Poll: Abortion

Yep, I hit the button twice....oops.

Pro-choice is one of the basics of being a progressive.

I agree with you that a woman's right to privacy is a progressive position.

I was just curious to know if those who are anti-choice are the same few voices we hear all the time.

Interesting, isn't it?

Actually, I imagine there are many more who post here who are anti-choice but haven't yet voted.

Not the State.

Unfortunately, since 100% of people don't agree on what 100% of things to believe in, that will result in a mass banning of everyone. Fun!

should be absolute on DU. In fact there are some. Gay rights is one issue that can get one banned to be against.

Anti-Choice should be another.

You'd be turning your backs on a lot of solid Democrats and progressives if you decide that only one issue (read: abortion) trumps all others in what makes one a "good" or "bad" liberal in your little mind.

But go ahead, play the single issue game by all means.

There is no such thing as a "solid progressive" who believes that the reproductive enslavement of women is just.

But the abortion debate has become less about the debate and more about issue framing and bumper sticker sloganeering.

So the only really important thing about being a progressive is supporting abortion rights? That one issue overshadows everything else--universal health care, a proactive government that cares for people as opposed to corporations, fostering peace across the world--those are all secondary issues?

And that was before the internet was a widespread establishment, but they ring true more than ever.

And I think there's no more common use of multiple logical fallacies than what you see from both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" sides of the abortion debate.

If you think that a woman shouldn't be able to control her own body, you are NOT progressive. PERIOD. And you should not be on this board.

Mind your own fucking business.

And make sure that all applicants will see eye to eye on everything that you believe is important to the progressive movement.

And they are most certainly not progressives.

I'm going to laugh all day over that one;"Crotch-sniffing sperm worshipers" So entertaining, yet so true.

:loveya:

Right to privacy and reproductive rights are not "litmus test" issues. They are fundamental planks of the party platform.

Women's rights ARE human rights!

My rights as a GLBT person are already a litmus test for DU, and rightfully so. My rights as a woman should be, too.

Just to see where we stand...although I'm a little scared of what the results would yield. :(

Agree with your post 100%.

mostly likely DUs anti choice people are misogynists

So much for diversity of thought, eh?

For the record, I am 100% pro-choice for the 1st trimester. Nevertheless, I can grasp the concept of some pro-life arguments.

have a place here. There are plenty of other places to argue against women's rights.

Any anti-choice advocate should be banned, absolutely.

:hi:

Are you anti-choice? Are you against women's rights?

I'm not surprised, for you appear to be very narrow minded.

Guns. Ban? Allow everything? Forbid this and that and allow everything else? WTF does a "well-regulated militia" mean? Does it matter?
Healthcare. Pass the bill or scrap? Public option, single payer, or Medicare-for-all?
Iran. Sanctions or no sanctions? Do they intend to build nukes or don't they?
Education. Are charter schools a good thing or not? Is standardized testing a good thing or not? Is homeschooling a good thing or not?
Death penalty. Is it OK to have it? Is it OK not to have it? Whatever a state decides is OK?
Afghanistan. Should the US be there or not? If yes, in what capacity?

I maintain that women's rights should NOT be among those. Just like other civil rights aren't.

Surely you don't believe that the area of women's rights is only about abortion and abortion alone.

And therefore, if women's rights are an non-negotiable issue, abortion rights are an non-negotiable issue too. Along with pay equality and others.

But you knew that already.

It is the bedrock of democracy, yet we have people on this board pushing school privatization and charters, which have NO place here.

Unfortunately, Duncan and Obama support school privatization, which is NOT a Democratic viewpoint.

right to chose explain their position.

In support of male domination and female subordination. They should get a tombstone, IMO.

So far, there are 5 who don't. How strange.

...to make their side look like the most righteous one and to demonize the opposing side. No one wants to be "anti-choice" or "anti-life" anymore than they would want to be "anti-sunshine" or "anti-puppies."

The bottom line, however, is that there are infinite more choices than the choice to have an abortion. And there are many more lives than just the life of the fetus. What you have is posteuring by both sides to make a morally complex and delicate issue into an easy black-and-white issue.

Abortion politics--from both sides of the debate--frustrates me to no end.

I usually word it differently, but I was being polite. Anti-abortion is pro-forced birth, a type of physical slavery.

Abortion goes beyond choice, its a human right not to be forced to carry, what is essentially a parasitic growth that can cause death and permanent disease or disability. Now, I'm not one to parse words about whether a fetus is 'human' or not. Of course it's human. What I believe in is maternal moral authority. What the question was involving here, was Roe vs. Wade. The 'complexities' that you allude to are better left outside the law which needs merely to ensure that abortion is available and safe, and leave the philosophy up to the individual woman involved.

...unsolicited as it might be:

Abortion rights proponents believe the issue to be 100% about the woman carrying the fetus. Abortion opponents believe the issue to be 100% about the fetus/unborn child. And each side will independently frame the issue as such, and as such there is almost a natural fundamental disconnect between the two sides where there doesn't need to be, at least to the extent of wanting to have an actual conversation and not just a screaming match. (And I think for some, they don't want an actual conversation and I honestly find that sad.)

The fact is that the abortion is neither 100% about the woman nor 100% about the fetus. The pregnancy process is an entirely unique one, unparalleled from that of any other medical process faced by living organisms. On one hand you have a woman who is required to endure significant biological changes throughout the process. On the other hand, you are dealing with a seperate biological entity with a seperate DNA, and oh yeah--one that is evolving on a daily basis into all the familar system that encompass a human being. So there really is a balance between the two interests. (And I'm not saying it is a 50/50 balance or a 70/30 balance or a 99/1 balance in either direction. But when it comes to taking an honest look at the abortion issue, one must admit that after peeling aside all the heated rhetoric there are two legitimate interests to be considered.)

I'm not really of the mindset that your "parasitic growth" analogy is all that apt--to me, that logic is too similar to the flawed "guns vs. cars" talking points espoused by NRA members (i.e. the argument that car accidents kill more people annually than guns do). There is no sympathy for a true parasite, such as a tapeworm. In all circumstances, it is viewed as an unwelcome intruder, and the uncontroverted medical course of action is always to remove it, and to remove it as quickly as possible. However, there is no black-white reaction like that during the pregnancy process. At least in circumstances where the pregnancy is viewed as a welcome thing, people will celebrate the embryo/fetus, even from the earliest stages. They will frame ultrasound pictures, they will talk to it and play music to it, they will press their hand up to the stomach of the mother to feel it kick. That is hardly how one reacts to a tapeworm.

But that's somewhat beside the point. I think the bottom line when it comes to the abortion debate is that each side is always shocked--shocked!--when they talk to someone of the opposing mindset and not only is there disagreement, but a total and undeniable disconnect. And that's because in the rush to frame the issue as friendly to what they think are the general public's values as possible, they've lost sight of what they are debating about. In doing so, they are denying thesmelves of the reality that there maybe some value to the opposing sides points, even if there is a general overall disagreement. In the meantime, abortion rights proponents will talk until they are blue in the face about personal soverignity and "keeping your laws off my body", and abortion opponents will talk about God and a "culture of life", and all of it--all of it--is a bunch of hot air which doesn't serve to honestly convince a single person of the opposing view point. It's all incredibly self-serving and truly a waste of words.

I think any talk of "end games" in the abortion debate is a difficult one. If each side is to be truly honest to both themselves and to the other side, then I don't see how wanting a situation where a)abortion is considered an unbreachable and unfettered right and considered to be the same as any other medical procedure or--alternately--b)abortion is to be prohibited in all circumstances no matter how prejudicial the situation may be to the woman. Now, to what extent should any restrictions go as opposed to the permissible right of action? That's the million dollar question and I wish I had an answer to it, but I don't. But that's why we need a real and honest debate on the subject taking into account all the interests at hand and why each side believes why they do, and not just a screaming match to see who can make their opponent look the worst.

I don't take either side, because I think they are way too lopsided towards one issue and are ignorant of even acknowledging the other. And, yes, both sides are guilty (I know, there are some exceptions).

The issue is not 100% choice. It is not 100% life. It needs a balance.

I'm experienced. I'm a nurse who has dealt with the detrimental effects of 'difficult pregnancies" (I'm a dialysis nurse among other things I do) I won't enumerate the problems I, or my co-workers have dealt with during or after these type of pregnancies. The word parasite merely gets attention and after all, it's not really incorrect.

I'm also very aware of history. It's only recently that women had any choice at all, either in sex or pregnancy and dying in childbirth was very common. Fortunately, the care of pregnant women has come a long way, but it hasn't eliminated the danger by any means.

I'm also a grandmother, who is currently looking forward to a second grandchild. I'm excited. I buy baby clothes. I'm all gushy about the whole thing. I think my daughter, pregnant, is absolutely adorable. I worry, but she's taking good care of herself and is very healthy.

Abortion, while it would never be a choice for my daughter, (she's always felt strongly about that)is something she understands is something very personal and private and individual. The minute she decided that fetus was her child, her son in this case, is the minute I decide it's my grandson. Conversely, I'm 49 years old and in the unlikely, but possible event of my own pregnancy it would be terminated, with no regrets, no second thoughts. I wouldn't consider it a potential sibling to my other children, nor would I consider it a potential child of my husband. I would consider it dangerous medical condition I would treat immediately.

My point is 'taking sides' is not really what's at stake here--it's more of a power stuggle though emotional manipulation-- although obviously it's a polarized 'issue' thanks to-- the kindest word I can use is misguided. Abortion is a human right. Period.

...which as opposed to calling someone a "crotch-sniffing sperm worshiper" or throwing out a trite "keep your laws off my body!" you did explain in good detail the underlying reasons as to why you personally hold the position that you do. And while it may not totally convince someone of a different positon than you to entirely change their mind, it does humanize the debate and allow for some discussion of common interests and common ground.

Keep in mind, however, that those same people who you disagree with may likewise have their own experiences in life that may have shaped the way they think, and it shouldn't all be discounted to something as simple as misogyny or desire for control over others. My mother, for example, who has told me she opposes abortion in most circumstances said she never really consciously thought of the fetus inside her to be truly human (even after giving birth to myself and my older sister) until she miscarried and had to hold her unborn child in her hands. And that experience shaped her thinking on the issue.

But as personal as one's stories may be, the fact of the matter is that we do not live independently but rather in a civilization and a society which is inevitably to be bound by law. And it is the job of a responsible government to have laws which best reflects the society that it governs. To take an issue as complex as abortion (one that arises the very heated passions on both sides of the debate), and to simply throw out a black/white postion on it, either that a)there shall be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, or b) abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances--that would be a cop-out and a disservice to the inheritent stickiness of the issue. I don't think that government needs to be totally divorced from the debate or turn a blind eye to it, because it is something that will always be the subject of debate and government can serve how to best sort certain things out. I do think their ought to be an honest discussion from both sides on the subject far removed from the mindless one-liners that pass for discussion these days.

Congratulations to you and your daughter and I hope the birth of your second grandchild is a smooth and wonderful event.

I am very excited.

But there is a gender divide here. Yes we live a society, in this case at least for me, an American society. There are others. Many of the South American countries, for example ban abortion, period. Some have uterine forensics to potentially prosecute any woman suspected of having an abortion. But back to the gender divide. I think what you're trying to do is enlarge the topic, and to do that we need to include history and the position of women in both the past and present. A huge topic, much bigger than abortion, but the ability to bear children is inherent in females and females only, who are physically capable, so it stands out-- since without pregnancies, there is no human race.

I relate to your mother. I've held an miscarried fetus in my hands. I had planned an abortion. It was near, but not quite the second trimester. It was quite formed. I put it in a plastic baggie and took it to the doctor. It didn't change my mind about either the fetus or abortion, so you're right, we all interpret personal experiences differently, which, once again is why abortion should remain a personal choice, involving the pregnant person and whomever she chooses to include. I personally believe that a fetus is what a woman says it is as well.

(I know another story, one from a nurse who worked in a hospital that performed 2nd trimester abortions. She assisted. She tells a story of a fetus who looked like it was attempting agonal breathing (mouth opening and closing, with no air movement) She took it, in her hands, to the NICU and told the nurses there to 'let it die with dignity' She had been raised a devout Catholic, and was hiding what she was doing from her family. She subsequently became a Labor and Delivery nurse and the experience changed her view of the fetus, but not about abortion, which she held to be a woman's right, but a tragedy when it occurred.)

All those complex issues to consider and weigh in on; are for the woman to discuss with her family/doctors/clergy. The CHOICES she makes are HER own business. She can weigh the issues for herself as a rational thinking person with the same rights as you or I.

YOU can claim the never ending need for more and more and more and more so called open and honest debate; but that is in fact nonsense. You and I have no business what so ever debating any further in a womans personal medical decisions. Not my business. Not Yours.

Who cares how complex YOU think it is.

The choice aspect of it is very simple cut and dried black and white issue.

See my diabetes management is a very complex issue but YOUR involvement in MY diabetes management is a black and white simple issue. YOU have no say in the CHOICES I make with MY doctor. Cut dried and simple. You get it?

....I have no say in how you manage your diabetes.

However, diabetes (an internal medical condition involving only one's own self) is not analogous to pregnancy. Pregnancy is undoubtedly a medical condition but due to added factors that are not present in other medical conditions, it really is not at the same level. Thus, it is an infinitely more complex situation, whether you choose to admit it or not.

But if you want to throw in the flawed diabetes analogy, fine. Do you think it is improper for government to regulate the types of treatment and medicine used for managing diabetes, or do you consider such action to invade your personal soverignty?

Pregnancy is indeed complex but still private. There are many issues and considerations for a woman to discuss with her family as she sees fit. Now matter how much the issue upsets you though she doesn't have to take your opinion under consideration unless she wants to and solicits it.

There is no need for open debate. Your desire for more debate is pointless. You can have all the debates you want with your family/friends/wife/kids. My family will have our debates and make OUR CHOICES on our own without your input if you please. See it really is that simple. There is no need to discuss the issue or seek common ground with each other.

...other than you do so at your own peril.

Surrounding yourself in a fortress of absolutism as to your own beliefs and pretending that no one else of intelligence could possibly think differently than you do may give you comfort. As social human beings, however, it's not really how the world works.

As am I.

But they need to keep their damn noses out of my crotch.

More specifically, Gestational Diabetes is an extremely dangerous condition. Pregnancy in the diabetic can be life threatening as well.

Wow.

:eyes:

Selfish pricks.

in most cases, I believe.

However, in some cases it is necessary (life of the mother). I also recognize that some people will do it regardless, so it would be better off if they do it under safe procedures. Still, I feel the procedure in itself, most of the time, is immoral. Should it be outlawed completely? Absolutely not. It should be limited, and even more importantly, people need to learn how to use a condom.

Don't waste your time arguing with me, I've listened to all the debates over the years, and nobody will change my mind here.

You can say I'm not a progressive, whatever. I don't give a shit. I voted for Obama and worked on his behalf to get him elected, and will again next election. Overall, I agree with progressive principles more than conservative ones, and abortion doesn't impact my voting.

its a cruelty to make a women complete an unwanted pregnancy.

But I believe a fetus is a human being, and that is even crueler. I'll leave it at that. We both know where this is going, and nothing will be accomplished.

Trust me, I've heard every argument imaginable, and this is my opinion. Whatever you say, you won't change it. Just trying to save some time. I'm not the type of person who conforms to something just because the majority (in this case, DU) will disagree. We don't have to agree on everything.

If the pregnancy was the result of MY involvement, but I do not believe that I have the right to oppose the choice for termination that others make, unless it is past the second trimester, (unless the woman's life or health becomes at stake) as their choice should have been made before then.

Most RWers believe that life begins at conception, BUT many do not want to involuntarily (taxes) support babies born to mothers who cannot or will not be able to accept "personal responsibility" for their actions. Charitable causes, adoption, and foster care would NOT be sufficient to support children to adulthood, since MILLIONS more each year would be born needing help obtaining food, shelter, adoption/foster parents, education, healthcare, medicine, and clothing. How many RWers REALLY put their time and money where their mouths are, and volunteer for and/or contribute to organizations like big brother/sister, adoption, foster care, ect...???

Which is why I don't think it should be necessarily outlawed (at least, not early on during pregnancy).

On the other hand, though, I think there needs to be a fundamental change in how abortions are viewed. I don't think it is completely about women's rights, which is why I can't fully support the pro-choice movement. I know far too many people who don't think having an abortion is a big deal at all, and I think that is a result of the pro-choice movement. As I said, I see it as a life, so I believe it needs to be taken a lot more seriously.

More than anything, it all starts with using condoms. That is the first step towards limiting unwanted pregnancies. It amazes me how many people are oblivious to this simple concept.

:- Roe vs Wade does not grant a woman an unambiguous right to choose; it permits the state to impose some restrictions on third-trimester abortions.

:- I believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances in the first two trimesters, and in some but not all circumstances in the third. This is roughly the situation defined by Roe vs Wade.

:- I'm not an American; as such, for me, Roe vs Wade isn't a terribly important part of the abortion debate; it would be more accurate to say that I support a woman's right to choose according to the HFE act 1990.

:- While I am anything but an expert on US constitutional law, I am not convinced that Roe vs Wade was a correct interpretation of the constitution.

:- Whether or not Roe vs Wade was correctly decided, I think it is very likely to be overturned in the next couple of decades? Why do I think this? Well, look at the ages of the 5 liberal and the 4 conservative justices on the Supreme court. The odds that at some point in the next 20 years a Republican president will not get to replace a liberal justice at least once look slim, and if that happens then Roe vs Wade will probably fall.

:- I would like to see the US enact a constitutional ammendment to explicitily protect the right to abortion in the first two trimesters. I don't see any likelihood of this happening, though.

It's her body.

I would never want to be party to one. But I understand this is not the role of government and should be a woman's choice.

would have been more interesting.

I see you have presented another poll that addresses the points you were interested in. interesting decision to frame the issue as "uncomfortable."

My own opinion, which I have been quite vocal about lately, is that this comes down to an issue of whether or not women have to die because a private medical decision within a family makes some people "uncomfortable."

I do understand the anti-privacy side.

I detest guns. I do not want a gun in my house. I know an innocent person who died from a gunshot wound and I know the child of that person - who was devastated by that moment.

So, I will never buy a gun.

However, I understand why people see the value in gun ownership, particularly in rural areas. Maybe if I lived in a rural area I would want a gun too - for protection against animals, not humans.

I support gun control, so that there are limitations on how guns are included in our society. But I do not want to remove others' legal right to buy a gun.

Fuck off.

When I read this poll closely, voting no made the most sense. Roe v Wade does not go far enough to protect what I consider a woman's absolute right to choose.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

Welcome to DU.

:yourock:

I do NOT support those that feel they can make a better/ wiser choice about a woman's body than the woman herself. I am NOT pro-abortion, I am NOT anti-abortion .... I am pro-choice.

I am pro-protecting a woman's right to choose and her privacy to choose without *any* outside intervention.