Are There Any Pro-Life DUers?

[iamjoy]

I am trying to understand Pro-Life Democrats
I know there is a group called "Democrats For Life" and they are against not only abortion but capital punishment and euthenasia and state that they value life from "beginning of life to natural death" - but if they are anti-abortion, why don't they say "conception" to natural death?

Also, to the Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion Democrats - are you in favor of birth control education? What about the pill, as some claim it is an abortificient?

I am an advocate of Reproductive Rights and attended the March in D.C. last year. But, I genuinely want to hear more from the other side on this and hope to hear it from reasonable people. This is a very touch issue, so if you are going to post in this thread, please be very respectful.

[unblock]

1. we're ALL pro-life here

perhaps you meant anti-choice?

;)

[notadmblnd]

2. Thank you, I was going to say that

nt

[Jackie97]

11. I completely agree, but....

the author's trying to get some anti-choicers talking here.

He could have used the term anti-abortion. It's not declaring them to be pro-life (and therefore, us supposedly not). It's also not using an inflammatory word like anti-choice (although I think the word is totally appropriate, inflammatory or not).

[madeline_con]

70. It's not so much the choice of a particular word...

but the meaning, IMO. I think everyone understood the poster.

There will always be a certain percentage of posters who have to have every point defined, clarified, analyzed and researched before they act like they know what's going on.

[ThorsHammer]

3. Yes

Anti abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. I do favor birth control education, the pill, and contraceptives. I respect pro-choice folks, as they see the 'fetus vs. life' argument differently, thus making their POV different but still valid.

[iamjoy]

7. Because Your Voice Is Ignored, Maybe?

OK - I read the stuff from Democrats For Life, and much of it is just so harsh to the Pro-Choice crowd. It doesn't win fans. But perhaps the Pro-Choice rhetoric can be harsh, too.

I can tell you that it seems many people calling themselves Pro-Life are anti-birth control, their approach is abstinence only. This coupled with other views they have such as favoring capital punishment and not wanting government sponsored social programs (except government giving money to religious organizations) makes many Pro-Choice feminists feel (fear?) that the real agenda of many of these people is controlling women, or about sexual oppression.

And please folks, for the sake of clarity lets not split hairs on what the terms Pro-Choice and Pro-Life mean. People who would overturn Roe Vs. Wade could call themselve "Pro Choice" and say the choice is keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption.

[ThorsHammer]

13. Yes, I do think there are extremists on both sides

I'd much prefer to see the number reduced through adoption, sex education, contraceptives, health care, economic choices, etc than by simply overturning R v. W. Obviously abstinence is the only failproof method, but the abstinence only teaching is stupid and does not work. I don't consider myself wanting to control women, but rather protecting the child. I also don't like the DP, and don't have a problem with govt. social programs.

[Jackie97]

18. "Pro-choice"

"People who would overturn Roe Vs. Wade could call themselve "Pro Choice" and say the choice is keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption."

Yeah, and it would be nothing more than a way to evade the issue that they're anti-choice on the issue of whether a woman should be allowed to choose an abortion or not. "Pro-choice" has always been the word used to describe people in favor of the right to choose an abortion. It's not about the right to choose to have a gun. It's not about the right to choose adoption. It's not about the right to choose birth control. It has historically been about abortion.

The majority of people against choice might be for sex education and access to birth control. However, they're either not speaking up enough, not giving enough money to candidates, or something because we have Abstinence Only education spreading like wildfire.

[DemBones DemBones]

83. Calling yourself "pro-choice" evades the

issue that you're FOR killing the baby as a good solution to an unplanned pregnancy.


If you call me anti-choice, I'll call you anti-life. Turnabout is fair play.


If you'll call me pro-life, I'll call you pro-choice. I give respect if I get respect.



You say "Pro-choice" has always been the word used to describe people in favor of the right to choose an abortion."

But in fact, "pro-choice" is a word that didn't exist for years after Roe v. Wade was decided.


I say "Pro-life has for many years been the word used to describe people in favor of the right to life of unborn children; in favor of protecting the unborn against the willful killing of abortion."


Our side was once called anti-abortion but your side didn't think being pro-abortion sounded too good.

Our side was also called "right-to-life" but your side didn't think being against the right-to-life, or right-to-abort sounded too good, either.

So you became pro-choice.


We became pro-life because our movement expanded; almost all of us oppose euthanasia as well as abortion and a great many of us oppose the death penalty and war as well. Pro-life is about more than abortion.

Despite your side's claims, we're in favor of saving mothers' lives, too. It is very, very rarely, if ever, necessary to directly kill a fetus/ unborn baby to save the mother. Sometimes, medical treatment for the mother may, sadly, kill her baby by indirect means. Even the Roman Catholic Church does not oppose medical treatment for the mother that is risky for the baby, it only opposes direct killing of the child. The Church also opposes direct killing of the mother to save the child.


Your side likes to insist you're pro-life, when in fact you are not in favor of saving the lives of the unborn, embryos and fetuses, which is the commonly understood meaning of pro-life. Ask an average person what pro-life means and they'll tell you it means opposition to abortion. Everyone knows this, just as they know that the choice being favored in pro-choice is the choice of abortion.


Let's not waste any more time on word games. You know where you stand and so do we.

[iverglas]

87. you don't want to know what you might get called

if this weren't good old DU. Not that I imagine you don't know.

Calling yourself "pro-choice" evades the issue that you're FOR killing the baby as a good solution to an unplanned pregnancy.

Try looking "issue" up in a dictionary, and then using it properly in a sentence.

What you have stated here is not an "issue", it is a nasty misrepresentation of someone else's beliefs presented as a fact.

I say "Pro-life has for many years been the word used to describe people in favor of the right to life of unborn children; in favor of protecting the unborn against the willful killing of abortion."

Congratulations. Your own little bit of deceitful verbiage has been hallowed by time.

Can you think of any other labels that might have been even more time-hallowed at one time?


Our side was once called anti-abortion but your side didn't think being pro-abortion sounded too good.

You do make some weirdly wild and wonderful claims.

The only source that "pro-abortion" has ever come from is your own "side". Self-serving evidence, my friend.

The reason that *I* don't call your "side" anti-abortion is because I couldn't care less what your position on abortion is, so I have no need for a label for it.

It's your position on interference or non-interference in women's exercise of the right to an abortion that interests me.

I'm in favour of women being allowed to exercise the choice that it is their right to exercise. You aren't. How simple is that?


We became pro-life because our movement expanded; almost all of us oppose euthanasia as well as abortion and a great many of us oppose the death penalty and war as well. Pro-life is about more than abortion.

Who cares? Is someone talking about euthanasia or the death penalty or war? (Gotta love that "great many of us" there, btw, opposing war ...)

If you and I are debating the merits of spraying pesticides to kill potentially disease-bearing mosquitos, shall I call you "pro-life"? How the hell would I even know what that meant? In favour of saving the lives of the human beings who might die of the disease? In favour of saving the mosquitos' lives? ??

Nobody's debating the merits of euthanasia or the death penalty or war here -- or the merits of abortion. So nobody really cares what you call yourself in relation to any of those, or anything else.


Everyone knows this, just as they know that the choice being favored in pro-choice is the choice of abortion.

And everybody else knows that people who "know" that the choice being favoured in pro-choice is the choice of abortion are either really really stupid, or lying.

I'm sure glad that nobody here is saying that s/he "knows" it.

Here's a dictionary definition that I'm sure you've seen before, unhappy as it might make you and much as you might like not to acknowledge it:

choice
1a. the act or an instance of choosing
1b. a thing or person chosen
2. a range from which to choose
3. the elite, the best
4. the power or opportunity to choose

You want to take the power or opportunity to choose away from women.

I don't.

Now, how simple is that again?

[lukasahero]

90. Wow! Scathing - and spot-f*ckin'-on!

Brilliant rebuttal.

:applause:

[iverglas]

95. and always so much fun!

for scathe-er -- and clever, right-thinking bystanders. ;)

Scathe-ees seldom have much to say ...

[madeline_con]

71. ".. perhaps the Pro-Choice rhetoric can be harsh, too"

I've actually read posters elsewhere say that having an unwanted (oops, language), I mean unplanned child is "what she deserves for not keeping her legs closed".

Any reasonable person could see the insanity in that, right? But some anti-abortionists are so harsh they think having to raise the child is the 'punishment' the woman deserves. The child never comes into the picture once it's born.

:puke:

[iverglas]

14. do you mean "anti-choice"?

Anti abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia.

It's possible to be "anti-abortion" (and "anti-euthanasia") without advocating that either be illegal.

I'm anti-adultery. I don't advocate criminalizing it.

I'm anti-ugly haircuts. I don't advocate criminalizing them.

If you advocate criminalizing abortion, I don't actually care (or even need to know) what your reasons are. Someone who advocates criminalizing abortion might be "anti-abortion", but s/he also might just be mean and nasty. There's no way for me to tell, in fact, no matter what s/he states as the reasons.

And conversely, I can't tell whether someone who says s/he is "anti-abortion" is anti-choice.

I respect pro-choice folks, as they see the 'fetus vs. life' argument differently, thus making their POV different but still valid.

I don't have a clue what the "fetus vs. life" argument could possibly be. (Fetuses are better than life? In an arm-wrestling match, fetus would beat life?)

And I don't care what your POV about either fetuses or life might be. I'm only interested in what your POV about women's rights is.

And if you advocate violations of those rights, then you're anti-choice, that being one of the nicer things that one could term people who advocate violations of other people's rights.

If someone is advocating violations of other people's rights, the least I expect is that s/he will offer some justification for doing it ... or have the decency to be quiet.

That's all I'd ask of someone who advocated violation of the right of people of colour to an education, or of the right of atheists not to be forced to attend religious services, or of the right of anyone to engage in political speech, after all. Just an explanation of why what s/he was advocating was justified, or silence in the public arena.

It's a long time since it was regarded as speak negatively about people of colour being permitted to exercise their right to an education, even if one wasn't actively advocating segregation. It would be so nice if those who harbour negative opinions about women being permitted to exercise their rights, even if they aren't actively advocating criminalization, would feel the same shame about expressing such opinions in public.

[ThorsHammer]

15. Honestly, I don't know

I believe it to be a child not a choice, and would prefer to err on the side of saving the child's life. However, I'm hesitant to criminalize it now that it has been part of society for so long. I support women's rights, but think that the child's right to life trumps anything short of the mother's health being at risk. I know I'm in the superminority here, and don't want to turn this into a shouting match, so I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

[iverglas]

16. well there we are

I support women's rights, but think that the child's <sic> right to life trumps anything short of the mother's health being at risk.

So. Since EVERY pregnant woman's LIFE *is* at risk until the pregnancy ends, and for some time afterward (post-partum haemorrhage, anyone?), then even if z/e/f's had a right to life, you'd agree that it didn't matter.

That's always struck me as an odd way of looking at something as important as a right to life, but whatever.

I'm hesitant to criminalize it now that it has been part of society for so long.

Slavery was part of society for millennia. I'd have thought that to be a poor argument against abolishing it, if I'd believed that it was a horrific and unjustified violation of the rights of a human being.

I believe it to be a child not a choice

Slogans are so much fun, aren't they?

Of course, what a z/e/f IS doesn't depend in any way on what you believe it to be.

And what this "it" of yours is, dog knows. You apparently mean to say that you believe a z/e/f to be a child. Has someone somewhere said that a z/e/f is "a choice"??

The choice in question in the "pro/anti-choice" concept is not the specific "choice" of abortion as one choice among a range of options, it is the power or opportunity to choose the outcome of one's own pregnancy, and specifically to choose abortion. Nobody is calling a z/e/f "a choice".

If I wanted to be as disingenuous as the author of that slogan, I'd be saying "I believe it's the termination of a pregnancy, not a grapefruit." Apples and oranges, and all that.

I know I'm in the superminority here, and don't want to turn this into a shouting match, so I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I guess I'm just prone to shouting when I hear someone advocating human rights violations. And I seldom "agree to disagree" with anyone doing that in any sense other than to acknowledge that s/he is advocating violating human rights, and I'm not.

I hear you saying you're "hesitant to criminalize abortion" -- of course, you wouldn't be criminalizing abortion, so I assume that you're "hesitant to advocate criminalizing abortion". Do I assume that you DON'T advocate criminalizing abortion? -- or advocate any of the slimy stepchildren of criminalization, like bans on "partial-birth abortion", or waiting periods, or mandatory propagandizing of women seeking abortions ...? You haven't really said.

If you don't, there's nothing much to shout about. You're not anti-choice. You're pro-choice, and if it is your conviction that abortion should not be criminalized, you need to kinda make that point. For clarity, and for the sake of the people whose rights others are advocating be violated.

[ThorsHammer]

22. Sorry, didn't see your post last night

Women's right's vs. life: I had not heard that argument before. I obviously have heard of it being used as a necessary medical procedure to save the mother's life, which I have no problem with.

Criminalization: I'm not one of the 'lock 'em up', arrest and jail everyone crowd. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I would much prefer to address the root causes through sex education, contraceptives, etc than by simply declaring it illegal. I am not an advocate for outright criminalization, and would prefer solutions in line with those mentioned by Dean and the Clintons

z/e/f, child vs. choice: I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and save the child, barring risks to the mother's health. W/r/t human rights, I believe that the right to life trumps anything. I really don't see it as the human rights violation that you make it out to be, which we are definitely going to disagree on. Like I said I don't want ouright criminalization, but don't have a problem with a waiting period (IMO it is a big decision) or with limitations. I strongly oppose the clinic bombers and those who accost women going into the clinics.

[iverglas]

24. so let's try it again

I really don't see it as the human rights violation that you make it out to be, which we are definitely going to disagree on.

"Disagreement", in any real sense, can only exist when two sides know what they're talking about. The only way I can imagine someone saying that s/he really doesn't see criminalizing abortion as a human rights violation would be if s/he didn't have a clue what "human rights violation" means.

Let me repeat: EVERY pregnant woman's LIFE *is* at risk until the pregnancy ends, and for some time afterward.

Accordingly, compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will = compelling her to assume a risk to her life (and well-being) = violating her right to life, as well as her right to liberty, of course. We simply do NOT compel people to assume risks to their lives that they do not wish to assume.

My sister survived her first pregnancy only because she had the best possible medical care. Despite all the pre-natal care she had (ultrasounds, regular checkups with the midwifery practice around the corner and her family physician ...), she arrived in the delivery room with a 10+ -pound fetus stuck in her body and unable to exit because of the enormous size of its head, which had not been apparent before that point. A hundred years ago, or in another place today, or just with a bit of bad luck, she would have died.

The woman in the next room to her that night was doing her own best to die of bleeding from an episiotomy. Imagine. She apparently had a blood-clotting problem that no one was aware of until then.

Shortly after that night, the niece of a close friend of mine died in West Africa of a post-partum haemorrhage. Not all women have access to the best medical care ... and not all women can be saved from pregnancy- or delivery-related death even if they do.

Women die of, and are disabled by, pregnancy- or delivery-related complications.

Compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want to continue -- for whatever reasons she does not want to continue it -- is compelling her to assume a risk to her life and well-being.

And you really don't see this as the human rights violation that I make it out to be?? So you will be first in line when the state starts compelling people to assume risks to their life and well-being that they do not wish to assume, for someone else's benefit? Got a spare kidney? Ready to be prosecuted if you fail to jump into the icy St. Lawrence to save a drowning stranger? Prepared to accept the death or disability that might result, without complaint?

Think you might have a constitutional argument against such measures? Like ... you have the right not to be deprived of life and liberty without due process?

I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and save the child, barring risks to the mother's health.

And again: there are ALWAYS risks to the WOMAN's health. (It's a cute trick, calling pregnant women "mothers", but the fact is that unless they have children already, they ain't.)

In large proportion, those risks are unforeseen and unforeseeable. There really is no handy reference table for figuring out which women are "at risk" and which aren't. ALL women are at risk during pregnancy and delivery.

WOMEN are perfectly free to throw caution to the winds, and choose to assume those risks in order to gestate and deliver a child, as hordes of women in fact do.

What makes YOU think that you get to "err" on ANY side when it comes to someone else's life and liberty and security of the person remains completely beyond me.

W/r/t human rights, I believe that the right to life trumps anything.

Good. So the first time a woman died of a (foreseen or unforeseen) complication of pregnancy or delivery after she had been denied an abortion, you would be right there demanding that whoever denied it -- say, the tribunal set up under a law to determine whether an abortion was "medically necessary" -- be charged with murder? Of course, I'm sure that will be very comforting to her family.

Like I said I don't want ouright criminalization, but don't have a problem with a waiting period (IMO it is a big decision) or with limitations.

Good. Having sex with your date is a big decision, too. Watch for my proposal that you be required to register your intent and wait three days (and maybe be forced to read religious propaganda against extramarital sex during that time) before you're allowed to do it.

Maybe you can explain how your opinion of the size of someone's decision about a matter that is none of your business entitles the state to interfere in her exercise of her rights?

And what might these "limitations" you don't have a problem with be?

Criminalization: I'm not one of the 'lock 'em up', arrest and jail everyone crowd.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing an answer there. Was that a "yes" or a "no" to what I asked:

Do I assume that you DON'T advocate criminalizing abortion?

I guess we know now that you DO advocate any of the slimy stepchildren of criminalization, like bans on "partial-birth abortion", or waiting periods, or mandatory propagandizing of women seeking abortions ... just not what earthly justification you advance for legislating them.

[ThorsHammer]

25. Ok

Like I said, I had not heard the *every* woman's life is at risk angle before, and did not know that these were unforeseen and unpredictable. I have said from the beginning that I do not have a problem with it being used to save the mother's life.

W/r/t to a waiting period/limitations: That's an extreme analogy; and I was referring to R v. W's limitations (trimesters, viability).

Criminalization: NO, I am not an advocate for outright criminilzation. As I have said before, I wouldn't spend time or effort on this, as I think it's much better to address the root causes and things that can prevent it (good sex education - not these dumbass abstinence only things, contraceptives, health care, economy, jobs, education, etc).

I'm actually closer to the pro-choice, Democratic side than the 'pro-birth' (theocon?) side, except that I would prefer to save the child's life barring risks to the mother's health. I had not heard of the idea that every woman's health is at risk, and would like to find out more about this.

[iverglas]

28. on a quick google

Like I said, I had not heard the *every* woman's life is at risk angle before, and did not know that these were unforeseen and unpredictable.

This is just one person's website, but it gives a pretty good list:
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/004.htm

You could google for "risks of pregnancy", for example.

Particular women may be at elevated risk for particular effects (e.g. women with diabetes or epilepsy), but all women are at risk in pregnancy.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_2_36/ai_n6069105

Women aged 35 or older have a risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes almost three times as high as that among women aged 25-29. According to a population-based study among U.S. women, the risk is roughly twice as high for women aged 35-39 and five times as high for women aged 40 or older. Older white and black women have similar elevations of risk overall relative to their younger counterparts, but their increases in the risk of death from specific causes differ somewhat. For white women, the greatest increases in risk are from hemorrhage, cardiomyopathy (heart disease of unknown cause), embolism and other medical conditions aggravated by pregnancy; for black women, the most elevated risks of death are from hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, strokes, infections and other medical conditions.

http://www.wofl.com/_ezpost/data/10376.shtml

Orlando DJ dies after pregnancy complications
(12.09.04) — MAITLAND, Fla. (AP) -- An Orlando D-J known as "Break-A-Dawn" has died from pregnancy complications. Dawn Fleming died yesterday morning at the age of 31. She handled community and entertainment news for 102 JAMZ and helped dozens of charities in Central Florida. Karen Yeager runs Place of Comfort in Longwood. Yeager said she'll remember Fleming not just for her radio broadcasts that helped her agency collect food and toys, but for her personal commitment to help struggling kids and families. Fleming was newly married and set to deliver her first child. Doctors told her she was having trouble with dangerously high blood pressure. So she went into the hospital last month and delivered her new daughter before Thanksgiving. But Fleming then lapsed into a coma before she lost her battle. Her new daughter, born premature, appears to be healthy and doing well.

This woman chose to accept those risks. If she had sought and been denied an abortion, her death would have been, quite simply, a homicide.

It is also not unworthy of notice (see the list in that first link) that pregnancy and delivery put women at risk of physical and mental problems long after the pregnancy ends. The obesity that some women are unable to combat after pregnancy (like my once-skinny sister) puts women at elevated risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life. We wouldn't forcefeed people to make them fat and unhealthy; I don't see how we could force them to remain pregnant, to the same effect.


W/r/t to a waiting period/limitations: That's an extreme analogy; and I was referring to R v. W's limitations (trimesters, viability).

The US Supreme Court in Roe actually completely failed to state justification for those limitations. I mean, is it okay if a woman who was denied a third-trimester abortion dies of an unforeseen post-partum haemorrhage?

And oops, you haven't stated justification for waiting periods.


I'm actually closer to the pro-choice, Democratic side than the 'pro-birth' (theocon?) side, except that I would prefer to save the child's life barring risks to the mother's health. I had not heard of the idea that every woman's health is at risk, and would like to find out more about this.

It's not necessarily an idea that is readily grasped on first outing.

In a "free society", we allow people to decide for themselves what risks to their lives and security they wish to assume.

Even in jurisdictions that have "good Samaritan" laws, the duty that is placed on individuals to come to the aid of others does not require them to put their own lives or safety at risk.

If you saw me fall overboard into the icy St. Lawrence and didn't toss me the rope you were holding, you might be in violation of one of those laws. But no free society anywhere would legislate that you must jump overboard after me, or prosecute and punish you for not doing so -- let alone allow someone else to throw you in to save me.

You would have no duty, and could not be compelled, to risk your own life to save mine. And you could lawfully refuse to risk your life to save mine even if the reason why you did not wish to do so was that you had just had your hair done.

Similarly, I could not be tied down so that blood could be extracted from my arm to save your life, even though the risk of any adverse effect to me was almost non-existent, and even if my reason for refusing was that I was just plain ornery and actually wanted you to die.

So even if an embryo were a human being with rights, the starting position is that the pregnant woman may not be compelled to risk her own life and security to save it. And that would be so even if the reason that any particular pregnant woman did not want to do so was that she did not want to have stretch marks.

People do not have to have, or present, good reasons for refusing to do things that put their lives and well-being at risk. It is the people who want to make other people do that who must have, and present, good reasons for making them do it.

And even if they came up with such reasons, they would have to be able to demonstrate that they could do this -- compel someone to assume a risk to her life -- in a fair way. They would have to be able to design a process for doing it: "due process". Our respective constitutions do not allow people's right to life to be violated except by due process. Since a pregnant woman is guilty of no crime, what "due process" could sentence her to death by denying her an abortion?

These are the fundamental principles that are really relevant to the abortion debate. Not "the sanctity of life", or any alleged adverse effects of abortion on women, or anyone's personal feelings or beliefs about embryos and how other people's embryos should be treated.

Women are persons with rights, and there is quite simply no way to deny women access to abortion without violating the rights of all women denied abortions, and inflicting both temporary and permanent adverse effects on virtually all of them, and disease, disability and death on some.

[ThorsHammer]

29. Thank you

The health angle is definitely very interesting, and is something that I'm going to read up on.

W/r/t waiting periods, my justification was just to make sure that the woman had thought it over. I don't mind information about adoption or foster parents given out, so that she can make an informed choice either way. Like I said, I don't like the clinic bombers and accosters of women at the clinics.

If there were no health risks to the woman, would you still support abortion as a choice? (not flaming, just curious).

[iverglas]

31. choice

If there were no health risks to the woman, would you still support abortion as a choice? (not flaming, just curious).

The "choice" in "pro-choice" means (per my Oxford Concise):

the power or opportunity to choose.

I am "pro-" (in favour of) women having the power and opportunity to choose the outcomes of their own pregnancies. I'm not "pro-" any particular choice that they make.

I genuinely am not playing semantics here -- it's just that many words do have more than one meaning. I would not say that I "support abortion as a choice" when talking about someone else's pregnancy, just as I would not say "I support vanilla as a choice" when talking about someone else's ice cream cone. In that phrase, "choice" means:

a thing or person chosen

I don't "support" or "oppose" the thing that anyone else chooses in a matter that affects him/her and not me. I mean, sure, I'm human; I might think that a particular woman would make a wonderful parent and that the world would be better if she had a kid, and maybe think that she was not acting in her own best interests if she didn't, so I might not like her choice. Likewise, I might think that another woman would make a horrific mother and that both her child and the world, and her own life, would be the worse for her having a kid, so I might not like her choice either. But I'd be unlikely to state my opinion aloud unless she asked me, or I were sitting on the couch with one of my intimates saying things meant for his/her ears only.

On the first point -- the risk to life and security -- two judges of the Supreme Court of Canada put the issue this way, in Morgentaler, the decision that struck down the restrictions on abortion in the Criminal Code in 1988:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1988/1988scc2.html
(I quote from the headnote, or summary; emphases mine)

State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person. <The Code> clearly interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person. A second breach of the right to security of the person occurs independently as a result of the delay in obtaining therapeutic abortions caused by the mandatory procedures of s. 251 which results in a higher probability of complications and greater risk. The harm to the psychological integrity of women seeking abortions was also clearly established.

That summarizes the points:
- the limitations placed on access to abortion violated rights
- the process for obtaining access to abortion violated due process

But it isn't just the right to life and security of the person that is violated. It is the right to liberty -- the right to live one's own life according to one's own goals and aspirations -- and to freedom of conscience as well.

Madam Justice Bertha Wilson said in that case:

The right to "liberty" contained in <the Cdn Constitution> guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them.

A woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions. It is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for her. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well.

... The deprivation of the <liberty> right in this case offends freedom of conscience guaranteed in s. 2(a) of the Charter. The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state. Indeed, s. 2(a) makes it clear that this freedom belongs to each of us individually. "Freedom of conscience and religion" should be broadly construed to extend to conscientiously-held beliefs, whether grounded in religion or in a secular morality and the terms "conscience" and "religion" should not be treated as tautologous if capable of independent, although related, meaning. The state here is endorsing one conscientiously-held view at the expense of another. It is denying freedom of conscience to some, treating them as means to an end, depriving them of their "essential humanity".

That statement -- "Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them." -- is enormously important, and contains my answer to your question.

Whether I "support abortion as a choice" is of no relevance in a free and democratic society. What I am required to do is to support women having the choice -- the power and opportunity -- to have an abortion. (And again, I'm not attacking your choice of words, heh, just using them to clarify the real issue.)

I highly recommend reading Wilson J.'s reasons in that case, in particular. Here's a bit more I especially like (emphases in the original):

238. In my opinion, the respect for individual decision-making in matters of fundamental personal importance reflected in the American jurisprudence also informs the Canadian Charter. Indeed, as the Chief Justice pointed out in <a case about Sunday shopping restrictions>, beliefs about human worth and dignity "are the sine qua non of the political tradition underlying the Charter". I would conclude, therefore, that the right to liberty contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting their private lives.

239. The question then becomes whether the decision of a woman to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions. I have no doubt that it does. This decision is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman. The circumstances giving rise to it can be complex and varied and there may be, and usually are, powerful considerations militating in opposite directions. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well. Her response to it will be the response of the whole person.

240 It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience (although this is, of course, the case) but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma. As Noreen Burrows, lecturer in European Law at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out in her essay on "International Law and Human Rights: the Case of Women's Rights", in Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality (1986), the history of the struggle for human rights from the eighteenth century on has been the history of men struggling to assert their dignity and common humanity against an overbearing state apparatus. The more recent struggle for women's rights has been a struggle to eliminate discrimination, to achieve a place for women in a man's world, to develop a set of legislative reforms in order to place women in the same position as men (pp. 81-82). It has not been a struggle to define the rights of women in relation to their special place in the societal structure and in relation to the biological distinction between the two sexes. Thus, women's needs and aspirations are only now being translated into protected rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce which is in issue in this case is one such right and is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

[LARED]

4. I'm pro-life

To me it is very simple. We all have a right to life. I view the unborn as a 'we.'

[JetCityLiberal]

80. So you are out there every day

fighting to make sure EVERY means of birth control like the pill are available over the counter in the 21st century?

Or do you agree with the right wing jerks that the pill is abortion also? hmmm?

What do YOU to make sure unwanted pregnancies are rare? Preach abstinence?

[friesianrider]

82. You must not eat meat then.

Animals are no different than us...we are, after all, animals ourselves.

Let me guess. Humans are somehow "worth more" than animals, right? Sort of reminds me of the arguments in support of slavery and keeping women oppressed...

If you're pro-life, you'd damn well better be consistent about it. Which also means you'd better be adopting every kid your home can hold (don't you want to support the kids whose mothers "chose life"?)

Put your money where your mouth is. Unless you're willing to let those women considering abortion drop their babies on YOUR doorstep and you'll care for them, then STFU.

[deadparrot]

5. I don't like abortion any more than I do capital punishment, war, etc.

However, the same percentage of unplanned pregnancies ended in abortion before Roe v. Wade than after. Overturning it wouldn't end abortion. If it has to happen, I'd rather it happen in a sterile environment rather than back alleys. I think plenty of support services for needy mothers are needed, along with decent contraceptive education in our schools, to make sure that as many pregnancies as possible are safe and wanted.

[raggedcompany]

6. Does the Pope have a hole in his throat?

Of course there are! There just aren't many who would presume to enforce their decision on others.

[wickywom]

8. Anti-abortion would be more accurate than

anti-choice.

There are many of us who are conflicted over abortion, but don't support making them illegal ...

We try to dialog, but it gets nasty quick.

I don't know any "pro-life dems" but i'd imagine they aren't actively anti-birth control and the like
or they would be hanging with religious fundamentalists not liberals.

[iamjoy]

9. That's What I'm Getting At

Why don't we hear more from people who are pro birth control but favor more restrictions on abortion?

It seems to me like most of the country probably feels this way, rather than supporting one side or the other.

[iverglas]

17. question

There are many of us who are conflicted over abortion, but don't support making them illegal ...
We try to dialog, but it gets nasty quick.

What are you trying to dialogue about?

If you don't support criminalizing abortion, then it is presumably not about criminalizing abortion.

If it's about access to birth control, or to decent housing and child care, or income supports for parents and children, or educational and employment opportunities for women ... the various things that might reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies (i.e. reduce the incidence of women having pregnancies they don't want and the incidence of women not wanting the pregnancies they have) ... why would your feelings/opinions about abortion even come up in the discussion?

[wickywom]

19. ...As always the "discussion" ends with a lecture...

Of course it's about child care health, care education, and employment.... duh.

The discussion I TRY to have involves recognizing that the dialog itself is beholden to the extremes on both sides, particularly right wingers who disagree with all forms of birth control and demonize all of it.

Personally I believe abortion can have a
negative affect on the mental well being of some women...
cause I've seen it ..
My mind is made up on that point.

Some around here completely freak out just discussing the possibility.

There is an opportunity to create a vast movement to bring birth control to the front of this discussion instead of just playing defense with the abortion issue.

Ultrasound technology is only going to get more detailed.. I believe abortions will be regulated in our life time..

Should we sit around and wait for all preventative birth control to be regulated too?
Or take the lead on getting abortion numbers lower and preventing them in the first place..

We have to make their ideology the issue not ours. If we aren't "aloud" to discuss the negative impacts of abortion ...we can't seriously attack the RW policies which make them more prevalent.

[iverglas]

20. freaking out ...

Personally I believe abortion can have a
negative affect on the mental well being of some women...
cause I've seen it ..
My mind is made up on that point.

Personally, *I* couldn't care less what you believe on that point, or why.

It would be of interest to me only if you advanced it as justification for violating women's rights.

Getting married has a negative effect on the mental health of MANY people, women and men alike. Want to outlaw that too?

What does the alleged impact of abortion on some women's mental health have to do with the right of all women to obtain an abortion? Why do you raise the issue when my question to you was whether you seek to criminalize abortion, and why you raise abortion in a discussion of preventing unwanted pregnancies?

Ultrasound technology is only going to get more detailed.. I believe abortions will be regulated in our life time..

One can just construct the cutest little non sequiturs with 2/3 of an ellipsis ...

Some people believe that the earth is flat, and that the planets determine our fates. So ... what?

Do you want access to abortion to be "regulated" (by which I assume you mean more than it currently is in the US)?

Should we sit around and wait for all preventative birth control to be regulated too?
Or take the lead on getting abortion numbers lower and preventing them in the first place..

Or should we maybe not construct false dichtomies and demand that other people choose one of the two options when there are multiple others available?

Which would you rather do ... hit that little old Jew over the head with this sack of shit, or beat out that rhythm on a drum?
-- Firesign Theatre, sometime before most people here were born.

Anybody who actually thinks that accepting restrictions on women's access to abortion will enhance women's access to birth control must have spent the last couple of decades living in a cave.

If we aren't "aloud" to discuss the negative impacts of abortion ...we can't seriously attack the RW policies which make them more prevalent.

And yet again, all I can think is with friends like those ... .

But anyhow -- what earthly sense does that make?? How is it that you cannot attack right-wing assaults on women's rights without whining about how bad abortion is for women?? I don't find it difficult at all.

If you want to allege that there are negative impacts from abortion, who isn't "allou-ing" you to do it? If you want to advise women not to have abortions, what's stopping you?

If you claim that your allegations of some women suffering negative impacts from abortion justify denying all women access to abortions on the terms they choose, what distinguishes you from, oh, any other oppressor in human history who has proposed that women be denied the exercise of their rights because s/he knows what's best for women better than women do, and women have to be protected from their own stupidity?

Just think how many sexual assaults on women -- and all that post-assault trauma -- could be prevented if we had proper laws prohibiting women from wandering abroad on the streets without chaperones.

We have to make their ideology the issue not ours.

I'm quite happy with "our" ideology, myself, just the way it's set out in our respective constitutions:

yours:

Amendment XIV

... No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

mine:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Those are some fine and high-minded principles, and they have been agreed to by our societies and placed above anyone's personal beliefs about anything.

Don't they state YOUR "ideology"? Do you have a problem making them the issue? They sure state mine, and I sure don't have any problem telling anybody trying to violate my rights that they are the "ideology" that prevents them from doing it.

[wickywom]

21. ...you are freaking out....

[iverglas]

23. well gosh a'mighty

There's some civil discourse for ya ...

... ... ... ...

[wickywom]

26. No really.. you are freaking out...

Are you the official spokesperson for the pro-choice movement?
Aren't we all sharing our personnal opinions ?

You just insinuated that I am an idiot ... and that I should be grouped up with the "pro life" folks...
I consider that freaking out.. not discourse.

There are a whole lot of us very loyal dems who aren't scared off by the" us against them" tactics used by so many around here.

You converse with me as if I am to be battled... keep practicing.
Abortion is about to become an even bigger issue...the Democratic party will sweep the next election if it breaks up the Christian vote, and they know it.

It's never been about the unborn.
America is going through a divorce-- abortion is the pawn.

[iverglas]

27. and some more civil discourse

Are you the official spokesperson for the pro-choice movement?

Why do you ask, Miss Manners? Did I say I was?

Aren't we all sharing our personnal opinions ?

I assume so. And so ... what?

If someone's "personal opinion" is that my rights should be violated, I'll share my personal opinion about that, in return. Got a problem?

You just insinuated that I am an idiot ... and that I should be grouped up with the "pro life" folks... I consider that freaking out.. not discourse.

Actually, I started out asking what it was you wanted to "dialog" about, and haven't yet got an answer. I consider that no discourse at all.

And I consider your representation of what I said to be, uh, less than accurate.

There are a whole lot of us very loyal dems who aren't scared off by the" us against them" tactics used by so many around here.

Whoa, big fighting words, and big sweeping generalizations.

And you're the one making the generalizations, as far as I can see.

Nonetheless, if the "us" is people who will fight violations of women's rights and the "them" is people who want to violate women's rights, I'm still having no clue what problem you'd have with it. I mean, unless you do want to violate women's rights, and don't like being "them".

Abortion is about to become an even bigger issue...the Democratic party will sweep the next election if it breaks up the Christian vote, and they know it.

I'm grateful for the many facts your crystal ball appears to be instructing you to share with me. I am still having a very hard time figuring out what connection between two apparently unrelated things those "..."s of yours appear to be meant to represent.

"Abortion is about to become an even bigger issue". What does that mean?? Aha, maybe I see. The anti-choice brigade is afraid of its grasp on its constituency being broken, and so will ratchet up the anti-choice rhetoric to avoid that happening?

I might observe that it is unwise to confuse the anti-choice vote with the "Christian vote". I would point out that the "Christian vote", in so far as it refers to votes cast by Christians, is not by any means all anti-choice.

In any event, I'm still not understanding what your point was in the first place, and what it is that you were having problems dialoguing about.

Maybe you could just go back to my initial "question" post, avoid getting all freaked out yourself, acknowledge that all it did was ask a couple of quite reasonable and civil questions ... and hell, maybe even answer them.

Oh, and maybe review the rules (even the general rules of civil discourse, if not any particular rules that might come to mind), and note how repeated assertions that one's interlocutor is "freaking out" just don't quite qualify as anything other than an argument against the person rather than the person's case.

[wickywom]

30. We haven't yet discoursed because

you immediately became reactionary.

I don't believe any medical procedure that can save the life of any woman in any circumstance can be legally be controlled by the government or be regulated in any way because of equal protection and right to privacy.
Does that violate your civil rights?

The discussions I hope explore the gap between the two perceived sides- by making abortion an social issue in need of reform... but not one manageable by government.
The party already uses the term "rare"-- Why not actually go for it.. RARE.. loudly declare a new age for birth control making unwanted pregnancies obsolete.
Why say it otherwise?

Women should have complete control over their bodies, but we have to want complete control.. maybe it's me, but we seem to loose ground to Fundies at increasing speed... do you think I'm wrong on that point--
refusals to fill contraceptives, abstinence programs.

By attacking their ideology and turning the issue around.. taking a tip from Rove - the one with the loudest message controls the issue... in this case , the vote.

In other words I can't convert Anti-abortionists who disagree w/ * to the Democratic party w/out some support...some can be persuaded to leave the government out of abortion.. but they need a place to go...WITHOUT BEING JUDGED where they can at least try to affect what they see as neccessary social change.

[Djinn]

37. no offence

but if your feelings against abortion are based on some women finding it traumatic ... well Iverglas wasn't too far off the mark.

Many women are traumatised by having kids - guess that's an evil that must be stopped too

[REP]

33. What You Believe Vs Reality: Two Studies

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



   The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=24751

[FtWayneBlue]

10. I could say I was pro-birth. War is late term abortion

according to an anti-war protester. But we prefer to call ourselves peace activists or even peaceniks. I think the majority of pro-choice people don't like abortion, and think of it as the last resort. But we have to support a woman's right to decide what happens to her body. It is between her and her doctor, and no one else.

[JDPriestly]

12. It's about privacy.

The right not to have an abortion (think China) is just as important s the right to have an abortion. Both are intimate decisions that the government should not interfere with. In my view, it's fine to encourage pregnant women to choose to have their baby through medical, psychological, financial, and other support. But, the ultimate decision should be private because sex, family and physical and emotional health are private issues.

The police should not be knocking on the doors of pregnant women, and doctors should not have to report or spy on women because they are pregnant. I don't think that anti-abortion people have thought through the problems that would arise if abortion were made illegal and laws against it had to be enforced in this day and age. The methods police could and would probably have to use to snoop on women would be unacceptably intrusive. I remember hearing young women back in the early 1970s (before Roe v. Wade) desperately discussing ways to make themselves have abortions. You would not want to hear what they were recommending to each other, believe me.

[rabid_nerd]

32. Hello...

I am a member of Democrats for Life but just as EMILY's List has it's teetotallers, so does DFLA.

What is most important to point out is that:

EMILY's List is "Pro-Choice Democrats"
DFLA is "Pro-Life Democrats"

All other organizations are EXTERNAL to Democratic Party positions on the matter, unless they claim to be a rival organization to the same.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Organizations are "special interests" and unfit to be at the whole party platform table.

This includes NARAL, or NRL. (National Abortion Rights Action League and National Right to Life, respectively)

This has been the major problem over the past couple decades, such that my local fellow Democrat Kate Michelman (who lacks any involvement in local politics, shamefully) could, with her organization, run out any debate on the subject.

I favor sex education, birth control education, family planning w/o abortion, the pill, mandatory judicial and medical bypass (exception in case to risk of life of mother) on any restrictions teetotaler lifer's propose, and I do not personally consider conception the point at which a human being exists - I consider it when brainwave activity begins.

That said, I do consider that both parents have made the "choice" once they consent to intercourse, no matter the precautions.

If the woman's choice has been violated, whether by the man or because she is incapable of making the choice (statutory, incest), then she would retain her choice (exception in case of rape or incest).

I do base my Pro-Life stance based upon when a human being exists, not upon moral outrage, hatred, or religion.

I strongly support Pro-Choice candidates, I endorsed Howard Dean for DNC Chair, I am involved in Al Gore '08, but I have repeatedly encouraged Bob Casey Jr. to run for U.S. Senate. NOT because he is Pro-Life, but also because he is Pro-Labor (which Hafer is NOT, and is another side effect of Choice/Life teetotalitarianism (whew - a new word!)), has been state Auditor for 8 years and was elected treasurer with the largest vote in PA history, and he is a tremendous thoughful policy wonk who comes up with SOLUTIONS to money problems.

Finally, I believe one important thing to read is the original Roe v. Wade decision - which gives the states the right to prohibit third term abortions.

It was subsequent decisions that weakened (from a Pro-Life point of view) Roe v. Wade such that vacated states ability to prohibit any abortion, creating the "abortion on demand" argument of the Pro-Life camp. (See Planned Parenthood v. Casey Sr. Supreme Court decision, et al)

I am for stem cell research and I am open to EC.

I am not a teetotaller fundie, but I am Pro-Life. I am against the Death Penalty, and euthenasia (not to be confused with Youth in Asia).

[iverglas]

34. not a teetotaller, eh?

I'm not finding that difficult to believe.

So now you've joined the discussion that was already underway, how's about you read what some people have already said in response to some of your points, and respond to them?

[iverglas]

35. so ... "Democrats for Life"

One might mention, to begin with, how overweeningly, piggishly offensive their very name is.

Look what I find a link to, right on their main page:
http://www.democratsforlife.org/

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/2/71136.shtml

Democrats Talk Pro-life While Whitman Promotes Abortion

NewsMax.com's Fr. Michael Reilly notes that even Democrats aren't buying former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman's advice that the GOP is too pro-life.

An allegation that a Republican who objects to her party's positions on abortion "promotes abortion".

Now there's some civil discourse for ya. Me, I'd be ashamed to put a link to it on my own home page, even if it did go on to say such lovely things about myself.

Oooh, and look what it goes on to say about the Democratic Party:

Hillary, widely viewed as the likely Democratic nominee in 2008, is obviously trying to limit the electoral damage done by the party's blind support for abortion.

Yech.

CNSNews ... that's another source of fact and opinion widely cited and respected among normal Democrats, right?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200501\COM20050106a.html

And oh look, it's the Washington Times:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050223-082150-2681r.htm

Quite the fan club they've got.

Me, I never mind being judged by the company I keep. I hope you and your "Democrats for Life" feel the same way. 'Cause I'm sure as hell judging.

[REP]

36. Remember "Lawyers for Life"?

Always referred to in my hometown as "Assholes Forever."

[iverglas]

38. I especially like ...

"Physicians for life". The ones who don't belong must pay some damned high insurance premiums. I mean, you'd wonder how a physician not-for-life even got patients.

Note how I politely ignore what I think was a nasty crack about lawyers.

[REP]

39. Not *All* Lawyers!

Locally, those involved had pretty sleazy reputations aside from their antiabortnoid ravings.

[lukasahero]

86. Wow, never thought I'd hear the "sex for pro-creation ONLY" argument here

"That said, I do consider that both parents have made the "choice" once they consent to intercourse, no matter the precautions."

My husband and I choose to be child-free. We have taken "permanent" "precautions" but even they are not fail-proof. So you are saying we should never have sex because by doing so we have made the choice to have a baby if we choose to have sex? Yeah, ok.

Please GET OUT OF MY F*CKING BEDROOM!

[mdguss]

40. Me: Abortion should be illegal:

Except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. Roe v. Wade is right up there with Dred Scott and the Kormatzu case in terms of bad supreme court decisions...if they had left abortion alone, a reasonable compromise probably would have been worked out. If that was the case, we wouldn't have had a generation and a half of debate dominated by radicals on both sides. But anyway you cut it, abortion on demand is very, very, very immoral.

Abortion is a great moral blemish on the record of the Democratic Party. I support Democrats for Life--they do good work.

[sonicx]

41. If you believe abortion is murder...

how is it any less of a murder if the baby was conceived during a rape?

[iverglas]

42. so tell us

"... if they had left abortion alone, a reasonable compromise probably would have been worked out."

Which of your rights would you like to offer up for the rest of us to "compromise"?

C'mon, that shouldn't be a hard question. We can trade. We'll give you our right to life. (You know: all women who are pregnant and deliver are at risk of dying, along with the risk of suffering a variety of unfortunate illnesses and disabilities at the time or later in life -- didya read any of the thread before spattering your opinion into it?)

A roughly equal trade might be that you agree to give a kidney to somebody who needs one next time you're a match. You're no more likely to die during the surgery and post-op period than a woman who gestates and delivers is, I'd say. Sounds fair to me.

"But anyway you cut it, abortion on demand is very, very, very immoral."

And surely it would be horribly IMMORAL of you to sentence another human being to death by denying him/her your spare kidney, doncha agree?

Methinks that those who want to start making laws that compel others to live by their "moral" standards ought to think twice, and maybe thrice.

"If that was the case, we wouldn't have had a generation and a half of debate dominated by radicals on both sides."

Damn those radicals. If it weren't for them, it would be a whole lot cheaper to run those plantations ...

[wmills551]

47. Right to abortion

do you feel the government should put any limits on when an abortion can be performed?

[ehrnst]

43. I think Roe is up there with Brown v. Board of Education

And legal abortion is far more practical than legally forced childbirth. Just like Prohibition - criminalizing abortion sounds good on paper, but fails miserably in practice.

Roe was a compromise. It balances the rights of the woman in early pregnancy with the interest of the state as pregnancy progresses into viability.

Abortion on demand is a myth. You can't have a legal abortion without a gynecologist, and medical ethics prohibit them from performing abortions on healthy women with healthy, viable fetuses - even if they were seeking them.

I happen to think that cheating on your spouse is very very very immoral. Do I think that it should be made a criminal offense (in civilian life)? No.

I would also be interested in hearing why you think a woman's lack of interest in sex at the time of conception makes taking the life of the fetus acceptable. If it's about babies, and not about making childbirth a behavior modification tool, that should not matter to you.

[mdguss]

44. I think that's Wrong:

Abortion on demand is not a myth. What about the healthy woman who has an abortion at 12 weeks. The fetus isn't viable, but there's no real compelling reason to have an abortion. There are other methods (mainly adoption, though also increased assistance to needy families) that could render the reason for an abortion moot.

Roe v. Wade is not even close to Brown vs. Board of Education. Roe decided what should've been a legislative issue on grounds that (at best) are tangentially related to the constitution. It allowed people (both men and women) to fail to take responsibility for their actions. And it prevents the innocent (the unborn) from living because two consenting adults can't cope with the consquences of a perfectly legal act that they both performed.

Abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered. The first to because consent of the woman was not involved in the creation of the fetus/the woman might face severe emotional scars from carrying the preganancy to birth. The last because the mother frequently has an easier time than the child surviving. The procedure should respect the mother's living will, but the life that can be saved (mother or fetus) should be saved. There was a case of a brain-dead woman who gave birth a couple years ago. The birth killed her, but it was probably the ethically right thing to do.

[iverglas]

45. don't you like me?

And you don't even know me!

I asked you a question, in my other post. It was quite concise, and not loaded or anything. Won't you answer?

But heck, as long as I'm here ...

It allowed people (both men and women) to fail to take responsibility for their actions.

Aha! So pregnancy and delivery and parenthood ARE punishments.

That's what we do to people who "fail to take responsibility for their actions", isn't it? Punish them?

Well ... not actually. We punish people when the effect of their actions is regarded as sufficiently undesirable that we prohibit the actions. That's what the criminal law is for: generally, to prohibit actions we regard as harmful to others, and punish people who commit them.

If we just want people to be held responsible for the effects of their actions, we institute civil proceedings against them. We don't compel them to submit to painful, disfiguring, life-threatening medical conditions -- like pregnancy and delivery.

But -- you do know -- there are all kinds of people who "fail to take responsibility for their actions", and we don't do anything to them at all. If I choose not to look where I'm going and trip on the coffee table, and fly into a rage and hurl the coffee table across the room, I think you could say I failed to take responsibility for my actions. What are you going to propose I be required to do to force me to take responsibility for my actions: repaint the coffee table? Maybe I'm a recidivist coffee table-kicker and I really need to be taught a good lesson; maybe I should be required to eat it ...

Exactly what on this green earth makes you think that YOU are entitled to MAKE ME "take responsibility" for MY actions when my actions are NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS?

"My action" in question is having sex. You don't like that I had sex? Tough shit. But tell me -- what about all the millions of having-sex acts committed by people every day, from which no pregnancy ensues? How are you going to make all THOSE people "take responsibility for their actions"?

Maybe you could arrange to have them all impregnated with a few of those left-over unwanted teeny little babees sitting around in freezers in fertility clinics. That would kill two birds with one stone for those so all-fired worried about other people's sex lives and other people's tissues, hm?

Abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

You must have a macro for this one, given how often you have been saying it in these parts. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen (and I have done the search) any response from you to anyone's query about why your opinions about other people's behaviours provide justification for the state to prohibit the behaviours and punish those who engage in them.

You appear to have a fondness for what is called "proof by blatant assertion". You say so, and that makes it so. Well, sad as it makes me to inform you of this: no it doesn't.

"Adultery is wrong except in cases of the other spouse being in a permanent vegetative state." (Hell, I dunno; maybe it's even wrong then.) Where are the bills to outlaw adultery, and where is your name on the petitions to pass them?

The first to <two> because consent of the woman was not involved in the creation of the fetus/the woman might face severe emotional scars from carrying the preganancy to birth.

Big fucking deal, sez I. How can you possibly weigh a mere possibility of "severe emotional scars" against the assassination of that little babee? How can anyone else's opinion about the desirability of an actual human being's existence -- is that what you're saying a z/e/f is? -- matter a whit?

What a woman who has been sexually assaulted did not consent to was the sexual act. "Consent" is not an issue in pregnancy. It happens when no one "consented" to it happening ... and it fails to happen when everyone "consents" to it happening. So the unwanted pregnancy of a woman who has been sexually assaulted is entirely indistinguishable from the unwanted pregnancy of a woman who has not been sexually assaulted, who likely no more "consented" to the pregnancy than did the assaulted woman.

Quite obviously, you *do* regard pregnancy, delivery and parenthood as punishment for behaviours that you disapprove of. Quite obviously, you don't actually give a shit about fetuses.

What about the healthy woman who has an abortion at 12 weeks. The fetus isn't viable, but there's no real compelling reason to have an abortion.

You thought of a real compelling reason not to surrender that kidney of yours yet?

Remember: "I don't wanna" won't cut it once we get that bill passed.

C'mon, now. This is a DISCUSSION board. Let's have some discussion. Opinion-splattering doesn't count.

[mdguss]

46. Your questions are false choices and show the immoral grounds of abortion:

There is no constitutional provision or amendment that specifically gives a basis for an abortion. The Supreme Court had to weave together four amendments to decree that abortions are ok. Whether abortion should be legal or not is debatable. If it weren't for the Supreme Court, there could be debates in legislatures, where issues of such division should be resolved. Assistant suicide--another controversial medical procedure with the same results as abortion--is not protected by the constitution. If the ERA had passed, then this might be a different discussion. But the ERA failed.

Second, responsibility for our actions is something that the US has gotten away from since Roe. If you choose to open a business, it is your responsibility to pay your bills, serve your customers, and pay your employees. A consequence of opening a business, is increased responsibility to perform sometimes painful tasks. If two people choose to have unprotected sex, then pregnancy can result. The responsibility of those two people is to care for and raise the child (if that's not possible, then it is the responsibility of society--through a better adoption system--to care for and raise that child). I think abortion increases the rate unprotected sex, contributes to the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and punishes an innocent person (an unborn child) for their very existence.

Finally, abortion is a matter of that greatly effects the public. It is in the public interest to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity. We may well have killed off the person capable of curing the AIDS virus in an abortion. Societies interest is in protecting the right of human beings to exist. Abortion destroys human life. Therefore it should be illegal.

And if it weren't for Roe v. Wade, people could've had this debate in state legislatures. There probably would've been yelling, name-calling, and maybe even some punches thrown. But there probably wouldn't have been clinic bombings, some counter-violence directed at churches, etc. Attention would've been focused on the reasonable, not the outrageous. Compromise that both sides could tolerate (probably something similar to the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act) would've become the law. But no, the Supreme Court--which has no power to decide such issues--stepped in and cut off debate. The stifling of public debate didn't begin with Bush--though it is worse under him--it began with Roe v. Wade.

[sonicx]

48. UK and other comparible nations have less abortion than the US...

but have higher condom/pill use and lower STD rates.

And again, if abortion is murder, why do you support the rape/incest exception? And you say that both sides should compomise...how can you, as a prolifer, compromise on what you see as 'murder'?

BTW, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act adds a few barriers, but still allows the 'murders' to take place. Are you really fine with that?

(Also...Penn is in the top half of the state abortion rate ranking. And their ratio of abortions-to-live births is the 14th highest in the country).

[WildClarySage]

49. hmmmm

"If two people choose to have unprotected sex, then pregnancy can result. The responsibility of those two people is to care for and raise the child"

So you think that two people who are either too shortsighted to put lust on hold long enough to get their grubby lil hands on a condom, or are too dumb to know what birth control is, should be in charge of raising a child? That's just it, you don't think they should. They should give that child over to "society" (this is the same 'society' that allows women to experience the immorality of abortion?) if they can't handle raising a baby.

Then there's this little straw-man: "We may well have killed off the person capable of curing the AIDS virus in an abortion." Yes, and that person might die in childhood because a ceiling fan nut broke or some car's brakes failed or because he/she fell into a swimming pool when nobody else was around. Or, conversely, we might accidentally have killed off the person capable of being the next Ted Bundy, Adolph Hitler or Timothy McVeigh.

Just because you "think abortion increases the rate unprotected sex, contributes to the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases" doesn't make it so. If I believe that adultery increases the rate of STD's, that doesn't mean I should be able to get divorce banned. People actually had unprotected sex long before RvW. They even had unsafe abortions then, too. They just also died a lot from them. But many anti-choicers think that's ok, since A) they're only women, and B)They get what's coming to them since they were daring to mess with illegal abortions in the first place.

[saracat]

57. There is not equality between the unborn and the born.

My friend is a pro-choice phychiatrist who points out that in the advent of her having to make a choice in an abortion the choice should always be between the known and the unknown. IN her case, as she explains, she is already a Doctor, she "KNOWS" what she can contribute to the world. The fetus may be as you say, the operative word being"MAY"be the inventor of the cure for aids, but on the other hand it "MAY" be a serial killer! It is a gamble and that gamble should always be weighted in the decision of the "KNOWN " enitiy. the woman.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. I agree with you conclusion, but not your argument.

While I think abortion should be avialable on demand for at least the first two trimesters, and in many cases in the third, I don't think the argument that the mother's rights automatically override the foetus's is a valid one.

While in a straight decision between the life of the mother and that of the foetus, one should of course unhesitatingly choose the mother, the stakes for the mother are far lower than that.

IF I believed that a foetus was a person (if, for example, I was a member of a religion that believed that a soul entered the body at conception) I would point out that the risk of death from carrying a pregnancy to term is not great, nowadays (thankfully), and that the certainty of a foetus's death was worse than the small risk of the mothers.

There is, essentially, only one anti-abortion argument that could possibly be valid, and the only pro-abortion arguments worth raising are those that rebut it.

That argument is "a foetus is a person", and the two possible counter arguments are "no it isn't" and "yes it is, but even so abortion should be legal".

I support the legality of abortion because I believe the first argument is logically valid. What you're advancing here is a version of the second argument, which I'm afraid I think isn't.

[Hello_Kitty]

76. "We may well have killed off the person capable of curing the AIDS virus "

More likely we've killed the next Son of Sam. Have you read this?

http://www.amfor.net/killers/

Edit to add: This is not a slam on adoptees as I am one myself.

[saracat]

53. And this is your business why?? You will never get an abortion "on demand

or otherwise! However you can get a vasectomy or sex change, "on Demand" without consulting anyone and it would be perfectly legal for you. You can even legally lie to your spouse about having had a vasectomy and it would merely be a "personal problem". Why shouldn't women have the same reproductive rights?

[saracat]

50. And of course you are DLC!

Figures.

[Megahurtz]

67. Coming from a male........

:banghead:

[Spinoza]

51. I am

pro-choice in the first trimester, somewhere in the middle in the second trimester, and pro-life (or anti-choice if you wish) in the last trimester.

I used to be 100% pro-choice. Any woman had the absolute right to abort, up until 1 minute before birth, for any reason or no reason. (I was hard core.)

Then I had 2 children. More to the point, I went thru my wifes pregnancy with her on a day to day basis. I now believe that a (for example) 8-month fetus is a human being in every sense of the word and that abortion of such a fetus is equivalent to murder. I also believe that a (for example) 1 month fetus is NOT a human being (it is only a human potential) and that a woman has the right to abort at that stage of her pregnancy. I don't know what the exact cut-off should be, (perhaps first trimester or 4 months) but I (and my wife who also used to be 100% pro-choice) do believe that some cut-off, during pregnancy, is the only moral solution.

So am I pro-choice or am I pro-life? I'm not sure.

[saracat]

52. Well, isn't that amazing?

Because of your "personal experience" you feel that gives you the right to limit abortion for others? Frankly, You didn't have children, your wife did. She is lucky to have a supportive husband. I am happy for you both, but many women aren't that lucky ,and I think it is wrong for you to impose your experience on their lives. I don't consider anyone who places limitations on abortion pro-choice. I certainly don't consider anyone who considers it "murder" pro-choice.

[Spinoza]

54. Did you ever have a child or put

your head on the belly of an 8-month pregnant woman? Thats a baby.

[saracat]

55. Again, no offense, but as you will never have to make any kind of a choice

I don't see that this is any of your business. Late term abortions are NOT done on demand because of the medical risk to the woman. I have never heard of anyone eight months along , on "whim" deciding to do an abortion! Usually they are done only when the fetus is hoplessly compromised or the woman's risk is severe. So why is that even an issue, and what is the point of raising the issue of an 8 mos.fetus? It sounds to me as if you think the fetus has equal rights at some point with the woman, and I don't. It was exactly that point years ago that mandated the doctor's to choose the life of the fetus as opposed to that of the mother years ago, and we really don't want to go back to that , or do we?

[Scout]

56. and we TRUST WOMEN enough to know

that none of them would abort an 8-month pregnancy without a good god damned REASON to do so.

Women do not just decide to abort in the the second and third trimesters on some kind of stupid whim.

Even if women could legally just walk into a clinic and demand that a one-day before birth fetus could be aborted, and they could find a doctor who would do it ... they WOULDN'T, because women are thinking, feeling, rational, normal human beings.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Spinoza, I'm a mother...

And I've got a question for you. How many healthy pregnant women wait until the last few weeks of their pregnancy and then decide to abort a healthy and viable foetus? Somehow I don't think that actually happens, but it's a myth promoted by anti-choicers to try to portray women as evil...

Violet...

[Iris]

69. Suppose the baby only has half a brain?

[friesianrider]

81. I don't think that was the question she asked.

Why should YOU be able to decide when a woman can end her pregnancy? Will YOU personally adopt the kid if she has it? Will you be supportive to every woman considering abortion, and do everything for them that you did for your wife? Take that woman to doctor appointments, prenatal check-ups, baby stuff shopping, and breathing classes?

If not, then with all due respect, you need to STFU. Until YOU get pregnant and are in each woman's shoes who is considering abortion, your opinion matters NOTHING in this debate. Period.

[Count Popeula]

59. I'm Pro-Choice, but...

I know plenty of pro-life democrats. Probably more people I know are pro-life democrats than pro-choice.

The basic belief structure is not unlike Bill Clinton's famous statement that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. Rare being the key word.

To a pro-life democrat, the practice and idea of abortion is abhorrent, and every measure should be taken to see that it doesn't become a necessity, but it should be provided when it is.

Pro-life democrats tend to believe ion more freely available birth control, that the state has an obligation to provide condoms, birth control, emergency contraception, family planning services and pre- and post-natal care.

The idea is that well educated people will make informed decisions, and access to effective birth control is one of the most important tools in preventing abortion, preventing pregnancy altogether.

This ties in with the idea of personal responsibility. It is the position of a pro-life democrat that if birth control is freely available and you choose to forgo it, that you choose not to take birth control, not to have safe sex and you get pregnant, you have no right to an abortion due to irresponsibility.

Pro-life democrats aren't really against abortion for the most part, it's more that they're against abortions being performed when no steps were taken to prevent pregnancy despite promiscuity. If proper precautions are taken, and accidental pregnancy occurs, abortion is more palatable.

The issue is not one of right or wrong, black or white, but it's a very grey moral issue. The basic stance of the pro-life democrats I know seems to be "We will bend over backwards to make sure you don't get pregnant. As long as you make an effort, we'll work with you. But if you act totally irresponsibly, you'll be forced to deal with the consequences of your actions."

I'm not a particular advocate, I personally don't care, honestly. I'm not a woman, none of my business unless it's my seed (which it likely never will be). But I do understand the position, it's owned by almost everyone I know.

Most are also more than willing to discuss logical solutions. The goal of the movement is to reduce the number of abortions through rational and intelligent steps like education and prevention, and I don't know any who put a fetus above or really even equal to a mother. They just feel it has some worth that shouldn't be ignored.

[WildClarySage]

72. When you say this:

"Pro-life democrats aren't really against abortion for the most part, it's more that they're against abortions being performed when no steps were taken to prevent pregnancy despite promiscuity." What you mean is that pro-life democrats are buying into the right's belief that promiscuity and lack of responsibility should be punished by saddling the woman with a pregnancy and a baby that she doesn't want?

First that is very demeaning to women, assuming that most unintended pregnancy happens because promiscuious women are careless, and secondly, since when is a baby a punishment?

[samos1016]

61. I am both

I am Pro-Choice and Pro-life. Meaning: personally I am Pro-life yet I believe that women should make the decision for themselves. I have no right to tell any women what she can and cannot do to her body. Nor does the government.
In either respect no women should be forced to not have an abortion nor forced to have one.
I had a friend from High school who was forced to have an abortion by her parents. She wanted to keep her child yet her parents where not willing to be there for her. The after effects had almost deadly consequences for my friend. She almost killed herself. Would her parents have keep the child if abortion was not legal? I would think not, they would have found away oversees.
Abortion was around before Roe v. Wade. During that time women were suffering the deadly consequences of illegal abortions. Regardless of how anyone feels about abortion they should never inflect their opinions upon others. Abortion should be scare and legal. Making it illegal would make things only worse not better for women or society.
As for capital punishment and euthanasia. I am against capital punishment. However, euthanasia is something that I feel if the person wants to end their suffering (from serious medical ailments or old age) they should be allowed to do so. When it comes to your body the government and the rest of America needs to mind their own business.

[slackmaster]

62. I got into a heated discussion with some extreme pro-lifers yesterday

This happened on another Internet discussion forum. And I have to confess I am just as puzzled by their position as I was before our conversation.

Reader's Digest version:

Someone started a thread about a bill in Congress, H.R. 552, which would define human life as beginning at conception and criminalize all elective abortions.

I said I didn't believe that the right to life of a fertilized ovum, a single cell, should trump the right of a woman to decide she didn't want to go through a pregnancy.

I said that Roe v. Wade is a compromise between the rights of women to not be pregnant, and the right of a developing fetus to live. At some point during its development, that fertilized egg turns into something that has sensations and can feel pain, so clearly it wouldn't be right to allow elective abortions for convenience up to the moment right before birth. I think the first trimester rule is imperfect but it's the system we have in place, so I asked the pro-lifers why they thought the system was broken.

Those are my honest opinions. I've been thinking about this for more than 30 years and I'm not ignorant or stupid or uncaring. I offered the pro-lifers an opportunity to convince me why their position was superior.

All I got from them was personal attacks. Within minutes I was accused of having immature thoughts, not understanding what this country was founded for, and having "no respect whatsoever" for life. Of course they declined to answer the tough questions about the unintended consequences of their bill:

- Are they willing to accept that more women will die from illegal abortions?

- Are they willing to pay for prenatal care, when a working woman who has no insurance and no means of support gets pregnant unintentionally?

- Are they willing to help out a woman whose college education gets interrupted by an unintended pregnancy?

- Are they willing to personally adopt some of the million or so extra babies who would be born each year?

No answer on those, no answer on why the bill makes no effort to make the "sperm doners" responsible for unintended pregnancies; just brow-beating about how I haven't thought things through. When I told one of them I had raised a family already his response was "Then you are hopeless".

I must say the strident pro-lifers, at least the ones on the right, have no skill at winning over a person's heart or mind. I'm willing to listen to peoples' ideas by default, but once you start impugning my intelligence or maturity or education or morality I'll shut you out in the blink of an eye.

So I am left with the quandry I had when I entered the discussion: Are pro-lifers really concerned on a spiritual level about the value of each and every human life as they seem to be claiming, or is their position really an intricate manifestation of their desire to subjugate and control women, in particular womens' sexuality?

By the way, they were all male as the most strident pro-lifers seem to be. As a man I do not feel it is my place to tell a woman she must carry a pregnancy to full term, especially at the very early stages where an abortion isn't going to cause any suffering.

[iverglas]

63. "the right of a developing fetus to live"

There is no such right.

Roe v. Wade expressly stated that there is no such right in the US.

Roe v. Wade was not "a compromise between the rights of women to not be pregnant, and the right of a developing fetus to live".

Roe v. Wade was a determination of the point at which the state's interest in the fetus (which the Court did not define) becomes sufficiently compelling (which the Court did not explain) to outweigh the woman's interest (which the Court defined as "privacy").

Only persons have rights.

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410b5.htm

... In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

... To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

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

This is important.

I said I didn't believe that the right to life of a fertilized ovum, a single cell, should trump the right of a woman to decide she didn't want to go through a pregnancy.

This is not meaningful, since there is NO "right to life of a fertilized ovum".

At some point during its development, that fertilized egg turns into something that has sensations and can feel pain, so clearly it wouldn't be right to allow elective abortions for convenience up to the moment right before birth.

Roe v. Wade says nothing of the sort. That may be your personal opinion, but it is not related to the reasons why the US Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting abortion beyond the limits that the Court laid down.

I think the first trimester rule is imperfect but it's the system we have in place, so I asked the pro-lifers why they thought the system was broken.

There is no "first trimester rule". The rules are (and I use "trimesters" only for convenience, because they are not the exact demarcation lines):

- no state in the US may interfere in the exercise of the choice of abortion in the first trimester;

- no state in the US may interfere in the exercise of the choice of abortion in the second trimester for reasons that are unrelated to the woman's own health;

- no state in the US may interfere in the exercise of the choice of abortion in the third trimester where the abortion is necessary for the preservation of the woman's life or health.

No state in the US is required to prohibit abortions, or otherwise restrict access to abortion, at any point in pregnancy. The state has an interest in "the potentiality of human life" (or the various other ways this undefined concept was described by the US SC) that it may choose to protect by prohibiting abortions, or restricting access to abortions, at certain points, and always subject to exceptions for the woman's life or health. No state in the US is required to act to protect that interest.

Within minutes I was accused of having immature thoughts, not understanding what this country was founded for, and having "no respect whatsoever" for life.

Gee ... you'd almost think you'd said you favoured firearms registration or something ...

Of course they declined to answer the tough questions about the unintended consequences of their bill:

And the problem is that they are quite able to answer, variously:

- Are they willing to accept that more women will die from illegal abortions?

Yup. The women made their own choice to do something that was not only illegal and wrong, but dangerous.

- Are they willing to pay for prenatal care, when a working woman who has no insurance and no means of support gets pregnant unintentionally?

Nope. They didn't get pregnant without the financial resources to deal with the pregnancy or the child. The woman did. The expenses are her responsibility, not someone else's unless they choose to assume it.

- Are they willing to help out a woman whose college education gets interrupted by an unintended pregnancy?

Nope. No more than they are willing to help out anyone who made any other foolish choice that resulted in him or her being unable to continue his or her education. No one else is responsible for the consequences of her choice.

- Are they willing to personally adopt some of the million or so extra babies who would be born each year?

Nope. They did nothing to cause those children to be born, or to cause the hardship that any of them suffer. Those children are no more their responsibility than anyone else's children are.

(Besides, you are asking a loaded question: there is no proof that any of those babies would be born, since it cannot be known whether fear of pregnancy and unavailability of abortion would deter any or all of those women from engaging in sex and thus becoming pregnant. This applies to all of the other questions as well, of course.)

So I am left with the quandry I had when I entered the discussion: Are pro-lifers really concerned on a spiritual level about the value of each and every human life as they seem to be claiming, or is their position really an intricate manifestation of their desire to subjugate and control women, in particular womens' sexuality?

Who cares?

Would you discuss the pros and cons of segregated schools with someone who proposed segregation, regardless of what his/her motivation was? If s/he firmly believed that people of colour are unable to succeed (and, say, are victimized by racism) when forced to mix with white folks, and s/he could persuade you that s/he truly cared about the well-being of children of colour, would this make some difference to how you approached the proposal to segregate the schools?

The effect of their position is that women are subjugated and controlled, whether they wish, or conversely claim not to wish, to do that or not.

As a man I do not feel it is my place to tell a woman she must carry a pregnancy to full term, especially at the very early stages where an abortion isn't going to cause any suffering.

And what I generally think in response to that is: with friends like that ...

No fetus can "have sensations and feel pain" before at least the 26th week of pregnancy (that's what the research that has indeed been done to date establishes). If there is some reason to think that abortions are being performed after that point -- that do cause pain to the fetus at least worse than the pain it would experience if the abortion were not performed, and that are performed for some reason other than to protect the woman from serious injury or death -- then obviously the answer is anaesthetic. And if medical protocols alone aren't sufficient to solve the problem -- if unaesthetized fetuses are being aborted on whims -- then you could argue for a law. (You wouldn't have to in the US, of course, since such laws generally exist; but their existence is not proof of any need for them, or of their "good"ness.)

As a man, you might take the position that it is no one's place to interfere in any woman's choice of the course of action that she feels is in her best interests, in the exercise of her right to life and liberty.

Too bad you won't be seeing any of this, of course. If anyone feels like putting the points to slackmaster in a way that will be visible on his screen, do feel free to copy and paste.

[Yalita]

64. I am new to this board and a pro-lifer

I am a "pro-lifer" I believe you have the choice before the child is conceived. I really don't buy that it is a womans body it is her choice. She had the choice to have sex or not.
With all the birth control that is out there and the information there is no excuse for a unplanned pregnancy.
I know several women who have had abortions. One of witch is my best friend who has guilt issues over it ever since. Once life is created it is created. It has the right to be protected to the best of our abilities. The case for where the mother and or baby may die, well that becomes a medical issue.
In the case of incest In college I had to write a paper for and against abortions. And the numbers i dug up back then went against abortions for incest victims. Due to the fact most were young girls brought in by there attackers to destroy the "evidence" of incest and several of these girls were brought in more than once.

There are several scenarios rape, incest, health that raise tricky questions that only has answers for a case by case basis. But the majority of people who have abortions do so for the fact they don't want the child, cannot afford the child, don't want while "the mother" is so young, have enough children ect.... These IMO are selfish and actions so the parents don't have to take responsibilities for there own actions...
I also think it a violations of the fathers either way you flip the coin. What if the father don't/does want the child he has no say so in it. Parenting is both mother and father and their choices before getting one pregnant.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Welcome to DU.

:popcorn:

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Yes, how dare women have sex for anything but procreation!

With all the birth control that is out there and the information there is no excuse for a unplanned pregnancy.

Sorry, but that's complete bullshit. I was using birth control and my pregnancy was unplanned. I ended up deciding to continue the pregnancy, and the reasons I considered abortion were neither selfish nor irresponsible. Just curious, but do you think that couples that don't want to have children should not have sex?

Writing a paper in college nor an anectdotal story about a friend doesn't tend to give people the insight into the real world that they might think they're suddenly possessed with. And portraying women as selfish and irresponsible as though the opinion of the portrayer matters at all when it comes to a woman's individual circumstances is imo a bit of a mistake...

Violet...

[friesianrider]

66. Are they also VEGETARIAN?

Hmm? Bet not. What about the life of all God's creatures? Or don't they matter as much?

[really annoyed]

68. Probably Not

Human life is on a higher moral ground than animals. At least, that is the impression I got when I spent time with pro-lifers.

But there was a good minority (most of them lived in Europe though) who were strict vegans too.

[DemBones DemBones]

85. Not many vegetarians or even vegans are pro-life.

Nor are PETA members and the like. I find that very odd, that people should think it's horrible to kill non-human animals but acceptable to kill humans in utero. I've never heard an explanation for it. And I have asked.

[really annoyed]

92. I think you missed my point

I was commenting that you will find more pro-life vegans in Europe than the United States. I met a great deal of them through the Internet. I do enjoy the "eccentric" types - they have taught me a lot about respect for life. However, I don't think the majority of "animal rights" activists see an unborn child as something worth protecting because they don't even seen it as human.

I have no respect for PETA, nor did my previous post represent them. PETA is a fringe group and I don't associate them with normal vegans who are making a simple lifestyle choice based on personal belief.

And I was a pro-life activist for a LONG time. It became "was" because I got sick of the conservatives and the constant bashing of my "anti-religious" views. Even feminist and liberal pro-lifers have a hard time being accepted by the pro-life "movement." Only certain forms of "life" get accepted by conservatives.

Therefore, I see liberalism and a pro-life stance very compatible when it comes to religious, philosophical, and ethical beliefs. However, I don't see it fit to place my beliefs on another individual. Personally, I think abortion is abhorrent. However, there are plenty who will disagree on me with the issues of keeping abortion legal because it is such a personal belief.

However, I completely understand your point of view because I use to have a similar one.

[friesianrider]

97. I can give you one.

I am pro-life. For myself, that is. I am pro-choice for everyone else, just as I am pro-choice for those who wish to eat meat. I try my best to persuade those who eat meat to be vegetarian/vegan, same as I would try to persuade women to choose to keep and raise their baby if they can. Ultimately though, it is THEIR choice on their diet and THEIR choice on abortion. This may not be the explanation you want, but it is a pretty valid explanation, IMHO.

[really annoyed]

98. That is a good POV to have

Mine is similar when it comes to abortion. I was a hardcore pro-lifer at one point, now I'm personally pro-life while supporting the option of choice for others.

I don't appreciate people preaching at me about things, so why should I be that way toward others?

[ScamUSA.Com]

73. Im strongly anti-abortion

but I'm not going to argue about it on this website.

[really annoyed]

79. Why Not Debate?

If you're willing to say you are anti-abortion, you should be willing to back up your position.

Besides, who doesn't love a good flame war? :)

[rustedace]

74. I am

and I'm against the death penalty and euthenasia too.

Life is life.

[EmmaP]

75. Conception

Moment of fertilization or moment of implantation?

[liontamer]

78. there are many anti choice duers

some of them even come to this forum.

[DemBones DemBones]

84. I've never been here before but this thread INVITED pro-life DUers.

I'm a pro-life DUer, a lifelong yellow dog Democrat, more progressive on some issues than many other DUers, and I consider being pro-life a progressive or liberal position.

We liberal Democrats supported civil rights for minorities, we opposed the killing in Viet Nam, we supported the new feminism, we opposed the death penalty. And then, suddenly we were being told by "leaders" to support the killing of unborn babies. Initially, it was just about loosening restrictions a bit so women didn't have to carry doomed babies to term, or endanger their health with a risky pregnancy.

Then it became just legalization altogether. They made it sound good: legalizing abortion, we were told, would end child abuse, end domestic abuse, reduce divorce rates, usher in a golden age. We believed in the gospel of abortion, though it made us queasy to think of the babies dismembered in utero.

After fifteen years or so, it was obvious those promises had not come true. By then, we'd been brainwashed to think of abortion as a woman's right. But one day, I was teaching one of my biology classes about the characteristics of life; how biologists can determine whether something is living or nonliving. I'd taught it a hundred times before, but that day it suddenly hit me that from the moment of conception an embryo has all the characteristics of life, ergo, it's alive. It was an inescapable truth, and very unwelcome. I was a feminist; I couldn't be pro-life. But I was, from then on. I fought myself about it. My first defense was "But is it a human life?" Naturally, I quickly shot that ruse down. "Of course it's human. Human sperm + human ovum = human zygote > embryo > fetus > neonate > infant > toddler > child. . ." There was no way out of it. I couldn't go back to being pro-choice.

I think the soul, or whatever you care to call that quality that makes someone "herself," is there from conception but is what we might call dormant, as it is in a person in a coma. With babies, consciousness obviously develops. They become increasingly aware of their environment, learn to talk, etc., and I believe that the quality we call soul develops along with consciousness. I think something similar may happen to people who come out of a coma. I saw Donald Sutherland on a talk show interview a couple of years ago and he talked about being in a coma. He was on location for a film somewhere in Eastern Europe, became very ill and spent weeks in a coma. He said that he was actually awake and aware while he was comatose, that he heard them talk about how he was going to die. He couldn't do anything to communicate that he was "in there" but he was conscious. He was, all appearances to the contrary, "himself." as I recall, he came out of the coma with his consciousness fairly normal but other people must relearn things they learned as infants.

My thoughts about the soul and such eventually led me to become a Catholic. I mention this to emphasize that I was not brought up in the Catholic Church and taught that abortion was sinful. Nor did I become Catholic because the Church opposes abortion, which would be a pretty shallow rationale for a religious conversion. I do support the Catholic concept of the "culture of life" which Pope John Paul II originated and which Bush* has co-opted and changed to fit his own desires. To Catholics, the culture of life or the seamless garment of life (referring to the seamless robe that Jesus wore), means that killing is wrong. That includes the killing of abortion, the killing of capital punishment, the killing of euthanasia, and the killing of war.



And about that "anti-choice" comment. . .



If you call me anti-choice, I'll call you anti-life. Turnabout is fair play.


If you'll call me pro-life, I'll call you pro-choice. I give respect if I get respect.


Why waste time on word games and calling names? That's no way to have a serious, adult discussion about a serious, adult topic like abortion.

[iverglas]

88. turnabout indeed

If you call me anti-choice, I'll call you anti-life. Turnabout is fair play.

If you'll call me pro-life, I'll call you pro-choice. I give respect if I get respect.

Funny how there's only two inaccurate misleading labels in that set -- one that you apply to yourself and one that you apply to others.

I'm not seeing any turnabout, myself ...

If I call you by the inaccurate and misleading label you choose for yourself, you'll call me by the accurate and truthful label I choose for myself.

If I call you by the accurate and truthful label I assign to you, you'll call me by the inaccurate and misleading label you assign to me.

Not seeing any respect there at all, myself ...


That's no way to have a serious, adult discussion about a serious, adult topic like abortion.

That would be fascinating, if someone were discussing abortion.

The issue at hand happens to be the legality/illegality of abortion, you see.

[REP]

94. Yet Another Dishonest Statement

"I've never been here before but this thread INVITED pro-life DUers."

Untrue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=147&mesg_id=150

When the first statement in a post is a falsehood, I have trouble believing anything that follows.

[Payne]

89. I'm Pro-Choice however

I do think there should be a limit to how late you could get one,if you wait for more then a couple months to get one then tough luck.

[PA Mamma]

91. Tough Luck ???

Yeah, “tough luck” for all those women who purposely wait because we all know that here in the glorious and free, good ol’ US of A, every woman, everywhere has equal access to Full Reproductive healthcare. From Contraception to Pre-natal care, it’s all so readily available, state of the art, affordable and convenient. Who would dare impede any woman’s access to health care ????
And we’re so fortunate for those who are brave enough to impose their limited view and judgment on women whose very lives would prove otherwise.:eyes:

[WildClarySage]

93. And, of course, every woman *knows* when she is pregnant

right away- there are no women anywhere who have messed up reproductive cycles and skip periods regularly so that OB's *never* have to guess due dates or use ultrasounds to verify fetal age. All women know immediately when they've conceived so there's no excuse for not hightailing it to a clinic ASAP so as to meet an imposed time limit on abortion.

riiiight. :eyes:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

96. pro-life/ pro-choicer, so what does that make me?

do I believe abortions are wonderful? no. would I dream of telling a woman what to do with her body? no.
But I never hear democratic politicians frame the issue this way coherently--i.e. in a way that first straightforwardly and simply acknowledges that abortions aren't great, and that this is part of the equation. Instead, we get ten-minutes of him-hawwing about why it's a private matter and then "it's a woman's choice." I imagine this is an attempt at simplifying, but it sounds to middle America like obfuscating. And don't get me wrong: choice and privacy are at the center of the issue. But our party's leaders sometimes pretend choice and privacy are the only part of the issue.
Why won't a D politician take the steam out of the other side's position by saying (and meaning it) up front, that abortions are not a great thing? why not leave the defining difference between parties with whether or not you should tell a woman what to do with her body? IMHO, when we do acknowledge there is more, simply and straighforwardly, and then leave the difference between parties at whether you have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, the issue is a clear winner for democrats. It leaves both parties agreeing that abortion isn't good, with only one side against telling women what to do with their bodies. But when we speak as if the issue is only about choice and privacy, then we open ourselves to charges of being morally lite or unable to see the whole picture.
Voters should be asking themselves "why do republicans want to tell women what they can do with their bodies?" Not "why are democrats pretending pregnant women aren't pregnant?"

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Spinoza]

100. I'm Not Sure.

I am 100% pro-choice for the first 7 months. I am pro-life (or anti-choice if you prefer) during the final 2 months, and, especially, the last 4 weeks. (Except where the life of the mother is at definite risk.) How should I be labeled? Am I considered pro-choice or anti-choice?

[Blue Dawg]

101. Count me as pro-life...

...but I would never ever support a national ban.

I support the partial birth abortion ban, introducing criminal penalties for harming unborn fetus during other crime and banning abortions on military bases.

But I would not support overturning Roe v Wade, I simply believe that there are real limits that should be put on access to abortions except in exceptional circumstances.

At the same time I oppose the death penalty, but at the same time I can see where there might be extraordinary and terrible circumstances where it could be justified.

On the subject of the pill and sex education, we really need to be honest with kids, if you want to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and the increased likely hood of an abortion that brings, then contraception has to be freely available and sex education in schools needs to be frank and as extensive as necessary. it’s the only way to directly tackle the problem of kids, and many are just kids, getting pregnant because of not taking precautions or simply not know the “facts of life”, other pro-lifers should realise this.

Better sex education and freer access to contraception, goes hand in hand with wanting to cut the number of abortions

…I just wish people got that.


I respect those who believe in the pro-choice position totally, those who I do not respect are those on the extreme right and extreme left who are absolutist in their views.

In the end I don’t think abortion should be made a partisan issue, it should be down to the individual candidates and elected officials.

Overall the Party should also learn to not be painted as “pro-abortion”, because no one is genuinely aborting a pregnancy, but instead the party should see that its position is faithfully reflected, we want abortion to be safe and rare, but this position also embraces diverse strands of opinion on the issue…