THEN she will become pregnant.

IF there are no genetic issues that will stunt development and cause miscarriage, and IF there are no overriding health issues with the woman that will cause miscarriage, and IF it is not an ectopic pregnancy, there may be a full term pregancy resulting in childbirth.

Clearer now?

Because conception is not within the conscious control of the woman, a pregnancy can be against the will of the woman. Conception is not a choice - ask anyone that has tried to get pregnant.

Conception, which may or may not lead to pregnancy (implantation), is dependent on several factors - timing of ovulation, hospitable cervical mucosa, motile sperm, and timing of intercourse. Only one of those factors is subject to choice by the woman. Contraceptives, barrier or chemical, are also subject to the choice of a woman. Any woman who uses contraceptives, or has sex when she believes that she will not get pregnant is choosing intercourse, and choosing against pregnancy and childbirth.

If you prohibit a woman that is unwillingly pregnant from ending that pregnancy, you are forcing childbirth on her.

Forced childbirth can be the result of consentual intercourse, just as consentual childbearing can be the result of rape.

Is that clearer?

And many of the person A's don't feel the way you do, and also, the rich person A's will just go elsewhere and the poor person As will have no options, except, dangerous options.

when a women consents to sex with a man, there is a chance that she will become pregnant

I don't believe this has anything to do with the discussion.

see?

Sad to say I must use this smiley :sarcasm:

I agree, that has nothing to do with this discussion

this country have rights, do they not? In keeping with this line of thinking, I believe the newly created human life needs to be considered along with the mother's.

cover all childbearing and rearing expenses and medical bills and time off of work for 20 years plus. If this bond is not paid up in full and available to any woman who bears his child then he has a forced vasectomy.

How's that? You want all the burden on the women and NONE on the men? Is that what you are advocating?

Because there are too many variables to make any hard and fast rules.

Regardless, when a man decides to have sex there is a chance he will impregnate someone so if he doesn't want there to be abortions, he should stop having random sex.

is that women will and always have terminated pregnancies. This is a fact. No matter where our discussion takes us on when a collection of cells becomes a fetus nor what responsibility a consenting woman has to carry a pregnancy to term will change that fact. Women will have abortions. The issue McCamy addresses is do we want to live in a society that forces them into back alley, unsafe abortions or not?

My great-grandmother had 3 children and an alcoholic husband. She was struggling to feed her 3 kids and was pregnant. She had an unsafe abortion and died. she left 3 children essentially orphaned. I never knew her, I don't know what choices she faced. I can only imagine. Had she been allowed to have a safe abortion after her very personal and I am sure soul searching, gut wrenching decision to terminate, my grandmother's life would have been very different. She would have known what it was like to grow up with a mother.

to rehash tired argumements. I'm guessing there would be similar silence if asked whether women who get abortions should go to jail.... It's all a similar mindset.

Sigh.

for having the audacity to want to control what is going on with their own body...

That's one of the first things that you come to realize when you've been thru this...

How cheaply a female's life is held in a patriarchal society.

Especially one where organized patriarchal religion -- patriarchy's underpinning --

has been able to influence government to force all of society to obey its religious

teachings.

"Regardless of the method of contraception used, when a women consents to sex with a man, there is a chance that she will become pregnant. This is also a fact and it needs to be part of the discussion."

Clearly you don't have children or you'd know that we, as adults, take chances with their lives every single day. Who's to say that any particular day my children (and/or I) won't be killed in a car accident? Does this mean I should never drive them anywhere? Or take them swimming or any number of potentially "risky" activities that may cause their death? There's no statistic on the face of the planet that indicates how many kids are killed by chance/fate/parental ignorance etc. etc. vs. how many POTENTIAL fetus' are destroyed via abortion when a woman takes a chance she'll get pregnant during sex. There's absolutely no equivalencey and your theorizing doesn't make it so.

And since we don't know the exact moment a fetus becomes "person B" means that person A, the host, gets to make the decisions about her body. Especially since she is being faced with the real possibilities of death or injury during birth at the maximum, or a completely life changing alternative at the minimum with pregnancy. It only stands to reason, imo, that person A, a fully formed human being, gets to make that decision and choice in light of the very gray status of personhood for "B".

Honestly, I wasn't trying to be insulting. I was simply stating what appeared to me to be fact.

You, as a parent, risk your son's life every time you put him in a car. I assume you use a seat belt, drive carefully, obey the law. Until the day your brakes fail or (insert mechanical failure of your choice in here), and you slide through the intersection and your child is broadsided and killed. He was your responsibility. You took a "chance" by risking his life and putting him in that car. But shit happens. A life is lost.

Does that mean you should face jail over that "choice" from the Amish (for example) who believe cars are evil and should never be used?

No way you say. You knew the risk. You took that risk and nobody has the right to tell you that driving a car is too risky, you respond. You took all the right precautions and you are paying a terrible price despite that. But ultimately you decided to go forth. Now you will live with the consequences forever.

Same with sex.

than you should not get an abortion.

against abortion? don't have one.

don't want "your" baby aborted, then be more careful where you leave your sperm.

then it is just a potential vessel for spirit, which is what I believe, and the mother is perfectly within her rights to carry the potential vessel for life forward or not. And this is my spiritual belief, my religion if you will. If your religion and spiritual belief dictate otherwise, I would respect your wish not to have an abortion. However, your belief should not apply to me or anyone else. Does that make sense?

a.k.a. objectively, considered a human being. At that point, the newly created human being should be protected as well. I think this takes my beliefs out of the equation. Would you agree?

Or, maybe it's a state of mind, suggesting righteousness?

It also suggests that your unwillingness to concede that this is an issue for women
to decide - doctors, as well -- and not passers-by may be part of organized patriarchal
religious belief as we see so often.

What about abortion "bothers you a great deal"?
You accept abortion for rape and the mother's life being in danger.
Evidently, you believe that in those incidents it is the woman's right to choose?
How is that different from any other pregnancy over which she chooses whether or
not to bring a pregnancy to term?

That said, at what point during the pregnancy is the fetus considered a fully formed human being capable of surviving outside of the womb, i.e. premature birth or c-section?

More to the point, what gives a person 'A' the right to end the life process of person 'B', when the development of person 'B' was made possible only by a very specific action undertaken by person 'A'.

At what point in the pregnancy are you prepared to FORCE a female to have a child she doesn't want?
Or to go forward with a pregnancy which is harmful to her or dangerous to her life?

And, this is a Vatican point of view . . .

I ask because a some point at or after the moment of conception, the fetus becomes more than just a collection of cells.

with which other religions disagree.
In fact, just as many Catholic women have abortions as any other women.
So, it's a point of view not very much supported by the people of the church.


Regardless of the method of contraception used, when a women consents to sex with a man, there is a chance that she will become pregnant. This is also a fact and it needs to be part of the discussion.

When a man has sex with a consenting female, if he is not sterile, he understands that there is a
chance that she will become pregnant. THAT is also a fact and it needs to be part of the discussion.

Perhaps women should only have sex with males who have verifiable vasectomies?
Obviously, we need better, more user-friendly birth control.
We need universal health care which will provide contraception without cost.

And most of all we need organized patriarchal religion to stop its attempts to control
all of society through influence over government -- and save its preaching for its own flock.

One has rights, the other does not. Get your priorities straight: It is the woman who has the rights ~~ a fetus has none. What you do with your body is your business ~~ what someone else does, is not your business.

The only FACT that needs to be any part of this discussion is that what another woman does with her body is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Butt out.

<<That said, at what point during the pregnancy is the fetus considered a fully formed human being capable of surviving outside of the womb, i.e. premature birth or c-section? >>

Viability varies from pregnancy to pregnancy, depending on fetal health, maternal health and other things. Viability of the fetus is determined by the OB. A 36 week anancephalic fetus is not considered viable.

<<More to the point, what gives a person 'A' the right to end the life process of person 'B', when the development of person 'B' was made possible only by a very specific action undertaken by person 'A'. >>

More to the point, what human has the right to use the body of another person against their will, even to live? No parent is required legally to give the use of their body to sustain the life of a child after the child is born. Even if their consent to sex made the development of that child possible. Even Scott Roeder could not have been legally compelled to give life-saving blood or organs to Dr. Tiller, even though his actions were what caused the injury.

<<I ask because a some point at or after the moment of conception, the fetus becomes more than just a collection of cells. >>

Certainly a 40 year old with cancer involving bone marrow is more than a collection of cells, yet they do not have the right to the use of anyone's bone marrow, against the wishes of the donor. even if that donor is their mother or father.

<<Regardless of the method of contraception used, when a women consents to sex with a man, there is a chance that she will become pregnant. This is also a fact and it needs to be part of the discussion. >>

No one denies that. Regardless of whether seat belts are used, and all traffic laws are followed by the driver, there is a chance of injury or death whenever you get into a motor vehicle. No one stands over the injured in a car accident and says, "Well, you chose to get into that car, and you knew it could happen, so you are on your own with the consequences."

The statistical chance of getting pregnant from a single act of intercourse, even unprotected, is very slim. So slim that we understand that to consent to an act of intercourse when you do not want to give birth is not in any way equal to consenting to childbearing.

Any more than consenting to get into a car is consenting to death or severe injury.

The statistical chance of getting pregnant from a single act of intercourse, even unprotected, is very slim.

My three children were all conceived on the first attempt.

there are many of us who are heartbroken every month...

So the outcome of any one given act of intercourse throughout the month is far, far less likely to be conception than it is non-conception. Is that clearer?

If you are attempting to get pregnant, and are timing it to ovulation of course you chances go up.

Just as if you wait for a crossing light, you are far less likely to get hit by a car than if you cross randomly.

Also - did you read any other part of the post? Did that answer any of your questions? or were your questions simply rhetorical?

Yes, you are lucky. It took me 6 months of trying. Then I miscarried.

It took another 6 months to have a successful pregnancy.

I have had other instances of unprotected intercourse in my life, and never got pregnant.

... would consider a religious decision (when a fetus becomes a person). In a nation such as ours, with a plurality of religions, as well as those who don't believe in any of them, we can't have the state make that decision for the women who are facing an unwelcome pregnancy. They have their own views.

"bothers" you "a great deal" I suggest you choose not to have one, MR. PreacherCasey!

Oh....Wait!

It explains the rights of the parties with regard to abortion. Limits on the mother's right to choose are narrower in the final months of pregnancy.

The so-called late-term abortions are extremely rare for good reason. Are you prepared to adopt a child? Personally, unless I am willing and able to adopt a child, I think I should not be too quick in condemning those who choose to have abortions. On the other hand, I would not want to have an abortion and would offer as much support as I could to any family member involved in an unwanted pregnancy. In addition, I would like to see a strong public health effort to decrease the number of abortions that occur. I am thankful that I never had to choose whether to have an abortion, and I say that having survived an extremely dangerous pregnancy.

Has anyone seen the film The Magdalena Sisters. That is a film that should be seen by everyone who is interested in the abortion issue.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318411/

You do realize that most of us do NOT believe--and medical science does NOT bear out that "...a some point at or after the moment of conception, the fetus becomes more than just a collection of cells."

The above is your religious-based belief. Yours. Why would you want to force your morals on anyone else? Perhaps you need to take your ANTI-CHOICE self elsewhere, say to the website that conspires with domestic terrorists to MURDER innocent medical doctors that perform safe and LEGAL medical procedures. Just a thought.

Of course there is a point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb; a viability date. That is going to vary among pregnancies, and frankly, among geographic regions and socioeconomic status. What you are really asking, is at what magic threshold should we suspend the rights of one person in favor of the "rights" of a potential person. The courts have attempted to address this, placing more restrictions on late-term abortions.

What frustrates me is the apparent assumption among the anti-choice contingent that there are both a significant number of women out there who will, after carrying a child nearly to term, suddenly decide that they don't want to go through with it and opt to terminate, AND a goodly supply of doctors out there who will willingly perform those elective procedures.

The truth is, most late-term abortions are performed in those tragic cases where the child isn't going to survive and continuing the pregnancy is a threat to the mother. These aren't heartless sluts who change their minds after already feeling their child move inside them and enduring the permanent changes to their bodies. These are women and families who, by and large, want their babies, would do anything to save them, but are thrust into this tragic situation, made more difficult by the assholes that picket their health-care providers and label them baby-killers.

Do you really believe that these women and doctors exist? That it is a matter of convenience, whim, and profit? If you do believe that, I feel sorry for you; you have a very low opinion of the humanity of the people of the world, and you must be truly without hope.

I could not agree more! I am sick-to-fucking-death of the religious ass-backwards thinking that places more emphasis and value of life on a group of cells over a living, breathing, sentient person. And what is worse is their terrorist tactics a creating a medical crisis for women. You don't want an abortion, Mr. Preacher Man? Thank don't fucking have one. But keep your sexual bigotry and your misogyny to yourself.

Anti-choice = Death!:kick:Pro-choice = Life!:kick:Learn It!

You may choose not to answer but what really is your concern? As someone who has children (whom I love beyond measure) and has had abortions (both self-induced and performed by a doctor), I wonder why this has become such a huge problem.
You seem to be saying that sex is only for conception and people should not engage in sexual activity unless the two people want children.
When I have been pregnant, there was never any doubt that what I did with my body was my choice alone (for good and bad) and I believe I value and cherish human life as dearly as the next person.
I have observed great disconnect between anti-choice actions and professed beliefs. I was raised in the 'church', went to seminary, filled in for the pastor when needed and studied the Bible (to say- I am aware of Christian teachings). What I have witnessed in most anti-choice people is an unrealistic attitude and sense of their place in this world and need to control/dictate/interpret...
can you clarify your concern?

is a picture of a DUer's mother. Just sayin'

was a center-piece of a PBS program on abortion quite some time back ....

before the actual fascist takeover of the country!

I think at the time the family participated in some degree in the program --

as I recall it/? -- and I think that they are permitting the photograph to

still be used by abortion rights activists.

The picture speaks to the suffering and pain that women once endured - a time

when they had no real option.

Patriarchy decides -- women die.

Patriarchy holds female life very cheaply.

Geraldine Santoro fled an abusive husband --

and feared for her life if he knew she was pregnant by another man.

thank you for an important post. Controversial, but a consideration is the reduction in crime 2 decades after Roe v Wade. I have birthed and dearly loved and cherished my children. I have also had abortions and I have worked with teenagers who were pregnant. Damn the ignorant, freakin' fundamentalist thugs. They don't have a clue about the real world!

For anyone who is fighting for women's reproductive rights, this is a very helpful collection of information.

As a nation, we need to quiet down the screaming, angry rhetoric, get out of the ditch, and get on the road.

We need to stop the hysteria and deal with reality. Abortion is a public health issue. Women need access to health care and birth control. Our children need comprehensive sex education.

That photograph is very well known and remembered.
I believe the family of this woman permits it to still be used.
Don't recall all the particulars, but obviously this woman was bleeding
to death from an illegal abortion - I think this is a hotel room where she
suffered and died alone.

And loved this information which makes so much sense --
while the right-wing "god" party continues to spew the idiotic "abstinence" --
also known as "Just Say 'NO!'" ---


The Netherlands has the lowest abortion rates in the world at somewhere between 5-7%. The Dutch achieved this by making heroic efforts to disseminate contraception to everyone, including young people. Note that universal health insurance was part of their formula for success.


The introduction of modern contraceptives (mainly the pill and contraceptive sterilization) was stimulated by a strong voluntary family planning movement, fear for overpopulation, a positive role of GPs, and the public health insurance system. A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services) as well as through wide acceptance of sterilization. The Dutch experience with family planning shows the following characteristics: a strong wish to reduce reliance on abortion, ongoing sexual and contraceptive education related to the actual experiences of the target groups, and low barrier family planning services.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

Thank you !!!
************

This is incredibly informative. Thank you!

I am currently involved in an abortion debate on another board. My thesis is simply, "let the mother decide."

While I think my arguments are well made, here you are with a ton of additional ammo. I can't believe the contortions some people will go through to complicate this. This is about the most serious topic there is. And I am grateful that you have provided this wealth of information. You have reinforced my arguments and conclusions and I hope, helped me to educate those I am in contact with.

--imm

Here is one of the illustrations from Judith Thompson’s fetus is fully human pro-choice argument:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you–we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you’ve got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

--imm

Very detailed and informative. Thank you for all the work.

Women must have sovereignty over their bodies. Period.

Sid

As hard as that picture is to view, I believe everyone should see it, even high school students.

The post below discusses, what they feel, is the true motivation of the anti-abortion movement.

I am a male, and I kind of agree with it. I am interested in what other people think about this theory, so let me know what you think either by replying on this site, or on the actual site.

http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=783

anti-abortion. Since the issue is about the absolute purity of children and the mother's responsibility to put the unborn baby first, first, first, it seems to me that people who are mad because they do not believe they got enough unconditional mommy love might be angry at women in general. Restricting women's birth control options would allow them to control women.

I have not seen any studies to test this hypothesis. I guess I could join a Right to Life group to get to know the folks and see if they tend to be anti-mother or have unrealistic expectations of what a mother can and should be.

Obviously, this would not be the only reason a person becomes anti-choice. It is just one possible reason of many.

I am going to stick my neck out here and admit that I am a seer. What that means is that I see and feel energy fields very easily and I also practice advanced yoga philosophy which helped me to gain that ability.
Here is what is seen by people like myself and which I believe science is close to being able to film and document as well. (see kirilian photography for example)
First one must understand that we do not "have" a soul. We ARE souls that have several bodies/vehicles for our use. One for every plane we learn to travel on (such as your dreaming body that you run around dreaming in on the astral/dreaming plane.)
When conception takes place, the spirit of the new person to be enters into the energy field of the mother. This is the reason pregnant women are said to "glow". You are seeing that there are two energy fields/energy beings/souls instead of only one.
This soul/energy being enters into the new vehicle around the time that the placenta disengages from the wall of the womb and sometimes not until actual birth.
The soul enters into the soft spot on the top of the new baby's head..which us yogas call the "mouth of God." It is this same area that the soul departs during the time the soul leaves the body at death.
Science can already measure a very tiny weight loss at this time.
If the soul cannot enter into the vehicle (for whatever reason, including abortion) it just moves to another vehicle that will allow it to work out its growth.
I am only writing this to educate people that there are not only other beliefs on the matter then what Christianity has tried to teach us...but that science is also close to being able to verify all of this this as well and is also learning new ways to film this.
For any scientist reading this, may I suggest you focus on the higher vibration rates of the light spectrum.

Though I am not religious, I consider myself spiritual and often think about a universal

spirituality. What you're saying is something I have heard before.

The subject of reincarnation is also close to that and all major religions used to teach

reincarnation -- including the Catholic Church -- until it became inconvenient for the elite.

The Vatican also used to permit abortion to the 5th month+ - time of animation.

Thanks for your view on this.

great job!

Must be a very convenient pro-lifer definition of pregnancy then.

I would accept pregnancy as when sperms (Yes! Plural!) meet egg. What happens next is a disaster for all who think we are special and some Master Overlord is in complete control.

Chances are more than one sperm gets to the egg while the others are busy dissolving the wall. Result: Most likely information overload! Natural abortion by God. (Wonder if any rifles are pointed at heaven yet?)

Often times there will be a failure of the fertilized egg to secure properly. Result: Natural abortion by God. (Still have those rifles cocked?)

Secure area under duress due to a host of reasons. Result: Natural abortion by God. (Getting really steamed at God by now?)

Development under way, but hey, there are two fetal members! Shh! Don't tell this to expecting parents as they will freak out: Strong likelihood that one of the members will be naturally reabsorbed by God! (Are you pissed beyond all belief by now?) Humans delay ultrasound until after the expected re-absorption occurs so as not to freak out the parents...

So there you have it. Huge amounts of abortion and reabsorbed fetuses all happening under the loving care of God, the #1 abortionist in the universe.

And don't get me started on why pro-lifers can't get why so many billions of sperm, so few eggs. Why the colossal waste? And is it murder when pro-life males whack off?

To quote you:

"Scan any right wing site and you will read that abortion providers are 'Satanists' and that women who have elective terminations are 'murderers.' Opponents of abortion rights love to quote the Pope. But note that many so called 'Right to lifers' ignore the Catholic injunction against violence and the death penalty and war."

I think this is a gross simplification bordering on propaganda, a straw man that misinforms the pro-choice movement. The anti-choice movement is a plurality of sects and individuals with many ways of supporting their anti-choice stance. Many are solidly consistent in their beliefs: they are against abortion and capital punishment, and they want to stop both by non-violent means. Many are quite charitable to the poor and even pacifists. I'm not saying that they are right, they just act consistently. They are constantly divided between non-violent action and wanting to stop "murder" at any costs.

The other factions and individual are far more dangerous and heinous. They are convinced that abortion is murder, and its real crime is not really the killing per se(after all, not all killing is murder) but the killing of innocent life. They are palladins coming to the aid of the innocent, and they are very willing to homicide and even multiple homicide to stop it. No coincidence, these will tend to be the men with an individualized moral code, that is survivalists and pseudo-militiamen.

Nevertheless, the way this works out is that the pacifists depend on the militants to do the dirty work. In the case of poor Dr. Tiller, they will put on their websites that Dr. Tiller was acquitted of fifty murders on technicalities, due to his political connections. They will give his address, and pretty much say he must be stopped at any cost, and then hold a vigil. They are telling the "lone gunman" to get rid of the person, because their own moral philosophy doesn't allow them to do it. (As always with pacifists, they need to have somebody else enforce their interests). Then they get to renounce violence, but say things like Dr. Tiller burns in hell. Therefore, the pacifists, or "peaceful protesters" who pile their bodies outside clinics in religious ecstasy are complicit. Their words and actions incite and morally inform the militants willing to shoot somebody to defend . . . fetuses.

Unfortunately, mostly the Catholic part of the faction (which may be the most pacifistic and charitable one) they consider any sex outside marriage and any sex that uses artificial birth control to be seriously sinful. They consider unnatural birth control and abortion to really be part of the same sin. Non-Catholic sects are influenced by this, too, but they are fundamentally different. The object of outlawing abortion, preventing birth control, and teaching abstinence is not to prevent pregnancy, but to prevent sin. It isn't a practical, real-world, goal-oriented policy, except that it's based on the Puritan objective, still strong today, to keep the nation from sin so God doesn't get angry and smite it. I know that sounds funny, but don't expect the anti-choice movement, including the anti-birth control, pro-abstinence education people to be in any way discouraged by actual results.

So, often anti-birth control and anti-choice are part of the same movement, and politically, Republicans must appeal to both so as not to alienate a critical of their constituency.

You have to dispute anti-choice at its very theological basis, right down to denying that the fetus is a person and aborting one isn't murder, and it no murderous intent. You have to argue that consensual sex is not wrong. You have to repeat and repeat that abortion appears nowhere in the Bible, and it requires strong assumptions about God's judgment that are in no way clear. More than that, you have to promote the view that Jesus blesses nations who bless tolerance. And those are the objectives of the Culture War.

My other point is a lot shorter, I quote you from the same paragraph:

" . . . they are indifferent to the treatment of children once they are born, endorsing public policies that doom poor children to lives of deprivation. How can they select one moral issue out of many and ignore the rest? They can do this, because their primary focus is not on morality or spirituality. Restricting women’s right to choose is a purely economic/political issue for many."

I think you're very wrong here. Some anti-choicers are quite charitable and other than abortion, they would be liberals. Catholics, for instance, voted almost straight Democrat prior to 1970. The South loved the New Deal, and I have no doubt it would be much more Democrat if abortion hadn't been made an issue. My sense is that anti-choicers, some of them, see poverty as a problem, but they don't see it as part of the same issue. Stopping murder and disavowing sexual sins are their issues, and outside of that, many are very charitable. It's the Republican party that puts a wedge between poverty and choice.

About sexism and preventing a woman's reproductive choice: definitely sexism is the cement in the anti-choice movement. But there's no way we could win by attacking it or educating against it, because mostly, it isn't the moral issue at stake. Conceivably, one can be anti-choice and not be sexist, not see the sexist implications of it, and even if they were shown the sexist implications, they wouldn't change their minds because they would see choice as a heinous national sin that puts the US in danger.

Just to say, I'm an Atheist, but you must speak their language and challenge their creed. You have to quote their scripture to them to devastate their arguments and sow doubt. That's the only way the pro-choice movement can win.

Women will have abortions if it is legal or not. So if you are against abortion, you are against women's health.

I still can't find where Jesus was pissed off at abortion....but I did read where he really really really got pissed with the Moneylenders!

As far as I'm concerned, if a male is against abortion, he should have his testicles removed.

but i normally can't get through your posts. this is the exception. well written and conceived. thank you!

It's all about control. If they wanted to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy, which clearly would reduce the number of abortions, they would follow the example of the Dutch, who have an approach that clearly works.