For Pro-Choicers: Please explain to DU why abortion rights are important.

1, Illegal "back alley" abortions result in death

2. A rape victim should not have to deal with a pregnancy on top of the terror of being raped.

Any others?

Saw them on some threads a few months ago; I don't know if they're still posting here, but the whole choir isn't singing from the same hymnal.

We have had a lot of pseudo-DUers since about two years ago.

It wouldn't be unusual to have some of them here.

:eyes:

the party that is(or should be) liberal.

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

Unfortunately the party has been corrupted with conservatives from top to bottom. The purge should start with the blue mutts.

Having lived through the 60's and having known women who were the victims of botched abortions, a woman's right to safely and medically end a pregnancy - ANY pregnancy - is paramount to my being a Democrat.

I don't think there are as many people who are against choice as is being reported. Abortion is a hard subject to discuss, and therefore, many people try to stay middle of the road in public forums, on polls, etc.

Since abortion truly IS a hard subject to discuss, all the more reason why it should remain a private issue that is discussed by a woman with her health care provider and anyone else who she chooses to involve.

For those persons who are against abortion, their "choice" is not to have one. End of story.

Anything beyond that is forcing one person's religious views onto another person.

obviously

.

You would cringe if you saw a man kick a woman in the stomach, but your horror would be magnified even greater if the woman was pregnant, right? Although I am pro-choice, I think that Roe v. Wade is an appropriate compromise balancing the rights of the unborn with the rights of the mother, though I would be in favor of certain exceptions for late-term abortions (e.g. rape, health of the mother, etc.). Obviously I don't agree with the likes of Alito saying that men can essentially veto an abortion if they are the father, because that's clearly a fringe position. Abortion-on-demand is not a winning argument, it's a fringe position as well.

"I would be in favor of certain exceptions for late-term abortions (e.g. rape, health of the mother, etc.)"

I'd say he's recognizing medical reasons for late term abortions in that statement.

I took it as a given after he said health of the mother, etc....that he meant that there are indeed a variety of valid reasons for a late term abortion, but the etc just meant that there was no reason to list them all, as he was already giving that point as valid.

To equate the procedure with murder is way out of line.

I don't think the government should be involved at all, but the Doctor is there, and shouldn't she be able to make a determination whether her patient is mentally capable of making such decisions?

A 16 year old getting a morning after pill or an abortion at 6 weeks because she was raped by her stepfather should in no way be hampered from getting that help which she so desperately needs.

A 32 year old woman in active labor at full term with the baby at zero station who screams out of nowhere for her Doctor to give her an abortion because she just can't do it anymore, should not be listened to.

There are plenty of reasons to have abortions, and it's not up to the state to determine whether they're right or wrong, but at the same time performing an abortion on a healthy full term child on a healthy mother, minutes before that baby could be delivered, should be prevented. Yes, it's a woman's decision, but that doesn't mean that all the decisions she makes are morally neutral.

It's shades of grey. One where conservatives see only black and white, we as liberals should be able to protect women's rights, while at the same time admiting that it's not a black and white issue, but a complicated one.

:eyes:

As a liberal you can stop telling other Liberals how to think and accept that it's not a black and white issue and people are going to have different opinions on the matter.

Or if you want to change someone's opinion you can form a rational argument, rather than just throwing out meaningless one liners.

It's not as if this topic has never came up on DU before.

:patriot:

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

:hi:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...legal history of murder statutes. Your comparison is flawed.

Unborn children has -0- rights ~~ the ONLY being with rights is the mother. You, IMO, need to examine the faulty thinking that a fetus has rights of any nature. There is NO mention of a fetus in the US Const and therefore unless amended, there are NO rights.

Feticide statutes exist SOLELY because the death of the fetus was against the wishes of the mother. Got it?

What about emotionally?

I think it's foolish to not admit that while a fetus doesn't have 'rights' that doesn't mean that there isn't something you'd feel inherently wrong with a border decision here. It's easy to be unemotional about taking something like the morning after pill.

But a late term abortion, even one chosen out of medical necessity, is HIGHLY emotional. No mother just says "oh I'm gonna die if I don't abort the child? Meh. Fuck it, lose the brat." They cry... for the rest of their fucking lives.

That's no reason to make it illegal of course...but to say that a full term abortion for choice alone simply because the baby is on one side of the vagina is not morally questionable simply because they have no legal standing, is just bullshit imho. No sane person could possibly think it's totally fine for a woman to abort her baby 5 minutes before it's born, simply because the unborn child has 0 rights.

...IMO in the discussion of abortion rights for others. PERIOD. What another "feels" is none of my business. If one wishes to exercise his or her legal rights to a medical procedure, my 2-cents about how I emotionally feel in regard to the subject is total bullshit. If the person so acting has emotional feelings, it is still his/her privacy regarding a personal/medical condition and my feelings again have less than -0- place in regard to this.

:crazy:

Duh....:eyes:

is protected to some extent? I know they have said " the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life." (from Carhart). I've always interpreted this as meaning that fetal life is protected by law to the extent specified by roe v wade and its progeny (esp Casey and Carhart). This isn't a comment on the feticide/history of murder statutes you mentioned, but more a question about what the supreme court law means in the context of unborn children having zero rights.

The only party which IMO has rights in regard to a pregnancy is the woman carrying the fetus. PERIOD.

--imm

if she doesnt want to endure pregnancy due to physical, mental or emotional reasons she shouldnt have to.

Where that point is, I'm not sure.

Chicken

I'm in favor of the morning-after-pill (mere hours after pregnancy) but I am opposed to unrestricted late-term abortions. For time spans in between, I would need to look at the science more to know where I would stand on, for example, a 5-month pregnancy. All things being equal, I would choose to side on the mother's side and not the side of the fetus if I felt that it was too close for me to call, kind of like how ties go to the runner in baseball.

But abortion-on-demand that some advocate, I'm against that.

In fact, EVERY time they're done, it's for a damn good reason and with a lot of thought. Nobody but the doctor and people involved should be involved in that decision. Especially you.

Educate yourself.

How's that? :rofl:

So... you've got THAT going for you.

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

They're all "on-demand".

If not "on-demand" when the woman wants one and the doctor agrees, should they go before an "abortion panel" and get approval of others?

God, that terminology bothers me.

You want to judge a woman based upon how many weeks her fetus is without knowing jack squat about the woman's health and what her medical needs are. How about allowing(respecting) a woman to make decisions about her health without busy-bodies like you moralizing about her health care & decisions which you know not the first freaking thing about.


:grr: :grr: :grr:

Thank you.

See my post #27 for a lengthier explanation, because you're attributing positions to me that I have not taken and do not agree with. Why are you so emotional? I think it's absurd to oppose the morning-after-pill, but I think it's also absurd to take the position that ALL (not some, e.g. rape, mother's health) late-term abortions should be legal.

this issue is up to the mother and NO ONE else, irregardless of what you want to call it.

It isn't something that is going to happen very much at all. Most women who choose to terminate their pregnancies do so long before the late term. There is little reason to put any limitations on the reason or the time frame for women to make the choice.

:eyes:

Also, it IS necessary to put late-term restrictions if you want to get legislation passed. Don't take the Palin approach of trying to govern with 20% of the population.

:eyes:

Also, it IS necessary to put late-term restrictions if you want to get legislation passed. Don't take the Palin approach of trying to govern with 20% of the population.

I thought it was the latter we were discussing. The rights of the woman far outweigh the rights of a fetus. No restrictions should be put on a women health decisions. If you want to debate political realities, we can.

States are allowed to pass their own legislation late-term abortion. No abortions can be prohibited in the first or second term. Some state have no restrictions of late-term abortions. In those states, the practice is rarely used, and almost exclusively for the mother's health. That matters in this discussion. Why does a mother's right to save her life, not extend to terminating a late term pregnancy for other reasons? Such as depression or divorce and an inability to provide for the child--or any other reason?

If she's that late into her pregnancy then tough shit on her with the depression, divorce or whatever. Life ain't always perfect. The woman's rights only outweigh the rights of the fetus when that equation makes sense. Would it make sense for a late term abortion based on depression or divorce? No way.

Absolutely there should be restrictions on late term abortion. That's regardless of personal opinion. In my personal opinion, 12-14 weeks should be the maximum legal, but that's a different story.

The woman's rights outweigh the fetus until the fetus is out of her womb.

Sorry, but a 7 month old fetus is far more important than the mother's fucking depression. It's beyond irrational to suggest otherwise. She's depressed and 7 months pregnant? Well then let me spell this out clearly for ya: T O U G H S H I T.

For who? Not me. I don't have a womb in this fight. It should be the woman's choice until the end. And, some state see it that way. I guess in those places it is tough shit for you, huh?

You're not an "Irrational Zealot"? Which of those words are you not?

Obviously you've got nuttin, if you had to resort to such extremity and ludicrousness in order to attempt to make your point.

FAIL.

hugs back to you J. Hoping you are having a good fall (seriously).

:rofl:

:rofl:

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

your mom's a fringe people.

so ....... TOUGH SHIT!

So tough shit right back atcha babe. :hi:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not comfortable with pushing the time back and back and back to where it would need NICU for months with highly questionable outcome, but 8-9 months? I can see there being limitations on the reason, having it be health care reasons.

However, I don't see large amounts of pregnant women, 8-9 months along, wanting an abortion, or providers doing them either, irregardless of legality. It comes down to health care choices between a woman and her health care provider.

I do see this being a big sticking point in the abortion rights debate though "but how about wanting one late term just because?", confusing the larger issue of when the majority are done, how, why, etc.

I think it would be reasonable to require counseling and advisement on the implications and possibilities. At that stage, if a woman desired an abortion for reasons other than health, she should be encouraged to consider the alternatives. But, ultimately, the fraction of a fraction of the percentage who chose to end it, even then, should have that right.

up in arms about the issue. Meaning not those extremists who say "never ever for anyone every sperm is sacred" but people who agree having the choice to a legal hygienic abortion is great but then get caught up in the emotionalism of the extremists rarities.

:hi:

:rofl:

...maybe the opinion would change if the author had been of age in the 60s when abortions were illegal. Finding someone who had bled to death from an illegal abortion does have a life-long impact on one. Just ask me...

:rofl:

are you a sociopath?

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

...here is a link for you:

www.freerepublic.com

Their days as a DUer are numbered.

You sound like Dick Cheney kicking Colin Powell out of the Republican Party. :rofl:

right wingers don't have brains nor do they have empathy, therefore sociopaths. And as for brain size, I somehow doubt you have a brain, let alone something bigger than mine. People with brains aren't easily brainwashed by right wing propaganda.

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

and you don't have a case, sucka...

It's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over. :rofl:

out the difference between faux-morals born of self-righteous stupidity, and the very personal and often agonizing choices available to an informed woman about her own health care. Much like being pregnant, one can not be just a "little" Pro-Choice.

On the other hand, those who are anti-choice wish to dictate and legislate their warped version of morality, under which the "right-to-life" stops at birth.

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

...and whether it is a murder charge under the felony-murder rule which is being charged and then we will talk, OK?

under certain circumstances and intentions.

:rofl:

....try again and this time use intelligence and logic, OK? :eyes:

God help whatever jury you serve on. :eyes:

look at the very few answers here.

It pisses me off no end that reproductive right discussions begin and end with "abortion" in American culture today. That's not that point at all! The point is that a basic human right is the ability to decide how one's own life should be lived in one's own body.

:crazy:

Cancer is an unwanted growth and the same applies to a fetus if the woman so choses. It is HER choice and a the opinions of a RW troll like you are irrelevant to the issue.

would that concern you? Are you in the habit of personally approving, or disapproving, medical procedures for total strangers?

explains your need to pass your "opinionated" self-righteous moral judgment on perfect strangers with absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the circumstances or the facts. General opinions are usually formed from an emotional and fact-challenged one-sided point-of-view, whereas intelligent informed opinions are arrived at as a result of gathering specific facts and conducting diligent research.

The premise of a woman's right to control her own body, and make her own decisions about her medical condition is not based on "opinion" (yours, or anyone else's) but is an unalienable right. A fetus has no such legal right until it is actually born and becomes an individual "person" under the law.

You are certainly entitled to your self-righteous opinions, as long as you are aware that they carry absolutely no lawful weight, nor any defensible secular logic.

a fetus is not a person. A fetus is entirely dependent on a person to live.

Morals are something else, and each person will need to come to their private conclusion - and opt for or against an abortion for themselves.

But as a matter of policy, I really don't see how we call a fetus a person. Do we start prosecuting miscarriages?

jeez... I was really starting to wonder which political message board I was on.

Are women merely vessels of the state?

At that point, you are merely vessels of the state.

If someone willingly chooses to go into prostitution, how does that make them a "vessel for the state"? It makes them a tragic figure, possibly delusional and probably impoverished and desperate, but they're still controlling their own body.

That and the fact that IT AIN'T NOBODIES BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE

n/t

we are finding out that the immune reaction to the fetus, once thought to be isolated by the placenta, causes subtle damage to a woman's body. because i have 5 kids, at 55, i don't have much of a thyroid left. i have other autoimmune problems that may very well be the result of those pregnancies.
for women who are diabetic, it is a life threatening experience even when things go fine. how many diabetic women are there in this country?
your body is never the same, and i don't mean just stretch marks. nobody should be forced to go through that.


forced pregnancy is slavery, pure and simple.

Like it or not, you might think that 90% of the American people share your point of view, but the country is more divided than that. Sure it might be an insult to have to argue why torture is wrong, but you still need to put forth a logical argument as long as Cheney is out there essentially saying, "Heck of a job Bybee."

position.

her own concern, her own decisions.

It's about bodily integrity, bottom line.

Many of the people who call themselves Pro-Life are anti-birth control too. They do not think a woman should have any say as to whether or not she has children - or how many she has. They believe she should have as many children as God sees fit to give her. A woman should have the right to control her own destiny. Many of us feel that there is no freedom for women without reproductive freedom. It's a lot harder for a woman to hold a job and have financial independence if she is constantly pregnant and/or raising several children.

What if a woman's health is in danger? Some so-called moderates on the abortion issue say it is okay if her life or health is in danger. But if we start passing laws with such exemptions, who is the one who makes the decision as to what constitutes a sufficient risk to the mother's health or life?

It's a very slippery slope once we start granting an embryo the same rights as a human being. In that case, we could get to a point where abortion would not be legal - no matter what. In some countries, abortion is illegal even to save the life of the mother. If there is a fetal heartbeat, they won't even do one in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

I don't have the statistics on this, but it seems like countries without good access to reproductive freedom for women also have higher maternal and child mortality rates. So much for valuing life! Snarkiness aside, I know that less developed nations have poorer access to health care in general and pre-natal/maternal care is only part of it. But I think part of it is that some of the people in these nations see women as expendable or less valuable than man. I hate to say this, but it seems to happen in a lot of the Muslim nations that hold to Sharia law. In fairness, I don't think that the fundamentalist Christians or very Orthodox Jews would do much better, but they don't control whole nations and run a country under their religious laws (yet).

I recommend you read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. It was written in the 1980's so some parts of it may seem a little dated, but it's an interesting book anyway.

So I never knew my aunt who would have been my age, or my grandmother who hopefully would have been nicer than the wench from the other side.

Kerry explain an issue like late term abortion wasn't easy and Bush replied that it was easy you were either for it or against it. But what is it? As Kerry had explained there's a big difference between late term aborting a viable fetus and one determined by a doctor to be not viable. Delaying medical attention can a) kill a women b) emotionally injure the women c) make it so they can never have another child. Then it gets worse. There are viable fetus that also endanger the mothers health. How is it ethical to remove the choice of a person to make a medical decision for themselves and their child? If abortion is abolished does that mean inducing labor can be considered murder as well. Certainly many doctors induce labor in late stages of dangerous pregnancies? What happens if the fetus dies from that procedure? Will c-sections come under fire? How will these birth clinics with fertilized eggs but no mothers handle their product. Is it murder if they die/discarded? are they alive? The issue isn't simple, medical issues are rarely simple. The fact the other side claims clear cut/ black and white morality on the issue seems amazingly dishonest. Most liberals can't understand why conservatives can't begin to even take the first step towards common ground and work to reduce unwanted pregnancy.

It's a political one but it works.

in reducing unwanted pregnancy is that they are also against contraception. Not the libertarian Republicans, but the fundamentalist evangelical/Catholic alliance surely is.

Step A: Overturn Roe
Step B: Overturn Griswold

That's always been their game plan.

Anything more complicated than "Fer it or agin' it" is too much readin' fer the base.

Apologies to those who have measured opinions that lean against pro choice, but the real base of this argument always devolves into what the hard line fundies want, which really is the rantings of hicks from the back woods, "informed" by their religious leaders.

health care.

Oh wait. That's the r/w talking point. Okay, veering left.

Because we don't want private insurance to come between us and our health care; unless it's to allow government to come between some of us and our health care so those of us it won't effect can have health care and those it will effect...well, Hyde Amendment!

Or something like that.

My mother told me that abortion was none of my fucking business because I was a man and I'd never be stuck with the responsibility of a child without a father and I agree with my mother.

:toast:

:toast:

:beer:

no matter what your sexual orientation or lack of, it IS your business to make sure that it remains legal and accessible for the women of the world.

Sounds like a good mom

Roe and Griswold are part of a line of cases that give people the Constitutional right to make their own medical decisions, not only about their reproductive health, but about their health in general.

control whether or when she will reproduce another human being... if she cannot be in control of that most fundamental basic decision in life, then she herself is not a full human being, in control of HER own destiny. Women are more than vessels for more life. They are full human beings, with inalienable rights, and their own lives. Taking on the bearing of another human life -- is something every human life/soul should be in charge of herself. Anything less is a form of tyranny.

:eyes:

I am not a part of any woman's body.

If I do not want to go through the trauma of pregnancy i shouldnt have to

actually becomes a baby. But I believe that if a fetus could survive on its own or in an incubator then it should be born.

According to some the use of the pill is abortion because it just stops the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. So ask these people who are rabid pro-lifers if they use the pill, (or their spouse) or the IUD or basically anything except a condom because all other methods of birth control leave it open for a cell to be fertilized.

As far as the embryo or fetus or whatever you call it having a soul I believe that if that soul is not born from that womb it will be born from another. And I believe it is all in a grand plan and we don't have to worry about it.

Personally I had to come to terms with abortion for my own self. I don't believe this crap that is spewed that there are millions of abortions done in a year. I think the number is much smaller.

And I'll remember it. Thank you. :)

has a good discussion along these lines. He excoriates the logic of those against stem cell research. You might find it interesting. :hi:

And there's about 1 abortion per two live births. Talk to any of your friends who might be a doctor and they most likely had to perform abortions as part of their residency.

And the southwest corner of your ass is not a valid source.

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

That's the abortion RATE, not the ratio of abortions to live births.

Only scored a perfect 800 on the quantitative section of my GRE. How did you fair on it? :rofl:

Please explain to me the difference between an ordinary and a partial differential equation. I'll start easy on you.

Because nobody wants to see your ass.

So unless it's the same woman getting a million abortions...need me to hold your hand on this math portion as well?

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

One can't always be right. :hi:

Though it wasn't an even intellectual fight. :rofl:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/opinion/opinion2006-02.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/opinion/opinion2004-02.html

Take your hateful rhetoric elsewhere.

*crickets*

:hi:

Wow

what I do with my body!

abortion would be a sacrament.
And also because any government that can say you can not have an abortion also has the power to say that you must.

:crazy:

Do you know when men and women are most alike, hormonally? When women are pre-menstrual. That's right, when you make fun of women for having pms, that is when they are most like how you are all the time.

I was clearly referring to the content and tone of the message. Also, how would I know the menstrual cycle of the poster? Maybe it's my grad school education at MIT, but I just can't follow your logic here. :eyes:

The value of life becomes the value of the punishment being avoided.

However, when freely able to have an abortion and choosing not to have one, it is because that life has high value usually near the value one places on ones own life, and even greater than that.

It is better for all of us in pursuit of a more perfect union to place other's lives on par with our own.

Also, this freedom can build a wall of separation between needing an abortion and wanting one, such that abortions are not just rare, safe and legal, they could go to none, and even have that wall represent, idealistically, a negative number of abortions. Something the punishment people will never reach.

These two ideas are a little hard to understand for many people.

.

And my life to risk during pregnancy. Or not. Every pregnancy is risk.

Anything less than full reproductive rights says simply I'm less than human with less than human rights, and by extension says that all women are less than human deserving less than human rights. To take it a bit further, anything less says that women are human brood mares to be dictated by state and society, forced to carry pregnancies to term.

and we demand to be treated as such.


I'm 46 years old. I've have had one pregnancy, one live birth, but that has been my choice and my good fortune. I have three grand-daughters. I cannot foresee the circumstances that will come into my girls' lives, but I demand that they have sovereignty over their bodies and their health care.

...protected by the U.S. Constitution.

There are two organisms inhabiting one body ~~ the issue is: Which one has the superior rights under the U.S. Const? Since the word "fetus" is not found in the US Const at any place for any reason, the obvious answer is the woman has not only the superior rights, but the ONLY const protected rights. To rule otherwise, would place all women as 2nd class citizens.

JMHO

Why in the world would I have any say in what you do with your body?

:toast:

maybe performed when the MOTHER'S LIFE IS AT RISK!!!! It is the woman's choice to sacrifice her life for the fetus. It is not the decision of individuals who hold their beliefs over others. Most abortions occur in the first trimester. What some zealots apparently believe is that the fetus is more important than the woman. There's a good book, "Sex in History" by Tanenbaum that discuss abortion in history. About babies being killed after delivery, being determined by the sex of the baby. This happened in Europe as well as the ME. About mother's being charged with murder if the infant was male, but not if the baby was female. This whole debate is about women's value and rights over the fetus.

Can someone show me in the Bible where it mentions abortion as a sin? If you go with "thou shalt not kill", well, it seems that those believers are more than willing to murder others, including other children from different cultures. I do respect, however, someone who does not believe in war or killing at all. I respect their belief, as I do not see them as hypocrites, but it is their belief, not others.

Also, I'd like to point out that some of the most ruthless dictators banned abortion. Hitler banned abortion, and created baby farms. Ceausescu (sp) in Romania banned abortion and stated that women of child bearing age were required to have up to five children. Why? I see it as creating an army-in Hitler's case an Aryan Army, and Ceausescu, an elite guard with enough population to pick and choose the best. All of those poor children who were unwanted or the parent's could not afford in the Romanian orphanages. So, what are the believers motivations? Afraid the white race is going bye-bye? Afraid women are getting to uppity and they can't be controlled? Afraid they don't have enough bodies for their Army of God?

As my environmental professor stated back in the eighties-once they outlaw abortion, birth control will be next. I think he hit the mark.

for women who are being sexually molested
for women who do not know that fucking makes babies
for women who endure what we cannot imagine
for women who do not want to have a baby


the choice is theirs will always be theirs.
abortions will always happen, and they must be legal and safe.

I can't repeat or emphasize that enough.

all the religious folks can follow their religion, they are free to abstain from sex, and free to never have an abortion, but have no right to try to interject their religious views on everyone else in this country. Also, it's called Separation of Church and State.... so go force you religious views on your own... leave all of us alone. This is a FREE country(supposed to be anyways)!

otherwise, it'd be okay for the government to demand of any person that their body be hooked up to another body as a support system for nine months.

In a free society, as this one is alleged to be, it is not up to the government to decide if and when anyone should reproduce.

does with her body is none of my business (nor anyone else's). It should be up to her and her doctor (and her conscience).

Do I find abortion ugly and abhorrent? You bet I do.

But nobody can put themselves in anyone else's shoes, and, truly, even those who are 100% anti-abortion cannot say for certain what they would do in a given set of circumstances. (I don't want to list such circumstances here, particularly, because they can be as ugly as abortion itself.)

I was with Clinton when he said abortions should be "Safe, legal, and rare."

in Roe Vs Wade. It ties their hands when it comes to controlling our behavior.

and deadbeat dad skipped off with a new womb to implant.

sorry if I offend some testerones here, but thats the way it is in too many cases.

We were fortunate in that the fetus was far enough along so that an early c-section was done and then chemo began....
child healthy, recently married, blah blah blah.
wife died 2 1/2 years latter.....
in retropect, even after all these years.
I needed, we needed a late term abortion as an option.
An option we did not need to use, but an option none the less.

Had i been told that sorry, the fetus was more important than my wife....

there would have been dead people
i will just leave it at that.

IMHO, this does very much mirror the fight over Civil Rights, and Gay Rights, and individual rights in general.

It ain't about a particular group, and this particular group is actually a majority group (:shrug:) in our general population.

I forget the originator, but I believe that "When anybody's rights are violated, my rights are violated."

Less than full reproductive freedom and choice for any woman, anywhere, is less than full human rights in my opinion. I've yet to hear a cogent RW religious argument to refute that.

if their rights to control reproduction, including contraception and abortion, is outlawed.

Especially women of color. Case in point: Most of my clinic defense took place in Mid-City New Orleans, in a low-income, mostly African American neighborhood. Not surprisingly, about 80 percent of the women who came there were AA.

After a while, someone pointed out that the anti's would harass and shame the black women on their way out of the clinic. Only when a white woman showed up did they go into a sort of satanic overdrive in an attempt to keep her from going in and having an abortion.

Postscript: One day, several of us were counterdemonstrating at a Dukkke rally (Rush is right, you know; we really are all the same people :sarcasm: ). And who should come driving by, circling around looking for parking? Why, the head anti minister, of course. :eyes:

edit: Post-postscript: Years later, the doctor at that clinic nearly lost an ear in a knife attack perpetrated by an anti who had driven all the way up from Corpus Christi, Texas. These fanatics are dangerous. :scared:

don't mean much.

That applies to men as well as women, BTW- but since (as long as) women are the only ones who can get pregnant, abortion rights specifically pertains to women.

Long, but a great read.

(PDF) http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/repeal.pdf

No country needs to regulate abortion via criminal or civil law. Only when abortion has the same legal status as any other health procedure can it be fully integrated into women’s reproductive healthcare.

by Joyce Arthur

The repeal of abortion laws is supported by evidence from Canada, the only democratic country in the world with no laws restricting abortion since 1988. Abortions have since become earlier and safer, and the number of abortions has become moderate and stable. Current abortion care reflects what most Canadians are comfortable with, and women and doctors act in a timely and responsible manner, with no need for regulation.

Several legal arguments help build the case for abortion law repeal. A constitutional guarantee of women’s equality can be used to overturn abortion laws, and ensure that abortion is funded by the healthcare system as a medically-required service. Freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and the right to self-defense can also be used to strike down laws. All anti-abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity, impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals.

Solutions for Repealing Anti-abortion Laws
Here’s some suggested solutions to get rid of harmful anti-abortion laws:
? Guarantee women’s equality in countries’ constitutions.
? Collect evidence of laws’ harms, find plaintiffs, and challenge laws in court.
? Lobby government against abortion restrictions (meet with legislators, submit briefs).
? Educate media, government, health professionals, and public about the harm and futility of abortion restrictions.
? Challenge the religious basis of anti-abortion laws, and keep church and state separate.
? Change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
? Empower women in society by changing public policies.
? Change patriarchal attitudes about women and motherhood through advocacy and education.
? Prioritize childcare and child-rearing as a universal concern, not a “woman’s issue.”

Some of these proposed solutions are obviously very difficult and would take many years. But one has to start somewhere.

To conclude, no country needs any laws against abortion whatsoever. We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process.

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

I see you've nailed down the "passive aggressive" smilie thing. You've just earned your "Snark" badge. Nice work, hokies! :hug:

Besides, a child is a wonderful gift not a punishment.

For some it is the worst fate imaginable.

:

If these people could see some of the people I transport they'd understand that.

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

As long as you can live with yourself and are not breaking any laws, have at it.

I disagree with you but thanks for your openness on the unrec function.

I do think you are a nice poster. :hi:

This thread was just begging to be flame-bait.

for some.

at any point in time better than I do.

It shouldn't be because of someone else's personal or religious beliefs that I can't make a determination that is the best outcome for me. I've had difficult pregnancies, and they were my choice, but no one else gets to make that choice - it's my decision to make. Period. End of it.

NO ONE else gets to decide whether a pregnancy could leave my existing children without a mother or my husband without a wife. If I don't want the risk enough said.

but if I decided that I didn't want to be a mother at all, it's for ME to decide. My life, my choice.

Too many peoples on the planet already.

Bottom line.

..

NOBODY ELSE.