Newsflash: Abortion is never a "quick, easy" decision for women!

[liberalhistorian]

I've been amazed at the comments from DUers about how a lot of women make a "quick, easy, or rash" decision to have an abortion, and how the abortion industry "profits" off of that.

I've told my story on here many times, but I'm going to do so yet again because I'm tired of hearing things like that, and usually from men who, frankly, have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

I had just graduated from college in June of 1990 when, despite our use of condoms, I got pregnant. After a couple of months of increasinly hostile and distant behavior towards me, my fiance threw me out of the house when I was three months pregnant, saying he "didn't want me around and didn't want to deal with it" (referring to the pregnancy), and accusing me of screwing around on him because, since we used condoms, he was sure he couldn't be the father (paternity tests later threw egg all over his face).

I had not yet found a job, I had no money, and no other place to go but home. I slept in my car one night, alone, sick, and terrified, before finally facing the music and going home. I was pro-choice, but I didn't want to have an abortion; my parents, however, pushed for it, thinking it was the best thing at the time. I gave in and made an appointment at a local clinic, but when I got there I just couldn't go through with it. My fiance had been anti-abortion, and had said at first that my parents would have to go through him before I'd have an abortion, well, then, where the hell was he? I stayed at home throughout my pregnancy, (my son and I are still living with my parents), dealing with it alone and going through the labor and birth without the support of a baby's father. I personally know of many, many similar stories, and many more second-hand, and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands more.

While I ultimately decided not to have an abortion, it was the most agonizing, heart-rending, difficult decision I've ever had to make before or since. It's been thirteen years, but the memory's as fresh as if it were yesterday, and I will NEVER EVER EVER forget it to my dying day. And that's the case with EVERY other woman I've known who's gone through it and, I would imagine, with nearly every woman, period. This is addressed mainly to the men who've posted on this: IT IS NOT A QUICK, EASY, RASH, SIMPLE DECISION! Women don't skip merrily off to the clinic, hop happily on the table, and then jump down and go tra-la-la-ing merrily on her way, without a sad thought in their pretty little heads. It's the most agonizing, difficult, heart-rending decision a woman will ever face, and it is NEVER taken lightly! That is RW fundie wingnut propaganda, and to assume otherwise is a gross insult to women and we deeply, thoroughly resent it. It just really angers me to see that kind of attitude from men, and ESPECIALLY on DU!

Actually, we deeply resent pro-life men, as well, but that's another thread.

[T Roosevelt]

1. Thank you for sharing

As I man I believe that, while I may have my own opinion, in the end it is not my position to tell someone that she can or can't control her own body.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Thank you!

n/t

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. It is for some...

I've met women who have no problem getting an abortion, and I don't have any problem with it either.

I don't consider it murder, therefore I don't feel the need to feel bad about it whatsoever.

From a health standpoint, it shouldn't be done all the time but to say that you have to feel guilty about it just reinforces the point that you feel that it is wrong...which I don't.

I mean, if you feel bad about it you obviously thing it is wrong so why not go the extra step and outlaw it.

[liberalhistorian]

5. How do you know they had

"no problem" with it? Were you privy to the decision-making process? Were you there when they had it done? They may have been relieved when it was over and their problem was solved, but that doesn't mean it was easy for them or they had no problem with the decision.

[KissMyAsscroft]

10. well, yes I was privy to it...

It was my gf...

And she had no problem doing it. She had it done, it took about half an hour and we went out for dinner later that night.

And I don't feel guilty about it whatsoever. It is a legal procedure that to me has the same signifigance as a woman having her period.

If you admit that it is a guilt racking situation, than a right winger can rightly claim that you know it is wrong. It just gives them a stronger position to use to outlaw it.

[Pithlet]

21. Actually, I believe

that the attitude that it is nothing more than having a period would hurt far more than believing that it is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. One of the weapons many anti-abortion people use is the notion that us pro-choicers are all cold-blooded killers. It reinforces their misguided notion that women who get abortions do so carelessly, even use them as a form of birth control. Not that I think it really matters either way. They're going to hold that position and fight to outlaw abortion no matter how we feel about it.

I'm very much pro-choice, but I also don't view abortion in the way that you describe. I'm one of those who believe it should be safe, legal, but rare. Address the causes of unwanted pregnancy rather than eliminating the choice. I understand completely why a woman would feel a lot of guilt and what she's done as well as why she would feel no guilt at all. And I don't think she should be made to feel guilty. But, just understand that most people don't hold the view that it is nothing more serious than having a mole removed.

[liberalhistorian]

23. Very well said,

I agree. It is a decision that should not be taken lightly or made lightly and I firmly believe that it almost never is.

[iverglas]

135. well said, if

... we believe that other people's personal lives are somehow our business.

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare". Rare? Why? If it "should" be rare, what ought we to do to make it that way?

It's a decision that is made by individual women, for their individual reasons and in whatever way they may happen to want to make it. That is their RIGHT. If their individual reason happens to be that they don't want to get fat, even if they simply could not be bothered to use birth control, and even if they had all the access to birth control in the world, that is simply none of your, or my, or anyone else's business. Period.

It is a decision that should not be taken lightly or made lightly ... .

Sez you? What earthly business is it of yours how anyone else makes her own decisions?

As to whether it is or is not every made "lightly", why do you think this is an issue? Why do you want to make it an issue? Why would you even want to dignify anyone else's desire to make it an issue by discussing it?

I'm grossed out by this attitude toward other women being expressed by a self-named liberal, is about all I can say.

[Pithlet]

143. No where did I say

that other people's personal lives are anyone else's business. Abortion should be safe and legal, and without any conditions or attachments. For everyone.

My whole point is that not everyone thinks abortion is no big deal. The whole point. Some reading into what I said is being done here.

And the whole rare thing is exactly what I meant. I don't think unintended pregnancies are a good thing. I don't view abortion as a good thing. I do not think it is good to not address the problem of unwanted pregnancies, because abortions are no big deal. Creating a society that doesn't put pressure on women to have an abortion because they can't afford it would go a long way. So would better sex education. I do not think that an unintended pregnancy is a walk in the park for most people. To pretend that it is so we don't have to address the problems that lead to them is shortsided.

And it has nothing to do with restricting abortion in anyway, or guilting anyone out of one.

[liberalhistorian]

144. No, most of the time,

unintended pregnancies are definitely NOT a walk in the park. I know mine sure as hell wasn't, and no one else I know in a similar situation thought so as well.

I don't view abortion as a good thing, either, although I fully support the right of a woman to choose it, and believe their decision is none of my business and I have no right to make it my business.

[Pithlet]

146. Yes

and for those who view it as no big deal and have no guilt about it, well I think that is great. I have a friend who had an abortion who felt that way about it. I was glad she was able to make her decision, carry it through, and go on with her life. I'm glad she didn't agonize or feel guilty about her decision.

[iverglas]

151. abortion is not a good thing?

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of women who have abortions every year in the US.

You two talk as if there were some better alternative to abortion. If it isn't a good thing, what is?

Is heart surgery a good thing? It's dangerous and unpleasant and painful. Sounds like a lousy thing to me.

"Not having heart disease" is better than having heart surgery, you betcha. And what point might I have made?

"Not being pregnant" is better than having an abortion -- undoubtedly, for most women. An abortion is a surgical procedure that carries risks that a person who is not pregnant does not face, if nothing else.

But gosh -- a pregnant woman doesn't have a choice between "having an abortion" and "not being pregnant", any more than a person with heart disease has a choice between "having heart surgery" and "not having heart disease".

Once a woman is who does not want to be pregnant is pregnant, abortion is often a good thing. By the only standard that matters -- the woman's.

It makes as much sense to say "abortion should be rare" as it makes to say "heart surgery should be rare", for pity's sake. True, in both cases -- because people only have abortions or heart surgery to solve problems that they would rather not have.

Unwanted pregnancies should be rare, and heart disease should be rare. Those statements might be just a tad more meaningful. I just don't think I've ever heard anyone say "heart surgery should be rare".

So let us offer information about avoidance techniques for both unwanted pregnancies and heart disease -- and, to the extent it is possible, make alternatives to abortion and heart surgery available -- for those who want them, in both cases.

But let us not pontificate about either abortion or heart surgery being "not good", because we would be talking nonsense.

That is ... unless we thought that abortion and heart surgery were, for some reason, bad. Do we?

[liberalhistorian]

158. Please do not presume to put words

in my mouth, I did not mean that abortion was not good for the women who've been able to freely choose that option. And I've been there first-hand as far as making that decision and dealing with an unintended pregnancy, so please don't tell me how I felt, either. I KNOW a pregnant woman can't choose between "having an abortion" and "not being pregnant", I've been there.

[iverglas]

167. well then maybe you would just explain

exactly what you did mean when you said

I don't view abortion as a good thing ... .

I'd prefer that your explanation not be premised on things that amount to "not being pregnant is better" ... unless you're prepared to say "heart surgery is not a good thing", and can perhaps tell me when you might have said something quite as pointless about anything other than abortion.

And, of course, how anyone would be supposed to infer all of whatever explanation you offer from the statement I don't view abortion as a good thing would be another useful bit of information.

(edited to complete that last thought)

.

[Pithlet]

160. Heart surgery

is not an issue that is quite as loaded as abortion is. The two things simply aren't the same.

I think we're on the same side of this issue, just talking about two different things. I feel the choice to have an abortion should not be restricted. It is entirely up to a woman to decide how she feels about the issue, and whether or not she wants to have one.

For the purposes of discussion, however, I think it is a valid point to respond to some anti-choicers with the fact that it is not something that most people take lightly. Usually, anti-choicers will say things like "well, women just use it as birth control" as if it were something as simple as making an appointment to have their hair done.

I also think it is a perfectly valid stance to think abortion isn't just hunky dory, but also be pro-choice. I'm very conflicted myself as to how I actually view it personally. However, I do not think that it is anyone else's business but a woman and her doctor, and whomever else she feels like letting in.

[iverglas]

170. I have to keep asking

because no one seems to want to answer.

Usually, anti-choicers will say things like "well, women just use it as birth control" as if it were something as simple as making an appointment to have their hair done.

So what?

Why do we care what these cretins think about women?

Does any other disadvantaged group (or group that someone is trying to disadvantage) in the world worry about what their oppressors or would-be oppressors think about them?

Does any other group defend its rights by constantly harping on about what sensitive types they are, and how they agonize about whether or not to exercise the right that they are claiming to have -- and have?

Is sucking up to the oppressor, and agreeing to wear the oppressor's definition of one's self, really an effective way to defend one's rights?

Are you really not just saying that women are so devoid of moral sense that they will do evil things -- or so devoid of intelligence that they will do stupid things -- when you say that women agonize over pregnancy decisions AND you say that abortion is not "good"?

I have no problem with a statement that many women agonize over pregnancy decisions because they are not sure what decision will be best for them (and for anyone else they care about, if that's an issue for them). Many women have conflicting emotions about an unintended pregnancy -- and find it difficult to choose between the conflicting and uncertain pros and cons that can be expected to result from any decision.

But saying that women don't make such decisions "lightly" is no more meaningful or relevant than saying that African-Americans don't make the decision to go to law school "lightly", or Muslims don't make the decision to go to mosque "lightly", or gay men and lesbians don't make the decision to engage in sexual activity "lightly", when the issue is whether their right to do those things may be denied.


I also think it is a perfectly valid stance to think abortion isn't just hunky dory, but also be pro-choice.

As I've said, so do I.

What I fail to grasp is why anyone thinks it is necessary to say it -- to preface her statement that she is pro-choice with a statement that she doesn't think abortion is good (or whatever).

Being pro-choice means opposing efforts to interfere with women's exercise of their rights. If a statement that one is conflicted about, or dislikes, abortion, in principle, is going to accomplish that, fine. I have my own reservations about the morality of abortion, but I do not believe that I have, or anyone has, any justification for interfering in women's rights -- that might be a useful rebuttal to someone else's statement of personal opinion as if it were justification for interfering in women's rights.

I believe that abortion should be rare and I believe that abortion is not good and I can tell you that all women find it agonizingly difficult to choose abortion -- I continue to be at a loss as to how that might do anything to oppose efforts to interfere with women's exercise of their rights.

However, I do not think that it is anyone else's business but a woman and her doctor, and whomever else she feels like letting in.

Then I still don't understand why you would agree to treat the decision as if it were anyone else's business by acquiescing in the attempt to portray women's personal reasons and decision-making process as having anything to do with women's rights, by responding to it in any way other than "you are out of order: what you are talking about is none of your business and of no relevance to the issue".

.

[Pithlet]

172. I think there may be some misunderstanding going on

If you're whole point is we shouldn't be debating with the opposition at all, then I can see where you're coming from.

But, there is a debate. Ignoring it won't make it go away. It consists of point and counter-point. So, sometimes there will times when one responds to "All women who have abortions don't give a shit" with "Well, sometimes they do." Sometimes people will say "It's no different than *insert more benign procedure here*" and it's perfectly okay to counter with "But, I don't agree". It's also okay to counter with that and be pro-choice.

Plugging our ears and saying "Nanana, I can't hear you!" isn't debate. Telling others what they should and shouldn't say, and setting up your own rules as the absolute framework for the discussion isn't debate. Saying "I'm right, and all other things are immaterial!" is not debate. If you don't want to debate the issue, that is fine. But, there are many issues and counter-issues when discussing something like abortion. If that bothers you, then maybe you should stay away from abortion debates. I usually do, because they're almost always ugly. I really have no idea why I jumped into this one.

[Karenina]

180. Iverglas

:yourock: The assignment of a value judgement is the central issue. It is where power is usurped and/or we cede control. WHO decides? Framing the issue is EVERYTHING. I also cringed a bit when reading the headline. However it is a discussion we'll have till we don't need to have it anymore. I do hope LH and Pith re-read what you've written in less heated moments and catch the subtlety of your challenge to their core assumptions.

[Pithlet]

189. I really didn't see what the whole big deal was, honestly.

I don't think there's only one way to discuss the issue. I also don't attach any value judgments at all. I happen to agree that abortion should be legal with no restrictions. The only people who have to feel any way about the issue at all are the ones having the abortion. I really do get that. I didn't know how many ways to say I agree with that.

But, people ARE going to think that abortion is not such a great think. Shouting them out of the debate does no good. Trying to snark and belittle, and somehow imply that my position is somehow less pure did nothing to make me feel like somehow I should be more enlightened, I'm sorry.

[Karenina]

200. Just an idea here...

I have yet to hear a heated abortion discussion when out and about after a decade on the continent. The way the system works is, a women goes to her doctor (with the insurance card that covers her visit, EVERYONE has one! Damn that socialized medicine! ;-) ) and if a pregnancy is confirmed she is ASKED how she wants it treated. Nobody's bidness 'cept whoever she chooses for her health care and those she includes in the discussion. It's not a "topic" as it's considered personal and in extremely poor taste. (Can I tell you what a relief that is? Right up there with relatively safe streets and efficient public transport). The "social welfare" state still supports the well-being of mothers, children and the elderly.

It is in Homo sapiens' best interests that women control their reproduction. That is clear. What would happen if you simply affirmed control of your own body, your commitment that every woman have that choice and refused to discuss it further, PARTICULARLY with those for whom it's a "hot button?" Do you feel a responsibility "explain yourself?" I'm just asking.

We women are so conditioned, here, there and everydamnwhere, to concern ourselves with what others think. Let me not assume for you, but it is so true for so many with whom I've commiserated over the decades and continents. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a WONDERFUL trait as it encourages communication and compromise, working things out in our common interests and accomodating others'sensibilities--- until it works against us all on such a basic level.

*BBoyz DON'T CARE what you & me think. Take that to the bank!

Does anyone have that photo o' nassy, pasty white dudes standing around when the *simian put his print on that non-medical term, that you could post right under here?

.
.
.

[Pithlet]

202. What started the whole hullabaloo

at least in my participation of the thread, is when I stated that I personally thought that more could be done to make abortion (or, more particularly, unwanted pregnancies) more rare i.e. social issues dealing with poverty and sex education. It was in response to a post by someone else who stated that abortion is no different than having a period, and anyone who thought otherwise was wrong.

I agree that the topic of how women feel about their abortions is in poor taste if you're talking about moral judgments, and if you're talking about keeping it legal and unrestricted. It IS no one else's business.

But, heaven forbid, I was expressing my individual feeling on the topic, not even in the context of abortion rights, and I was jumped on. A lot of the things I said were twisted and misunderstood.

Honestly, I'm on your and Iverglas's side. I really didn't see what the friggin deal was. Going head to head with those who would see our reproductive rights stripped, I'd be right with you yelling just as loudly.

[liberalhistorian]

205. God, how nice that would be

to live in a place where women are allowed to live their lives and make their decisions concerning their own reproduction in peace, free from harassment and the assumption by RW wingnuts that they have the right to control your bodies and reproduction and decide such matters for you, and free from having to always explain yourself and your decisions to such people! I wonder if we'll EVER have that in this country.

[liberalhistorian]

193. Excuse me, but I

wasn't "assuming" anything. I have been through that situation myself, and have known plenty of women who have, and for ALL of them it was NEVER an easy decision, some agonized for days over it knowing that they couldn't go back once the decision was made either way.

Please do not presume to tell us what we felt and how we should feel, and it is NOT just a "simple" procedure that's no different from getting a mole removed or some such thing. To pretend otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.

And perhaps I shouldn't have said "never" in the thread title, I concede that. There are, indeed, women for whom the decision is not a difficult one and who were relieved afterwards, and that's fine. That's their own and no one else's business.

But I'll tell you what. I also encountered many pro-choice people who thought I should have had an abortion and who condemned me for not having one. They thought it was "no big deal", that there would be no emotional consequences at all, and it was wrong and selfish of me NOT to have the abortion. Those people are just as bad as the pro-lifers. They're doing the same thing as the pro-lifers, only from the other side. They have no more right to tell women they should have an abortion because it's no big deal, and that they're selfish if they don't, than the pro-lifers have to demand that women go through with a pregnancy when they don't want to and when it would disrupt their life. In both scenarios, THEY ARE NOT THAT WOMAN and they don't have to deal with the consequences of whatever decision she makes.

And I will also say that to pretend that abortion should be an easy decision for women, and that they're conceding ground to the right-to-lifers if they agonize over it, is just plain WRONG, as wrong as claiming that it's always a difficult decision for women, (I conceded above that I shouldn't have put "never" in my thread title, I think I was letting emotions get the better of me when I first posted the thread in reaction to comments on another thread). My feelings in making my decision are as valid as the feelings of a woman who found the decision much easier and who had no problem with it, and I resent your saying otherwise.

In both cases, it's perfectly okay for women to feel the way they do. I don't believe that because I agonized over my own abortion decision, and because it was the most difficult decision I've ever faced, that that means I believe abortion is wrong/evil/pick your negative adjective, or that women should feel any guilt at all over deciding to have one. As long as SHE HERSELF can live with whatever decision she makes, and the decision is made by HERSELF ALONE, without any pressure or hassle from anyone else, that should be all that matters.

[Karenina]

201. HALLO! LH!!!

The core assumption I picked up (please see if the shoe fits) was the need to counter a premise so preposterous, yet prevalent. EVERYTHING that you say is true. However, our Job One is preserving our rights. Those who proffer the absurd premise that women are ditzes that cannot decide life and death matters as they SIMULTANEOUSLY rain death and destruction upon living, breathing children GLOBALLY, are in control of American legislation.
.
.
.
Anyone find that foto yet?

[library_max]

145. What ought we to do to make it rare?

Well, how about getting the right wing off the backs of sex education and birth control, for starters?

[liberalhistorian]

149. Good point!

I simply cannot believe how fucking stupid they are when it comes to that!

[SemperEadem]

190. so correct your statement---

you know of only one woman, not "women"...

[iverglas]

131. well for cripe's sake

*You* are the one who said

Newsflash: Abortion is never a "quick, easy" decision for women!

And now you ask someone else how he knows that for some women it is?

Might we not ask you the questions you ask him:

Were you privy to the decision-making process?
Were you there when they had it done?

?

You apparently think that it is possible for you to speak for every single one of nearly a million women a year, in the US alone, who have abortions, and yet he can't speak for any women whom he believes (and why would you think he would believe that without reason?) to be exceptions to the huge, sweeping, universal statement you made?


They may have been relieved when it was over and their problem was solved, but that doesn't mean it was easy for them or they had no problem with the decision.

Here's my question: so what?

Is an individual woman's personal feelings about a decision she made and an action she took relevant to some matter of public policy?

Does how people feel about something they do have some bearing on whether they should be prohibited from doing it?

I'll bet that just about anyone faced with a forced choice, neither option being one that s/he would choose if s/he had his/her druthers, might agonize a little over the decision, if it was one likely to have considerable effect on his/her life ... or if it was one that s/he had been told all his/her life that s/he ought to agonize over.

Who *wants* to have an abortion? Any more than anyone wants to have wisdom teeth extracted? Or to cremate a parent's body? Or to have heart surgery? Most people in any of those situations -- unwanted pregnancy, painful tooth growth, parental death, heart disease -- would much rather not have to make any choice at all. Dental surgery, or pain and dental problems? Cremation, or burial? Dangerous surgery, or possible death? Pregnancy and parenthood and lost options, or loss of a different option that might be better? Who wouldn't rather not have wisdom teeth, or not have a dead parent, or not have heart disease ... or not be pregnant?

Most people faced with decisions that will or may have major consequences for their lives will consider the options and their possible consequences carefully. Some will agonize over the decision, if both options are likely to make them unhappy to some extent.

But what does that have to do with something that is a matter of public policy -- whether they should be permitted to make that decision or prohibited from making it?

And why would making such a sweeping, universal statement about the people who have to make that decision advance the argument that there are no grounds for interfering in it?

It is absolutely nobody's business how or why women make decisions about their pregnancies.

Certainly asserting that a decision is a terrible, agonizing one to make is no answer at all to the claim that anyone should not be allowed to make it.

And I gotta agree that making that assertion does nothing but play into the hands of those who claim that women should not be allowed to choose abortion -- both by making their choices a matter of public concern in the first place, when they are not; and by plainly implying that all women who have abortions have to overcome some universal belief that it is, for whatever reason, a bad thing.

It ain't.

.

[liberalhistorian]

142. Jesus!

Try reading some of my other responses, and you'll understand that you're not talking to someone who wants to make people's decisions for them or who thinks it's any of my business or concern what decisions others make. Why don't you try attacking the REAL misogynists and anti-choicers posting on here instead of someone who's been fighting them all from day one?

[iverglas]

147. because

Why don't you try attacking the REAL misogynists and anti-choicers posting on here instead of someone who's been fighting them all from day one?

Your statement was misogynist and serves misogynist ends. You may have a different opinion, and of course you can go right ahead and express it, just as I may.

Making statements about women you do not know that imply that they are doing something that they believe to be a bad thing -- and that anyone who might be an exception to that rule is a freak of nature -- does not do anything to fight misogyny and misogynists.

Stating plainly that women are human beings who have the human right to make their own decisions about their own bodies and lives, for their own reasons and in their own fashions, and that neither their reasons nor the nature of their decision-making process is the business of anyone else, is what it takes to defeat the misogynists and their misogynistic agendas.

Any time that we allow the debate to veer from the only relevant issue, which is a woman's right to choose, we risk losing it.

We do not talk about how hard it is for gay men and lesbians to decide whether or not they want to get married when we call for equal marriage rights -- even though many of those people do agonize over whether to do what they want to do when that means participating in a patriarchal institution. We do not talk about how hard it is for black students to decide whether to go to a "Negro" college or a predominantly white university, there being personal and philosophical reasons for each decision. We talk about equal rights.

There is not the slightest need to talk about women's feelings about their decisions when the issue is abortion rights.

My own feeling about such discussions is that they can never be anything but disrespectful of women, not only because the discussion can never provide a proper picture of the full range of meaning that women assign to the decision, and the whole enormous body of factors that women consider, but also simply because it means dragging the intimate details of women's personal lives, their emotions and competence and values and "morals" <cf. Jane Roe ... who is not a Jane, and not a Canadian, by the way>, into the public arena.

We do not do that to any other individual or group of people who reject unjustified interference in the exercise of their rights, and in fact we reject it when others try to do it, e.g. question the "morality" of gay men and lesbians who want to marry. We say that their morality is none of anyone's business and has nothing to do with their right to equal protection of the law. We don't engage in discussions of how agonizing their decision to take a same-sex partner might be.

What on earth is wrong with saying the same thing about pregnant women?

I don't care whether the anti-choice brigade thinks that all pregnant women who terminate their pregnancies are of sub-normal intelligence with the morals of an alley cat. That is none of their business, and has nothing to do with women's right to make their own choices, and that is exactly what I will tell them when they say it. Just exactly as I would tell them if they attempted to say the same thing about the partners to same-sex relationships or about people of colour.

Their opinion about those people, or about me, is irrelevant to our RIGHT to make our own choices and our RIGHT to the equal protection of the law when we do so. And I will not be drawn into any discussion of their opinion about any of us, because by doing so I legitimize the notion that the subject of their opinion is relevant to the exercise of our rights.

I don't care what their opinion is. And I completely fail to see how I would be changing it by accepting the premise that the people they regard as stupid and/or evil are doing something stupid and/or evil. And if abortion is not a stupid and/or evil thing to do, why would you say that it is a decision that "should never" be made lightly? How on earth do you imagine that this rebuffs efforts to deny or limit access to it?

[liberalhistorian]

150. It is not to be made lightly because

it is not the same as getting our nails done or removing a wart or something like that. It is, frankly, ending a potential life, whether you want to see it that way or not.

Those who believe it's no big deal and that it's no different from getting a wart removed, etc., and that women won't feel anything afterwards are doing as much of a disservice to women as those who want to take away women's right to make their own decisions about their lives and bodies, and who think they have the right to make the decision for them.

[iverglas]

156. well there ya go

It is, frankly, ending a potential life, whether you want to see it that way or not.

What I, and other women, might think just doesn't matter a pinch of poop, does it? You get to define our meanings, the meanings of our pregnancies, for us.

Sorry. No.

And even if it is vaguely accurate to say that abortion "is ending a potential life" (however fantastically oxymoronic that may strike me), I and any other woman who so chooses get to say "so what?"

What's your point? Shall I assume that "ending a potential life" is a bad thing, per you? Why should I care?

And why on earth would I think that your making that claim in public is going to advance my ability to exercise my rights?

Those who believe it's no big deal and that it's no different from getting a wart removed, etc., and that women won't feel anything afterwards are doing as much of a disservice to women ...

And who, pray tell, would "those" be?

Any woman who believes that her own abortion is no big deal and no different from getting a wart removed is doing no disservice to anyone.

I'm the one who has been saying that no one is entitled to assign meaning to anyone else's abortion. And I completely fail to see how anyone's feelings about her own abortion would affect anyone else ... or how suggesting that she stifle them and not make them public, if she chose to do so, would do a disservice to anyone else.

So yes indeedy, I'd certainly agree that anyone who announced to the world that all women believe that their abortions are no big deal and no different from getting a wart removed would be doing women a disservice -- because they too would be objectifying women by ascribing characteristics to them and exhibiting disrespect to them by making their personal lives a subject of public debate.

But I didn't notice anyone doing that.

And you weren't saying that an individual woman should not express her feelings about her own abortion -- just as I would certainly not say that you should not publicly express your own feelings about your own abortion, if you for some reason felt some need to do so.

And you weren't saying that no one should tell the world that all women regard their abortions as no big deal.

You said that someone who believed that was doing women a disservice. Hell, I don't even say that someone who believes that abortion is murder is doing women a disservice; I'm not out to meddle in other people's beliefs.

Perhaps you misspoke?

.

[liberalhistorian]

161. You've really twisted

and distorted everything I've said so that it's almost unrecognizable to me. And if you don't believe abortion is ending a potential life, try looking at an ultrasound of an even two-month pregnancy, and you won't be able to believe that.

[iverglas]

166. tough

And if you don't believe abortion is ending a potential life, ...

Oxford Concise says:

potential - capable of coming into being

Maybe you can tell me how the fuck one can possibly "end" something that has not come into being -- that does not exist. (You're the one who said that, not me.)

Just say that abortion "ends a life", and you will have made a little more sense.

But then, so does pulling a weed -- end a life. Obviously, the fact that something "ends a life" is not generally regarded as sufficient grounds for prohibiting it.

There's also the fact that a human being's life is, really, generally regarded as beginning at birth. And -- really -- if you don't agree with that, then you think that a z/e/f is a human being, and you need to be calling for abortion to be prohibited and punished as homicide.

I'm afraid that there are situations in which I very much feel that I'd rather have enemies than the kinds of friends who do more damage to my interests than they advance them.

I have little difficulty with people who have personal objections to abortion -- whatever their reasons -- but support efforts to ensure that a woman's right to choose is not infringed.

I have considerable difficulty with people -- for reasons that I can never fathom -- who find it necessary to express their personal feelings about abortion as some universal truth that overrides anyone else's meaning ... and disparage other women's choices if they are not made with the agony and guilt that they would bring to the decision themselves ... and then say Oh yeah, I believe in choice and I'd never do anything to take it away.

Too late.

[liberalhistorian]

168. And I have a real problem with people who

presume to put words in my mouth, twist and distort my meanings, and then proceed to say with certainty how I REALLY feel about something when they don't even know me yet are so certain they're correct.

[Djinn]

307. I've seen rather a lot

of ultrasounds of embryo's + fetus' - I can do so without feeling that abortion is killing - and that's really what you mean as you can't really "end" a "potential" anything

BTW - a 7-8 week fetus measures about half an inch long - certainly they have never screamed out viable human being to me - maybe I'm just one of those heatless callous women the GOP keep telling people about.

[Pithlet]

155. We have to care

if we want to ensure that abortion remains safe and legal. You state:

"I don't care what their opinion is. And I completely fail to see how I would be changing it by accepting the premise that the people they regard as stupid and/or evil are doing something stupid and/or evil. And if abortion is not a stupid and/or evil thing to do, why would you say that it is a decision that "should never" be made lightly? How on earth do you imagine that this rebuffs efforts to deny or limit access to it?"

Passing off abortion as nothing more than having teeth pulled does damage as well. Bottom line is, and I think you'll agree, that it doesn't really matter one way or the other when it comes to establishing that right. But, in the framework of debate, it does. I can tell you that I'm not sure my position on abortion would have changed much if I was only presented with "but it's no different than getting your tonsils out". Those on the other side view it as murder. They DO think that women carelessly get pregnant because they don't care if they get an abortion or not. They often use THAT scenario as their argument against allowing choice. Like it or not, that pretty much frames the debate. If enough people take their side of the debate, we can kiss choice goodbye.

I don't think we should be hammering home the point that "abortion is bad" But, neither should we be doing the complete opposite, which is ignoring that it IS ending a pregnancy, which is the potential for a human being.

[liberalhistorian]

157. Thank you,

couldn't have said it better myself.

[iverglas]

164. who is doing that??

Passing off abortion as nothing more than having teeth pulled does damage as well.

I AM NOT. As far as I can tell, NO ONE IS.

No one here has claimed that ALL women regard abortion as "nothing more than having teeth pulled".

But some here have claimed that NO women do.

I can tell you that I'm not sure my position on abortion would have changed much if I was only presented with "but it's no different than getting your tonsils out".

And only a complete idiot, or a person who had no respect for women at all, would have said such a thing -- would have claimed to be entitled to define all women's experience for them in that way. Small wonder you wouldn't have been impressed.

What I don't get is how, exactly, presenting someone with all women agonize over having an abortion, and abortions should be rare is supposed to change his/her position from anti-choice to pro-choice.

They DO think that women carelessly get pregnant because they don't care if they get an abortion or not. They often use THAT scenario as their argument against allowing choice.

Let's try a little logic then, might we? Do you see some connection between these two things?

If I carelessly get caught shoplifting because I don't care whether I go to prison or not, does this mean that I should be denied access to a lawyer? a fair trial? that I should have no protection against cruel or unusual punishment?

If I carelessly leave my door unlocked because I don't care whether I lose my stuff or not, should I be prohibited from buying new stuff?

How exactly is a "carelessness" scenario -- or even a gross negligence scenario -- an argument for denying people rights?

Why should we legitimize that deceitful little bit of demagoguery by attempting to deny the reality of the scenario? Particularly when we have no basis for denying it at all? Of course there are women who "carelessly get pregnant because they don't care if they get an abortion or not". SO WHAT? There are people who carelessly smoke all their lives because they don't care whether they get lung cancer or not. Shall we make a law prohibiting them from obtaining chemotherapy?

I'm waiting for someone to say women carelessly get pregnant because they don't care whether they have a child or not, and use THAT scenario as their argument against allowing choice(i.e. in favour of compelling women to terminate pregnancies). Makes exactly as much sense.

People's "carelessness" is not grounds for denying their rights. Period, full stop, constitutions, etc.

Does someone really have a problem with the notion that it is women's right to do what they want about their own pregnancies? I know that the anti-choice brigade does, but I quite hope that the self-described pro-choice crowd doesn't.

I don't think we should be hammering home the point that "abortion is bad" But, neither should we be doing the complete opposite, which is ignoring that it IS ending a pregnancy, which is the potential for a human being.

How exactly is "ignoring that <abortion> is ending a pregnancy" the "complete opposite" of saying that "abortion is bad"??

It seems to me that the complete opposite of saying "abortion is bad" would be saying "abortion is good". And the fact is that what I'm saying is that whether abortion is good or bad for a particular woman -- the ONLY SENSE in which abortion is either good or bad -- is for that woman to decide. And that responding to the assertion that "abortion is bad" in any other way is counter-productive.

There seems to be a popular common hymnal being sung from here. And my response to this we mustn't ignore that abortion is ending a pregnancy prompt must be the same: so what?

If a society has sufficient justification for preventing the termination of pregnancies, then there ya go. Prohibit abortion. But before we do that, let's ask those who think there is justification to demonstrate it; let's not give them ammunition, and definitely let's not tell them that we're speaking for all women when we do it.

Saying "pregnancy ... is the potential for a human being" (even if that made sense ... again, I'm just seeing fuzzy buzzwords) does not establish that pregnancy is something that a society has an interest in that supercedes the pregnant woman's interest, such as would justify prohibiting abortion. It sure does sound nasty, though. Is there a reason you want to keep saying it?

If society doesn't have such a compelling interest, then why keep stating the obvious? Abortion terminates a pregnancy. Did someone think it didn't?

It is a woman's right to decide what to do about her pregnancy. It is a woman's right to assign her own meaning to her own pregnancy, and to apply her own criteria in making the decision about what to do about her pregnancy.


(html fixed on edit)

.

[Pithlet]

165. I don't know

what the hell else to say. I frigging agree with you already about your last sentence. I couldn't agree more riding on the agreement bus to agreeville, wearing a t-shirt that says "I agree!". I don't know what more you want.

Look, you don't have to use logic scenarios with me. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me a simpering idiot. You don't even have to convince me that the right to abortion is extremely important. You say it doesn't matter what a woman's views are on abortion. I get that already. I also agree!

You are the one who got all in a twist when the OP had the AUDACITY to say that not all women take abortion lightly.

Not that it matters one iota, but a pregnancy has the potential to bring forth a human being into the world. Nothing oxymoronic about that The reason I stated that isn't to merely state the obvious. It is the number one reason why abortion is such a hot topic.

[liberalhistorian]

169. Apparently, she believes

that anyone who doesn't totally agree with her is a simpering idiot. And, while I'm sure there are women who may not have too much of a problem at all with having an abortion, I can guaran-damn-tee you that most don't take it as lightly as the wingnuts would have us believe.

[iverglas]

174. I hesitate to guess

what thoughts you would attribute to any woman who doesn't take her abortion as seriously as you think proper.

But then, I wouldn't care. As long as you refrained from doing it in public.

.

[liberalhistorian]

194. I really don't know if you're deliberately

twisting my words, or just don't understand me. I concede that I shouldn't have said "never" in my thread title, implying that ALL women felt the same way. I was a bit too emotional when I first posted the thread in reaction to nasty sexist comments from men on another abortion thread.

However, I get the sense you're implying that I was wrong for agonizing over my decision and that that gives ground to the right-to-life wingnuts, and I don't appreciate that. My feelings regarding my abortion decision, and those of other women who felt the same way, are as valid as the feelings of the woman who doesn't have a hard time at all making her decision and who has no problem whatsoever with it. And I DO NOT HAVE any negative feelings at all toward such women.

If I did, I would have to include my own mother. While she found the decision not terribly difficult at all, and was relieved when she had the abortion, (as were we all, since she was having such a difficult time physically, and it was painful to have to watch her deal with it), she also didn't take it lightly either.

My aunt, on the other hand, had nightmares for years afterwards and was emotionally upset for years afterwards, even though she knew it was the right decision since she was young and in no way able to handle motherhood at that point, and she had the support of all of us in making her decision, whatever that decision was. My grandmother went with her to the clinic and stayed with her afterwards. But you would have me believe that her feelings were wrong and invalid, and that she's conceding ground to the right-to-life wingnuts, and that is just not the case. She remains pro-choice to this day, and is trying to teach her teenage daughter (she's now married with two kids) to be the same.

[iverglas]

224. I hate to drag this out

But I really can't have you misrepresenting what I said.

However, I get the sense you're implying that I was wrong for agonizing over my decision and that that gives ground to the right-to-life wingnuts, and I don't appreciate that.

I haven't a clue where you'd get that "sense" from, since I have not said a single thing about your feelings.

And I have no idea what would make you think that I thought you were "wrong" for agonizing over your decision, since I have not given any indication whatsoever that I have any opinions whatsoever about anyone's decision-making process in respect of her own pregnancy.

My point was, pretty much, that I don't -- since that is simply not a matter in respect of which I think that my opinion would be of any value or significance at all. I just don't go around having opinions about things that are none of my business -- which your feelings about your pregnancy obviously are not.

But you would have me believe that her feelings were wrong and invalid, and that she's conceding ground to the right-to-life wingnuts, and that is just not the case.

And your statement that I "would have <you> believe" that, or anything at all, is simply false. I don't care what you believe about your aunt's feelings. I, personally, would not have believed anything at all about them, had I known nothing about them, and am perfectly willing to believe what you say about them.

I recommend that you be careful not to project what might be your own approach to anything onto someone else.

The fact that I believe women's own feelings about their own pregnancies and/or abortions to be irrelevant to a discussion of whether women's right to have an abortion may be interfered with is NOT a statement about those feelings, one way or any other.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are women who agonize over their decisions at length, just as I have absolutely no doubt that there are women who do not.

And I am sure that the source of the difficulty for some women is concerns about "moral" aspects of abortion, just as I am absolutely certain that for some women the source of the difficulty is completely different. I would guess, if asked, that most women who have difficulty deciding have considerations of a completely non-"moral" nature that make the decision difficult -- which decision will be best for them -- even if they do happen to have "moral" considerations as well.

I would refrain from making *any* generalizations about women's considerations in making decisions about their pregnancies, and I would refrain from characterizing *any* individual woman's decision-making process in any way unless I were, for some reason, asked, and thought that I had very good reason to answer and very good grounds for an answer.

.

[Pithlet]

176. You mean

you didn't get your manual on the debate topic, and what is and isn't relevant to proper abortion discourse, either? Damn, guess we're out of the loop.

[Name removed]

349. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

173. beep, wrong

You are the one who got all in a twist when the OP had the AUDACITY to say that not all women take abortion lightly.

Nope, I am the one who objected ("all in a twist" strikes me as intentionally disrespectful) when liberalhistorian said:

Newsflash: Abortion is never a "quick, easy" decision for women!

and also said:

It's the most agonizing, difficult, heart-rending decision a woman will ever face, and it is NEVER taken lightly!

emphasizing the word to which I objected, and indicating that this was not a slip of the pen.

Not quite the same thing as getting in a twist about something that I wasn't talking about at all, if it did happen.


Not that it matters one iota, but a pregnancy has the potential to bring forth a human being into the world. Nothing oxymoronic about that The reason I stated that isn't to merely state the obvious. It is the number one reason why abortion is such a hot topic.

Hmm, do you think? I don't.

I think the number one reason why abortion is such a hot topic is that prohibiting women from terminating their own pregnancies removes women's most essential control over their own lives, and ensures that women will never be able to act to achieve their own goals and aspirations on the same footing as men, and will always be disadvantaged as a group and as individuals.

I'm sure that a lot of people have been told that "a pregnancy has the potential to bring forth a human being into the world" (me, I'd say that a woman has that potential), and have chosen to believe it, and to believe that this is justification for taking women's control of their lives away from them. But then, some people will believe just anything.

I wouldn't waste time arguing with people who say that they believe that the third planet from Alpha Centauri is made of green cheese, myself. I'd just tell 'em that they didn't get to put me on a spaceship and send me there to bring some back. I'd assert my right not to be put on spaceships I don't want to be on, not argue with them about the nature of the third planet from Alpha Centauri.

People can believe whatever fairytales they want, about pregnancy or any other thing. The alleged existence of "the potential to bring forth a human being into the world" just ain't justification for denying me the ability to exercise my rights.

And now I'm off home to watch the sequel to If These Walls Could Talk, on Canada's Bravo tonight.

[Pithlet]

175. No disrespect intended

Just as I'm sure you really mean no disrespect towards me when you imply that I'm just not as pure in my pro-choice stance as you are.

Because somehow acknowledging the fact that pregnancy sometimes actually does result in a baby is a demerit against me. Guess they'll have to rip the epaulet off at the next pro-choice rally.

Edited to add that I don't doubt that the reason why some people want to end abortion is control over women. Those are usually people who are politically motivated in their decision. But I do not believe the majority of people hold that view for that reason. They genuinely do see life as starting at conception, therefore, to them, it is killing a baby. That is why they're against abortion. Again, I do not see how acknowledging THAT, and frameing the debate to counter that point of view is so wrong. Both are still a means to the same end: ensuring abortion rights are protected.

[outinforce]

350. Thanks, Pithlet!

"I don't doubt that the reason why some people want to end abortion is control over women. Those are usually people who are politically motivated in their decision. But I do not believe the majority of people hold that view for that reason. They genuinely do see life as starting at conception"

THANK YOU -- a lot -- for saying this, Pithlet.

The debate on abortion could be a whole lot more civil and a whole lot less divisive if people on both sides of the issue took the time to understand that women who choose to have abortions are not just cold-blooded baby-killers and that those of us who have serious problems with the current legal system covering abortions are not misogynistic folks who hate and want to control women.

I, for one, appreciate your comments -- coming from a pro-choice person, and made here on DU. I hope that others listen to the wisdom in your words.

[el_gato]

3. truth is republicans don't want to end abortion

they just want to end making abortion available to poor people

I personally know republican women who have had abortions.
They could afford a super-private arrangement that would
continue even if planned parenthood were shut down.

[liberalhistorian]

7. Exactly!

And they sure as hell don't give a damn, either, for all of their "pro-life" rhetoric. They couldn't care less if a poor woman gets butchered and/or dies because they couldn't afford a legal, safe abortion.

[RoeBear]

24. And their reason to do this is...

...to create more Democrats? There has to be another reason.

BTW- I've heard that some inner-city abortion clinics are funded by KKK and other white supremecy groups.

[Pathwalker]

27. The KKK funds inner-city abortions???

And you believe this because...?

[liberalhistorian]

32. Probably because some

fundie RW email said it at some point!

[RoeBear]

35. Because the KKK...

...wants us to abort our babies.

[Pathwalker]

40. Oh puhleeease.

I grew up with KKKers, and to the last male-chauvinist PIG among them, they are Extreme right-to-lifers. The very idea of any KKK man being willing to give ANY woman such authority over her own body is absolutely ludicrous. Have you ever even been IN an inner-city? What city? Were they wearing their bedding when they were offering to pay for abortions?

Thanks for the laugh, though.

[liberalhistorian]

44. You grew up with KKKers?

Oh, geez, you poor thing! I'm glad you managed to somehow retain your intelligence and sanity, though, lol! And you're right, the KKK is adamantly, and quite hypocritically, anti-abortion.

[Pathwalker]

47. Yes, I was their unwilling captive for 16 years - until

I became an emancipated adult. All their preaching turned me into a fervently pro-choice liberal feminist - they never saw it coming. The idea of ANY of them supporting an abortion for ANY woman is laughable - truly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[RoeBear]

57. Laughable?

"The idea of ANY of them supporting an abortion for ANY woman is laughable - truly the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

So, tell me, you have no problem believing that they would lynch a black man or emasculate a black man suspected of having sex with a white woman BUT you find it laughable that they wouldn't fund abortions for black women. I find your comment laughable. But it was refreshing of you to defend the KKK.

[liberalhistorian]

64. She's not defending the KKK

at all, she's absolutely correct in stating its absolute, total, adamant anti-abortion stance. They don't see the total hypocrisy in that, in being so against abortions and yet hating the baby once it's born if it's not white, they're too fucking dumb.

Much like the wingnuts don't see the hypocrisy in screaming about the "sanctity of life" and the "right to life", and then turning around and refusing to support/fund social programs, health insurance for children, etc., etc.

[Pathwalker]

72. DEFENDING THEM???

WHERE THE HELL DID I DEFEND THEM??? I find them the most vile creatures to slither across this planet, they are the worst scum in all mankind,
I detest, loathe, and despise them, and I would as soon spit in their faces as to look upon them EVER AGAIN! Is THAT clear enough for you to understand that I am not, nor would I ever, lift so much as a finger to EVER help ANY ONE OF THEM? They represent EVERYTHING I HATE.

And, yes, they have no problem killing black men, AND RAPING BLACK WOMEN!!! Do you need further clarification on my position, or do you get where I stand now?

[RoeBear]

52. Yes, they truly believe in the sanctity of life in the KKK...

...they certainly would never think of harming a black person.:puke:

BTW- I grew up black in Detroit. And no they don't wear their sheets at the clinic, they don't have the guts, they just fund it.

another BTW- Regardless of this I'm pro-choice

[liberalhistorian]

56. Actually, she's right.

I know it sounds incredibly hypocritical, and it is, but the KKK is adamantly, totally, extremely anti-abortion. They don't see the total hypocrisy in being anti-abortion, yet hating babies once they're born if they happen to be non-white.

[RoeBear]

66. You didn't read the link...

...did you?

FWIW- the link is something I just found, the info about KKK (and you'll remember I said other white supremecy groups)is something I've been aware of for years. So whether it's KKK, neo nazi or some other low life group funding the clinics is immaterial.

[Pathwalker]

62. It is so NOT believing in the "sanctity of life" for them -

as I thought I had made clear. It's about their idiotic NEED TO CONTROL women - ALL women. As far as the powers behind the Republican party, it's not about the sanctity of life either; it's about REQUIRING a perpetual underclass to provide cheap labor for the ALMIGHTY they truly worship - the corporations! (As well as customers for their products)

Unfortunately, the KKK men I know would take great pride (having raped the black woman)in forcing a black woman to have their bi-racial child, rather than aborting it. Guess they must have a higher class of racist pigs in Detroit than in Az.

[noiretextatique]

61. the KKK doesn't give a fuck about inner-city kids

ergo, i doubt they would spend money on their potential mothers :eyes:

[MooPie]

77. Actually there's some validity to this.

In 1993 I spent the summer in Milwaukee defending abortion clinics since Operation Rescue decided they would spend 2 weeks shutting down the clinics. There were five clinics and I drove from Madison every morning at 5 am to be there by 6 to set up our line to keep the clinics open. Now, after keeping the clinics open for the two weeks due to our defenses, Operation Rescue decided to extend their stay another four weeks, determined to shut them down. They were nasty brutal bullies, and the ordeal became very tiring. So on those days when I felt too tired to put up with their hatred, I would go to the clinic in the Black area and guess what, the most the anti-abortionists numbered was three. Usually there would only be two. And they would stand across the street singing some hymns and basically left the women alone. Now, I don't know if the anti-abortionists who make up Operation Rescue are KKK'er's, but they certainly didn't seem to care if the ONLY clinic that stayed open was in a Black neighborhood. Every other clinic was besieged. But we prevailed and kept the clinics open and they eventually went home, the losers.

[Pathwalker]

91. So their LACK of presence at abortion clinics PROVES

their involvement???

[MooPie]

100. No

The point I'm trying to make is that they did not care if the black women had access to abortions. They only wanted to restrict access to white women. I am not saying that they supported the black clinic, I am pointing out that they didn't feel it was necessary to close the black clinic down. Only the white ones. So it's okay for blacks to have abortions, but not whites. And believe me, they had enough people to surround all five clinics. They deliberately chose to stay away. And not because it wasn't safe, as the police were out in full force.

[Pathwalker]

113. Well, they're afraid of whites becoming a minority, and losing

their majority status. And probably afraid of the neighborhood. Not hard to figure why. I disagree about them thinking it's okay for blacks to have abortions though; bring up the subject with a right-winger and one of the first things out of their mouths is their favorite stereotype - a black "welfare queen". They are truly pissed about the white women having them, though.

[prolesunited]

38. Heard this where?

Frankly, you should look into the statistics of who is getting abortions and you would see why there would be no merit to that claim.

[RoeBear]

43. I heard it from my minister...

...actually I've heard it from several Babtist ministers.

http://stoptheslaughter.faithweb.com/faq/minorities.html
I found this on a google search, I'm not offering it as my point of view, but it does address what I mentioned.

[Pathwalker]

82. Let me guess - SOUTHERN Baptists?

n/t

[iverglas]

253. did anybody read the link??

Everybody should. Never pass up an opportunity to read some real good hate and lies ... and wonder why anyone would post a link to them at DU to substantiate a claim.

The link is to some of the handiwork of the American Life League, the most virulent of the "mainstream" anti-choice organizations in the US.

If there is actually anyone here who believes any of the factual assertions at that site (e.g. the lies about Margaret Sanger, "substantiated" by dishonestly patching together snippets of her words, taken out of context and applied to things to which she never applied them ...), well, I just shake my head in pity for such persons and for the rest of us who have to share a planet with them.

Unfortunately for our friend, of course, the site contains not a grain of a snippet of fact that, even if believed, would support the allegation that the KKK funds inner-city abortion clinics.

The wise and honourable thing to do at this point would be to withdraw it.


http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030214grenadereg5p5.asp

KKK leader accused of bomb plot
Abortion clinics target of his wrath, agents say

David Wayne Hull, 40, of Amwell, a longtime Klansman and adherent of
the racist Christian Identity religion, was arrested at his farmhouse
yesterday morning and arraigned in U.S. District Court, where a
magistrate ordered him held pending a detention hearing this morning.

According to an affidavit, Hull arranged for the purchase of hand
grenades in November and told an FBI witness he intended to use them
to blow up abortion clinics.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Multiple instances of anti-abortion violence:

Pensacola, FL: This city was a focal point for anti-abortion crime from mid 1984 to mid 1994:

... 1986-MAR: A second clinic was broken into and vandalized; two female employees were assaulted. John Burt, a former member of the KKK and his daughter were tried and convicted. John Burt became the local leader of Rescue America.

... 1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month.

There are allegations that the KKK's Metzger *said* that the KKK should "Covertly invest into non-White areas, invest in ghetto abortion clinics". I know of not the slightest scintilla of evidence that it has ever occurred ... and if "Babtist" ministers are in fact repeating such rumours to their flocks as fact, they should get down on their knees and beg for forgiveness.

Or heck, just do the wise and honourable thing, to preserve at least their earthly reputations if not their immortal souls, and withdraw their allegations.

.

[liberalhistorian]

311. I am, indeed, really

sick and tired of all the lies the wingnut right-to-lifers have spread about the views and sayings of Margaret Sanger, who was nothing like the portrait they paint of her.

[iverglas]

323. Martin Luther King

and Coretta Scott King didn't have any trouble with the truth.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABOUT/history/mlking.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABOUT/history/mlking2.html

Family Planning - A Special and Urgent Concern
A Speech by The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
Upon Accepting The Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award
May 5, 1966
Delivered by Mrs. Coretta Scott King
<MLK had to be absent on other business>

"... There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist -- a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. ..."

Mrs. Coretta Scott King delivered her husband's acceptance speech on his behalf.

Before reading Dr. King's speech, Mrs. King declared: "I am proud tonight to say a word in behalf of your mentor, and the person who symbolizes the ideas of this organization, Margaret Sanger.

Because of her dedication, her deep convictions, and for her suffering for what she believed in, I would like to say that I am proud to be a woman tonight."

One has to wonder why ANYONE would prefer the lies and slander propagated by lying, slandering people and the organizations they operate.

Just another question I'll have to keep waiting for the answer to, I guess, being careful not to hold my breath.

.

[Astarho]

95. Because

The more kids you have, the more you need to feed them.

The more you need to feed them, the more desparate you are for a job.

The more desparate you are for a job means they can pay you that much less and work you that much harder.

Amazing how many issues come back to $.

[liberalhistorian]

98. Money and economics are at the

root of almost EVERYTHING in a society and culture.

[GinaMaria]

217. I've heard

and will never find a link so if someone has info either way I will appreciate it. Here goes, I've heard that most abortions are by young white women and that people of color are less likely to get an abortion.

Inner city clinics are used by people in the burbs too. At least in my High School (though that was a long time ago). Not too many Planned Parenthood offices in the North Shore Suburbs, but that doesn't mean People there are not having abortions.

[liberalhistorian]

310. I've heard that anti-abortion

sentiment is much stronger in the African-American community than in almost every other group. I don't really know if that's true or not.

[WildClarySage]

4. Kudos

for speaking so eloquently on a topic near and dear to me as well!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Uhm, thanks?

Relax pal. Everyone's got a right to their opinions, ESPECIALLY here. If you want to stifle that, there's a little site called "freerepublic.com" that loves to filter out things they don't like to hear.

I'm pro-choice all the way, though I'd never support someone having an abortion.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[liberalhistorian]

14. WTF???? Who said anything about

stifling opinions????????? Of course, people have the right to whatever opinion they want. And I have the right to resent and/or disagree with whatever opinion I want to as well. And how can you be pro-choice, as you claim, and yet never support someone having an abortion?

[Jane Roe]

28. Yeah

How can you be pro-choice and then have the nerve to follow up by actually choosing your personal opinions and actions. For shame!

[liberalhistorian]

36. What I meant was

how could someone say they were pro-choice, but never support someone having an abortion, since their having an abortion was following through on their right to make such a choice, that the pro-choice person supposedly believes they have the right to make.

[Jane Roe]

41. My understanding of pro-choice:

is that it means the right of a pregnant woman to get an abortion, and does not extend to "rights" to coerce unwilling people into helping the pregnant woman get an abortion.

[liberalhistorian]

45. So would these same

"unwilling people" help her if she decides to have the baby? Just asking.

[Jane Roe]

55. Answer: yes

Explanation: I believe that the law in most states specifies that the biological father can be legally required to pay child support whether he wants to or not. So the ansswer is yes, at least with respect to the biological father.

[liberalhistorian]

59. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

ROFLMAO! Hoo, boy, that's a good one! While "laws" may exist, good luck in enforcing them and getting any child support at all out of an awful lot of men, my son's father included.

And what I meant was that would those who are so determined to keep women from exercising their right to have an abortion, and who are so passionate in their defense of fetuses and their "right to have a life", actually walk the talk and help women in crisis/problem pregnancy situations if they decide not to have an abortion, both before AND AFTER the baby is born? My experience is that the answer to that question is a resounding NO!

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. There I disagree

Like I said earlier, I am pro-Choice, but living as I do in the South, I know many pro-Lifers and they are not all the ogres you claim. Many do indeed put their money and their time where their beliefs are -- through charity and through their churches.

[liberalhistorian]

69. I don't doubt that.

I'm simply saying I've rarely met any.

[Jane Roe]

73. I second that

I have personally done volunteer labor to help provide supplies (eg, cribs) to help impoverished women and families take care of their infants.

I also did volunteer work in a hospital that performed childbirth, but my work there was mostly related to people who died in the hospital, not the birthing patients.

[liberalhistorian]

83. So you provided supplies, my, how

generous! I'm afraid there's a whole helluva lot more involved in taking care of babies and children than that!

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. That is harsh and unfair

Charity should always be hailed, not mocked.

[liberalhistorian]

93. I agree, and perhaps

I was a bit harsh and unfair and for that, I apologize. But as someone who's been in this situation, it just shows how little he truly understands it. There's so much more involved in taking care of babies and children, especially if you're doing it alone because the father decided he didn't want to deal with it, and it's so very easy for people, especially men, to tell women that they should have the baby when they aren't the one who has to take care of it 24/7.

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. It does take a village

Any time someone who is NOT responsible for a child volunteers help, they should be commended.

[mopinko]

112. except when they are prolifers

who are trying to convince desparate women that help is availble for them. a box of baby clothes, a crib, a few bucks, a shoulder to cry on. just enough of an illusion to change someone's mind. then, poof. you are on your own, you hapless breeder, you. sorry. no commended. condemned, for the meddling control freaks they are.

[Muddleoftheroad]

137. Charity

I don't divide those who give charity into groups that are acceptable and those that are not.

[Jane Roe]

182. Unfair accusation

Why does doing charity work imply some kind of special ignorance on my part?

You use a false quotation in your original post, so you have lost a lot of credibility right off the bat. Now you are stooping to personal insults. What a crock!

[iverglas]

139. what a pair

One suggests that someone cannot be pro-choice if s/he does not support someone's choice to have an abortion.

"Newsflash". Someone is pro-choice if s/he opposes interfering in someone else's ability to have an abortion. S/he does not have to support the decision personally.


The other one suggests that the first one suggested that pro-choice means supporting the coersion of "unwilling people" into helping someone get an abortion.

Another newsflash. What she said neither was nor implied any such thing. As if that needed to be pointed out.

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

89. Wrong word.

Support's the wrong word. I guess "endorse" is what I'd use. I would never encourage it and I would try to dissuade someone from having an abortion (unless of course it threatened theirs or the child's health).

But even if I didn't support an abortion, that would be MY choice. I have no right to tell someone else how to live their lives. I have no right to impose that belief on someone else. That's how I can be pro-choice.

[liberalhistorian]

92. Okay, I understand

better what you meant now. That makes a lot more sense.

[WildClarySage]

118. Are you saying that you would try to talk someone out of an abortion

unless the baby's health was at stake? I musta read that wrong. =)

[Cleita]

9. Amazing how right wing talking points seem to arise on DU whenever

women are involved. IMHO everything to do with childbirth is not a quick, easy or rash decision. One must make the decision to carry a fetus at risk to ones health and well-being. Giving birth can involve a life and death procedure that mothers do gladly when they decide to go through with a pregnancy.

More than that, raising a child changes one's life forever and it's huge responsibility, many times borne alone by a mother if the father decides to bail out. If a women decides she is not able to fulfill these obligations then she has a right to terminate the pregnancy. This is also a tremendous burden of choice and no one should have any say in it except the pregnant woman.

[pmbryant]

17. Male ignorance about women's experiences

I don't think these are right-wing talking points. More like a widespread male ignorance about women's experiences that crosses ideological boundaries.

--Peter

[Skittles]

94. widespread ignorance

VERY WIDESPREAD IGNORANCE :O

[liberalhistorian]

99. LOL!

So very true! Looks like you need to kick some ass here, Skittles.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Absolutes

You talk in absolutes but the real world is less black and white and more gray.

I agree that, "everything to do with childbirth is not a quick, easy or rash decision." That does not mean it is not entered into rashly. Not everyone thinks things through like they should. If they did, we wouldn't have so many unwanted pregnancies OR unwanted births.

Yes, raising a child is a "huge responsibility, many times borne alone by a mother."

Yes, MOST women have the right to terminate their pregnancies. But it gets complicated if the woman is underage (not legally adult); if the pregnancy is later-term or if the woman is not able to make decisions for herself.

[Cleita]

33. You just unintentionally put up another reason for legal abortion.

"If they did, we wouldn't have so many unwanted pregnancies OR unwanted births." Sounds like a morning after pill situation to me.

And, the complications for underage, late term and mentally deficient women are uninformed adults. This is where the decisions need to be left up to the woman, or her legal guardians with consultation with her doctor and mid-wife nurse. If the guardians are idiots then the courts need to intervene.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Still not an absolute

And I do indeed support the morning after pill.

Where I split with the pro-choice side is on the under-age issue.

As for late term abortions, I think Congress had something to say about that one.

[liberalhistorian]

46. So, a teenage girl

isn't mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, but she's mature enough to have and raise a baby?

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. She is not mature enough to make the decision on her own

Period.

Her parents need to be involved since they ARE involved in her medical care and would be involved if she decided to give birth as well.

[liberalhistorian]

53. You are assuming that she has

parents and/or family who would be supportive, and who she would have no reason to fear, and too often that is just not the case.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Too often it IS the case

You wish to deny rights to those who ARE responsible parents because of those who are not.

No, not every family situation is perfect. Some are great, some are horrendous. Most, for those parents who are around, fall somewhere in between. But as long as parents are involved in the day-to-day responsibilities of parenthood, this is one of them.

[mopinko]

103. those who ARE responsible parents

are involved in the decissions. not because the law says so but, because, duh, they ARE responsible parents. their kids trust them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. Not necessarily

Kids are kids and they get scared no matter how good a job their parents do. We should not encourage the medical profession to preempt parental rights and responsibilities because of a childish fear.

[mopinko]

97. and that they had nothing to do with

the situation. you'd be surprised how often this is the case.

[Cleita]

65. I was a teenager in the fifties. These were the options a girl had.

1. The back street abortionist. Of course parental consent wasn't needed. Many young girls died or were maimed for life. One of my friends was never able to have other children. How much better if they can get a safe therapeutic abortion whether parents know or not?

2. The forced marriage. This was very common. Two kids had to drop out of school, because the schools would not let them attend. They were deemed a bad example to the "good" kids. Most were condemned to a life of poverty, divorce, and welfare. Schools are a little more enlightened today, but even so pregnant girls and young mothers are segregated from the main student body in special schools.

3. The visit to an aunt in another city. The aunt was a home for unwed mothers. The girl was forced to carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption without usually even being allowed to see it. But that wasn't the end of it, not knowing what happened to their baby was traumatic and in the case of another friend, the baby found her when she grew up. Her husband divorced her after thirty years of marriage. This doesn't always happen but for those who had put their lives back together and then have it fall apart because of a youthful indiscretion it has been devastating.

4. The rich girl had no problem. Daddy flew her to a clinic in Europe to get a safe abortion and a fitting for a diaphram, the only widely used female contraceptive at that time. She could even have her hymen restored if virginity desirable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. 50 years ago

Fifty years ago, America had just finished the Korean War and was firmly in the midst of the Cold War. The pill was nowhere to be seen and Playboy Magazine was brand new and heralding an American sexual revolution.

Times change. Now on to your points.

1. The back street abortionist was very bad, but don't have any illusions about abortion now. It is like ALL medical procedures and imperfect. Unfortunately, the only perfect way to not get pregnant and stay that way is to not have sex.

2. Thankfully we are largely past the forced marriage stage of history here in America. Where are pregnant girls segregated? I haven't encountered that practice in my travels.

3. I don't share your antipathy for adoption. It is a perfectly legitimate solution to a troubling problem. I know the adopted children probably appreciate it.

4. Yes, things are typically easier on the rich. Such is life.

[liberalhistorian]

79. Yes, adoption is perfectly

legitimate IF IT'S FREELY CHOSEN, and, in those cases, it most definitely wasn't. My mom is 62, and she absolutely confirms everything in Cleita's post, as would my grandmother were she still alive (I know, because we talked about it many times).

The pregnant woman had no choice at all in the matter. Many suffered a lifetime of depression and similar problems because of it. It's hard for men to truly understand how devastating it is for a woman to be forced to give up a child when she doesn't want to do so. They think of it as the perfect solution, but it just isn't that simple.

And abortion is so much safer and so much less dangerous now than pre-Roe that any suggestion of true danger in undergoing the procedure is really laughable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. Freely chosen

Choosing to carry a birth to term and then give up the child for adoption takes courage. But I think both results -- abortion or birth -- can be challenging, especially for those too young to realize the repurcusions of their actions.

Yes, abortion is much safer, but it's far from perfect. The physical and psychological damage should not be understated either.

[Cleita]

81. You have no problem with forcing a girl to give up her child to

adoption? This should be voluntary, not forced. I have known many a mature woman, who prior to legal abortion days, gave up their children for adoption when it was the fifth or sixth one and they knew they could not afford to raise it. Many young girls, not ready for motherhood too and who are pro-life, do so as well. But to force a young girl when a legal abortion could have taken care of the matter, and when that was her choice, is really cruel to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. Voluntary?

We we talk about teens, we discuss the whole range of underage girls from 13 on up. But pregnancy doesn't start at 13. There was a case in NY last year of a 9-year-old getting pregnant.

Families need to be involved in the process. THEY should know their daughters. And perhaps, each time, they will decide abortion is the right choice. But they need to know what is happening with the medical lives of their children.

[Cleita]

90. From what I understand about nine year olds, that giving birth

can kill them. Now, I know they can do a caesarean, but still this is traumatic for a child. I would say that informed parents or guardians would opt for abortion. I really don't understand your point. Isn't this the "partial birth abortion" debate framed in a different context? I'm not accusing you of this but isn't it taking a situation, which is purely a medical problem, and having the law meddle in it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. Medical care

Like most things in our society gets approved by laws and governments. That is one of my big points here. Abortion and all other health issues are things we face together.

As for a 10-year-old giving birth or having an abortion, I don't know the particulars of that situation or the girl's on mental and physical well being. The only ones who do are the parents who should work IN CONJUNCTION with the doctors and not be separated from them.

[Cleita]

111. I don't think parents wouldn't know with a child that age.

I mean most little girls will go to mommy if they have a tummy ache. It's the older teenage girls who may not want to tell their parents because the parents are fundies or some other kind of wack jobs. They should be able to at least get the counseling they need before parents are brought into it. Most girls with a good relationship with their parents will include them in the decision from the beginning. It's really a non-issue.

[mopinko]

116. normal 9 year olds don't have sex willingly

when a 9 y.o. gets pregnant, there is a sicko involved. a sicko who knows how to shut her up.

[WildClarySage]

122. Probably a sicko

parent. Who should be the last person on earth to determine the outcome of her pregnancy

[Cleita]

124. Exactly, this is why it's a medical decision and often a need to.

involve social services. I was just stating that the fact a responsible parent wouldn't be involved isn't even a problem here.

[Muddleoftheroad]

141. Not in this case

Not the parent at all.

Not all parents molest their children, nor do most.

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. It was some old guy if I recall correctly

Unsurprisingly, he was involved in some program to work with kids.

[noiretextatique]

114. we sure as hell don't face things "together"

if you have a heart attack it has no impact on me. likewise if i have cancer, it has no impact on you. i have no "right" to decide what type of care you should have for a heart attack, and you have no "right" to determine which cancer treatment i should receive.
healthcare decisions that do not involve your body are none of your business.

[liberalhistorian]

117. AMEN!

I was just about to point that out, you beat me to it. I'm amazed at all of the posters who seem to think abortion is a public matter that affects all of us, when it's really just the woman's own private decision and her business alone.

[noiretextatique]

134. success of rw brainwashing...and same old patriarchial privilege

which considers woman nothing more than property of man. as :puke: as that is...you hear it in many anti-choice arguments.

[Cleita]

159. Yeah, I don't understand why guys think because they have a

penis, it also gives them a superior brain. If it were true, then they would be a different species to us.

[Muddleoftheroad]

179. Who are THOSE women

Who are property of men? I don't know any of them, nor do I really wish to.

That doesn't mean men aren't allowed to have an opinion on this issue. Like it or not, abortion AND unwanted births are both issues that impact us all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

178. Because it is a public matter

That much should be quite obvious. It is a contentious issue, but it remains a public matter no matter how you look at it.

Several posters keep using the term "woman" in this debate, neglecting of course that some of the debate involves not women, but girls, young ones even.

[iverglas]

324. my my -- other people's pregnancy decisions are "a public matter"

... so maybe you could tell us why your (or anyone else's) adolescent daughter's pregnancy decisions wouldn't also be "a public matter"?

You think that you, a complete stranger and layperson and ignorant in every respect of the women you are talking about, get some say in the pregnancy decisions of women you have never met or even heard of.

But you think that nobody else, not even highly skilled professionals (in medicine, the law, the social sciences) -- let alone the general public through its elected representatives -- should have any say at all in your kid's pregnancy decisions, i.e. even to the extent of permitting her to make them on her own, in consultation with whichever of those professionals she and/or they think appropriate, without having to tell you.

Damn. There's gotta be some logic in there somewhere.

I know! YOU get to stick your nose into EVERYBODY's decisions, and even deeper into the decisions of people whose decisions you might actually be able to control even if you can't control anybody else's.

Have I got it now?


"It is a contentious issue, but it remains a public matter no matter how you look at it."

Proof by blatant assertion, eh? You sez so, so it's so.

Abortion is a private matter no matter how you look at it, sez I. Ta da.

Unless, of course, you look at it from up atop I Get To Stick My Nose Into Everybody's Business mountain.


Sigh, I know, the post takes up more than the space of a monitor, so ya didn't read it. Oh well, I'll try to get over my disappointment.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

177. No man or woman is an island

If I have a heart attack, whatever treatment I have will have been approved by the state and federal agencies. Whatever drugs I am allowed to take will be the same.

The same goes if you have cancer.

In a democracy, that is how it works. If you wish to try a drug that WE as a society have banned, we can prevent it. If you wish to perform some sort of treatment we as a society do not approve, we can prevent that as well.

[LeahMira]

210. What about the child?

This should be voluntary, not forced.

Absolutely, and in most cases a woman relinquishes a child for adoption because she has not had a real choice about it. There was no place for her to go with an infant. My birthmother kept me with her for three months before she had to admit that she had no one who would help her as long as she had a baby in tow. Another friend who is a birthmother actually lived on the streets with her infant for several months before she had to give in and relinquish her child. Some women are more "sensible" and understand that they have no hope, but there are also situations where women were forcibly restrained or given tranquilizers in the hospital when the social workers came to take the babies. These stories came from women I know personally who had babies in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

But in all this discussion, I don't see much mention of the child. Supposedly, the adoption decision is made in order to give the child "a better life." No one is asking the adopted person who is now an adult what s/he would have preferred. Yet we say that we act "in the best interests of the child."

Each year, hundreds of adults who were adopted search for and find their birthparents. They don't break into court vaults where their birth and adoption records are sealed forever. They don't access social security or other information to which they have no legal right. But they find. Speaking as one who did find, it is not easy... certainly not easy emotionally when you face the social workers and the high school graduates who are clerks in the courts. Anyone in the world, it seems, has the right to know who you are except you, and they are, it seems, perfectly within their rights to ask you why you are dissatisfied with your adoptive parents, why you don't love them, why you want to hurt them this way, and that you have no right. Still, we adopted adults persist.

There have been no records kept since the 1970s on just how many children in the U.S. are placed for adoption each year... not who, mind you, but just raw numbers. The entire supposedly joyous process is kept cloaked in secrecy in most cases. Yet researchers who have worked with volunteer adopted adults find that these adopted adults have stress levels higher than that of prisoners of war! Fully one out of three adopted adults, given the theoretical choice of being born and adopted again or never being born in the first place, choose to never have been born.

Certainly I have utmost empathy for those women who have a baby and relinquish that baby. My mother did that, and I love her. How on earth could I possibly feel otherwise?

Still, as the adult who was adopted, I totally have empathy for those adopted adults who would have chosen to never be born. That would be my choice also.

If adoption is "in the best interests of the child" then maybe we need to take another look at what we as a society have decided is "the best interests of the child." There are some of these "children" who are now adults and who would be more than willing to tell what they see as in their "best interests."

A while back I heard that the best thing a father could do for his children is to love their mother. Taking that idea on, I think the best thing all of us can do for children is to love their mothers.

[Cleita]

416. You have an excellent point.

Maybe you could make this into a separate post. I don't know how much interest will be shown to this aspect of adoption right now, but it certainly deserves discussion and it is something that hasn't been touched on here that I know of.

See, I personally feel that an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy should be ended by abortion as soon as possible. If you get to the point of a baby being born, then things get sticky. What should we as a society do to shelter that child and give it a chance to have a happy childhood?

[Jane Roe]

11. Are your quotations real or made up?

1. Your abortion stories is anecdotal and probably not representative of the full spectrum of abortion decisions.

2. If pregnant women are already carefully considering all of the moral issues, social issues, economic issues and alternatives to abortion, then regulation sincerely designed to facilitate responsible choice by the pregnant woman would be unproblematic. In fact, these regulations would be downright helpful if not every pregnant woman is as thoughtful and deliberate as your particular friends are.

3. The abortion industry does profit off abortion and this profit motive can be expected to color their actions and opinions at times (just like the economic interests of any business).

4. Where'd you get the quotes in the first sentence of the text of your post. I'd like to see a link, please. I don't recall coming across those quotes here on DU.

[Cleita]

15. Old DU, has hundreds of links if you look for them for point #4.

The misogynism and abortion wars are very old here. For point No. 1, a DU'er who got an abortion because she was raped, put up a post for every DU'er who had ever gotten an abortion or had to help a friend who got one. The thread of first person ancedotal stories was pretty overwhelming and could not be ignored. All clinics involving childbirth make profits not just on abortions. As far as the moral issues go, please tell me how you just say no to a rapist?

[supernova]

54. It was a thread by noiretblu

I remember that thread... gut-wrenching and it got HUGE. There are some amazing stories here on DU.

I don't know how to search the archive, otherwise I'd be glad to post the link.

[Cleita]

68. Me neither.

Maybe "blu" will see this thread and repost it.

[liberalhistorian]

18. It was on a thread earlier

today about a law requiring women having abortions to show ID at the clinic. Techno-dummy that I am, I have no clue how to link to the thread. Maybe someone who does know will be able to do it. And there are, indeed, pro-life men on DU.

[Jane Roe]

20. and pro-life women, too

Do you remember what forum the thread was in?

[liberalhistorian]

26. I can accept pro-life women

far easier than pro-life men. And my experience with pro-life women is that they feel that way until they or a friend or family member is in that situation, then they often change their tune.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. I am pro-choice

You can accept whomever you wish. But in our democracy, both men and women can have opinions.

[Jane Roe]

34. Semi-related questions

Do you think that people not subject to the draft should express opinions about wars?

I mean, maybe if you can't be forced to fight and die, then you are not entitled to express your opinions. I think abortion, like war, is a political issue that affects us all and that we should all feel unembarrassed to express (preferably thoughtful) opinions on both these issues.

[liberalhistorian]

42. How does a woman making

the private decision to have an abortion, that is totally her business, "affect us all?"

[Jane Roe]

67. it is part of the fabric of our society

abortion affects us the same way that criminal justice, tort law, fairness in the workplace, poverty and war affects us as a society. Abortion law is part of what identifies us as a society.

In addition to these pervasive social aspects, the biological father and/or state welfare systems are greatly and directly impacted by abortion decisions.

I am definitely not saying that these other intersts should categorically override a woman's choice of whether to terminate. However, I think these secondary, but important interests entitle men to have opinions, especially when the issue is mere regulation tailored to ensure that the pro-choice choice is made responsibly, rather than irresponsibly.

[Pithlet]

70. I'm pro-choice and I agree with you

with the exception of your last point. I'm not sure how we ensure that the choice is made "responsibly". I think the decision whether or not to terminate involves many factors for most women, and it is different for each one.

In my case, if I were to get pregnant right now, I'd have to seriously consider whether or not have the baby, because number one, I just had a baby 11 weeks ago, and number two, the last pregnancy almost killed me. There is a good chance that another one actually would, especially considering I've not fully recovered.

[Jane Roe]

78. Some unsolicited advice for your own good

I respectfully sugges that you do whatever it takes to make sure that you do not get pregnant. Your health is at stake -- plus you will save yourself the burden of a non-easy choice.

[Pithlet]

80. Gee, ya think!? n/t

[liberalhistorian]

84. Gee, I"m sure she never

thought of that!!!!! And, frankly, her husband/bf is just as responsible as her in avoiding a pregnancy.

[Jane Roe]

181. Yes, if I would give the same advice to anybody . . .

whose actions are relevant to the risk we are trying to avoid.

[NicoleM]

186. Some unsolicited advice for your own good

You should probably MYOB when it comes to other people's reproductive choices. I'm sure you don't realize how condescending and rude it is to tell an obviously intelligent person what to do with her own body, as if she wouldn't have known what to do without your input.

[Jane Roe]

188. Post #70 contemplated a pregnancy

I responded the way any person should to this kind of contemplation on the part of a woman whose life is in danger.

[NicoleM]

191. You won't get it but

IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS. And furthermore, do you understand how condescending it is to tell somebody, "hey, make sure you don't do that thing you know is going to kill you" as if the thought hadn't occurred to her? What makes you think she needed YOU to tell her that? Because you're a man and she's a woman? That's all I can come up with.

[liberalhistorian]

195. Where the hell on that

post did she EVER give any indication at all that she was "contemplating a pregnancy?" She was simply stating that she didn't know what she'd do if she got pregnant now since she just had a baby and another one would possibly kill her. And she really didn't need your condescending advice and misogynist attitude, either.

[Jane Roe]

206. No, wrong

It is your inaccurate insults toward me that are not needed in this conversation. Stop insulting me now, please.

[Pithlet]

192. What actions?

You have no idea what measures I take, and it is none of your business. It was as if you assumed I'm just some naive idiot who doesn't know what causes pregnancy, and you felt it was your duty to "advise" me, a total stranger. Well, it wasn't welcome, and was, in fact, quite rude.

[Jane Roe]

207. You were contemplating a pregnancy

You were contemplating a pregnancy. You wrote that. You opened up the topic You let us know that it would be a high risk pregneancy that could threaten your life. You opened up the topic and invited discussion.

Your contemplation of a high risk pregnancy genuinely concerned me. I am glad to hear that you are not really seriously contemplating a pregnancy, after all, as some of your more recent posts have made clear.

However, it would have been nice if you had been clearer up front. When you just say that you might get pregnant and the pregnancy will likely kill you, then people who care are bound to worry and try to stop the pregnancy. That is simply responsible behavior and sound sex ed.

[Pithlet]

227. Read it again

I was pointing out that not all women make the choice for the same reason. I was using my situation as an example. If I HAPPENED to get pregnant, it would not be a good thing, therefore I may have to contemplate the decision whether or not to have the baby. My point was we can't consider the reasons why women choose to have an abortion and whether or not it is the "responsible choice". It has to be open for everyone.

[Jane Roe]

229. Your situation is irrelevant . . .

unless you were actually contemplating a pregnancy. If there is no pregnancy, then there are no abortion law issues.

Since you made it sound like you thought your particular situation was relevant to abortion law, to me this meant that you were contemplating a pregnancy.

I am glad you have clarified this, but I had no way of knowing all this at the time I gave my good advice.

[Pithlet]

234. It wasn't irrelevant in context to my reply to you

But, anyway, my exact words were "If I were to get pregnant". I don't see how that in anyway conveys planning to get pregnant. But, this is the internet, and it can be easy to misconstrue what people say when we're relying on typed communication.

My point was IF. Yes, I'm not contemplating an abortion now, and don't plan on it. I was talking about a possible scenario that would lead to having to make the choice. You were talking about responsible reasons. My whole point was, what are responsible reasons? If society were so inclined, how would we determine what those were? So, yes, I believe my example was relevant.

[Jane Roe]

236. Some explanation of what "contemplation" means

The words "If I were to get pregnant" signals that pregnancy is being contemplated. You used those words. Ergo, you contemplated.

Don't try to wiggle out of it now. Guilty of contemplation in the first degree!

[Pithlet]

238. No, it doesn't

Stating the fact that I may possibly get pregnant in no way signals that I'm actually considering it. The only way your response to me would have made sense was if I had said I was consideringgetting pregnant. Not that I still think it would have been appropriate. It's still none of your business.

I'm not the one doing the wiggling here. You're the one who gave unsolicited advice when it wasn't warranted.

[Jane Roe]

240. generally speaking, you have control over whether you get pregnant

If you say that you might get pregnant, it means you are considering allowing yourself to get pregnant. This is what I want to keep advising you against because your health is at stake.

The exception is rape, but I don't think any bona fide contributor on DU is ever, ever for denying abortion in rape cases -- that is a separate issue and one where we all probably agree.

Anyway, your contemplation didn't sound like a contemplation of rape, it sounded like a contemplation of a typical pregnancy based on consentual fertilization. When a person in your health situation contemplates in this way, she is going to cause concern for her health and that is just what you did. Preventing these risks is what good sex ed is all about. And don't think sex ed stops at high school graduation -- it is education we all need at every stage of life!

[Pithlet]

244. And it still makes it your business how?

Acknowledging that I have a functioning uterus does not mean I'm considering allowing myself to get pregnant.

But, again, it really is none of your business, because what if I am? The reason I ask is, unless it is a close friend or family member who says to you "I'm thinking about getting pregnant. What is your advice?" you really have no right to butt in without being offensive.

Honestly, did you really think I was considering getting pregnant just so I could turn around and face the decision to have an abortion? Really, if I was actually considering it, I don't think I would have been talking about having an abortion, now would I? I really honestly don't get where you thought I was considering it. It just doesn't make sense.

[Jane Roe]

246. Any time somebody is going to engage in high risk behavior

I try to stop them so they don't end up hurting themselves or causing pain to others. Your contemplation of high risk behavior made your situation into everybody's business. I am surprised I was the only one concerned enough to try to make sure your contemplation of pregnancy was not seriously intended.

Anyway, everybody else felt exactly like I did in their hearts and they were glad that I cautioned you -- if nothing else, then to be on the safe side.

[iverglas]

248. wowee

Anyway, everybody else felt exactly like I did in their hearts and they were glad that I cautioned you -- if nothing else, then to be on the safe side.

Mr. Not a Canadian Roe seems to have been in contact with some Kryptonite.

Mind-reading is a valuable skill indeed -- you should really market it.

Just some friendly advice. I have no doubt that everybody else feels exactly as I do and is glad I offered it.

.

[Pithlet]

249. Really?

Funny, you're the only one who seems to be looking at it that way.

Absolutely nothing I said indicated that I was going to engage in high risk behavior. There's absolutely nothing in what I said to indicate that I have no idea what birth control is. And, there's nothing in what I stated to indicate I wanted to get pregnant so I could have an abortion. Your assumptions were insulting.

It's none of your business if I have sex or not. It's none of your business when or if I ovulate. It's not even any of your business if I get pregnant, for that matter.

Ladies, raise your hands if it's perfectly okay with you if total strangers tell you whether it's okay if you get pregnant. Also, raise your hands if you've ever known anyone to consider getting pregnant so they can have an abortion :silly:

I don't think we're going to see too many hands.

[Jane Roe]

250. I can advise anyone I want against risky behavior

That remains true whether the risky behavior is sexual or non-sexual.

Advising against risky behavior is not the same thing as running around trying to determine who should get pregnant and who should not.

Are you saying that there are people out there who think is acceptable for you to risk your life by risking pregnancy? I don't think so.

If you want your experience to have special relevance in the abortion debate, then there must be some reasonable chance that you will actually be impacted by those laws.

If you are thinking of allowing a pregnancy: (1) your situation does have special relevance; but (2) you need more sex ed re avoiding health risks.

If you are not thinking of allowing a pregnancy: (1) then your story is irrelevant because the abortion laws will not impact your future (non) pregnancy; but (2) you don't need more sex ed.

You seem to want it both ways. Can't have it. Either you are:

relevant to the debate because you are at-risk

or

irrelevant to the debate because you are approriately health-conscious.

Abortion laws do not affect women who are sufficiently old, sufficiently educated, discipled and financially secure to avoid unwanted pregnancies. (the exception is rape, but we all agree what should happen in rape cases). What I am saying, is that you have now made it clear that the abortion laws are highly unlikely to affect you in the role of a pregnant woman. Like me, you won't be getting pregnant and will have to engage the debate as an objective observer rather than as a potential, direct participant.

[Pithlet]

251. You told me I should consider not getting pregnant

If you want to tell someone to not jump off a bridge, fine.

But, that's not what happened here. You told me, a perfect stranger, that you'd advise me not to get pregnant. A perfect stranger who indicated in no way that she was even considering getting pregnant in the first place.

I basically stated that getting pregnant for me would be risky. You in turn said "Well, then, don't get pregnant". That assumes that I'm too stupid to see how obvious that is, and also assumes that I'm clueless as to how to avoid that.

[liberalhistorian]

260. From his posts, it appears

he thinks we gals are stupid and clueless anyway!

[Jane Roe]

264. Nobody is stupid or clueless

Just because we disagree does not mean that I am saying or implying that anybody is stupid and clueless. Please stop falsely accusing me of disrespecting others.

[LeahMira]

285. Hey, Jane Roe

Just because we disagree does not mean that I am saying or implying that anybody is stupid and clueless. Please stop falsely accusing me of disrespecting others.

Are you here to pick a fight or what?

If you've been messaging and/or e-mailing for longer than a few months you'd realize that people don't always stop to think of all the possible ways their sentences can be misunderstood. True, we have the emoticons, but even then there are sometimes misunderstandings.

I'd like to suggest that before you jump in with both feet you ask the poster (Pithlet?) for clarification. There's an old joke about ASS-U-ME that I'm sure you've heard.

No one is here to disrespect you. Some may disagree, but disagreement is not ipso facto the same as disrespect. If, though, you intend to be ludicrous and absurd, you might garner a bit of disrespect. So, for now, can both ladies please take a deep breath and a chill pill?



:grouphug:

[Jane Roe]

308. I think you misunderstood

1. I was accused of effectively characterizing women as "stupid" and "clueless."

2. Calling a set of people "stupid" is a form of disrespect.

3. Calling people "clueless" is a form of disrespect.

4. I was explicitly accused of the kind of disrespect set forth above in points #2, and #3.

5. This accusation is false. This accusation does not find any support in my actual comments.

6. The accusation does not reflect well on me.

7. I want these kind of false accusations to stop.

Clear enough?

[Pithlet]

252. Another thing

If I had stated "Despite all my health risks, and the fact that it could kill me, I want to try to have a baby. What do you all think?" I would have expected "Umm, well, maybe that's not a good idea". I'm sure I would have gotten at least one of those. But that isn't even close to what I said.

There is no getting around the fact that your "advice" was neither appropriate nor solicited.

[liberalhistorian]

259. And you're a man, which means

the abortion laws don't affect you, and it's NONE OF YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS!

And just because a law doesn't directly affect you doesn't mean you won't be impacted by that law or indirectly affected by it. Women have friends, daughters, sisters, etc., etc., who are very easily affected by it. Just because an abortion law doesn't affect a woman directly doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on her.

You're a man, so, if we use your reasoning, you shouldn't have any concern at all and it should, therefore, be none of your business. Come to think of it, it's really none of your business, anyway!

[Jane Roe]

273. men have female friends, daughters, sisters, etc

does this win them a voice in the abortion debate in your opinion?

[liberalhistorian]

256. Speak for yourself, pal.

I and everyone else knew exactly what she meant and that she was in no way considering pregnancy, and she didn't need your smug, condescending, patronizing "advice" and caution. We found your "caution" to be quite offensive, in fact, and not just because it was none of your business and you had no right to interfere.

[liberalhistorian]

255. Oh, really, we have control even when

we use protection? :wtf: And I think there may be some cultural confusion here, because when she said she didn't know what she'd do IF SHE DID GET PREGNANT, that in no way, to us in this country, at least, implied that she was considering, contemplating, thinking about, becoming pregnant. And women do have some help in the situation, too, you know, as much as some of you guys wish it were otherwise, we don't get pregnant on our own.

[Pithlet]

257. I think it's pretty much the same everywhere

that English is spoken. If someone says "If I were to die tomorrow..." we don't automatically assume they're contemplating suicide. They're usually acknowledging their mortality, and that we can go anytime.

[Jane Roe]

261. Better analogy

If someone says:

"If I committed suicide tomorrow "

then they should be suspected of contemplating suicide




By the same token, if someone says:

"If I get pregnant tomorrow . . ."

then they should be suspected of contemplating pregnancy.

[Pithlet]

263. Your analogy would work better

If you'd used "If I decide to get pregnant tomorrow".

Death and pregnancy happen despite all our best efforts sometimes. Acknowledging the possibility of both happening in no way signals our desire or intent for either.

I'm sorry, but I have you dead to rights, here. You either misunderstood me, or you deliberately meant to insult my intelligence. I have my suspicions of which one it is.

If I had misunderstood someone, and mistakenly given unwanted advice, I'd be inclined to apologize, to show that it wasn't the latter. But, maybe that's just me. I'm not holding my breath.

[Jane Roe]

266. Non-rape pregnancy is generally avoidable

It is not like death at all in the unavoidability sense.

[Pithlet]

270. Again

not holding my breath. We were talking about discerning what a person's intentions were. And I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I was saying. And I'm pretty sure I know exactly where you're coming from.

[Djinn]

306. particularly

if you happen to be a bloke

[liberalhistorian]

313. LOL!

Good point!

[Heddi]

341. Oh yes. God knows birth control doesn't EVER fail

condoms never break... :eyes:

Do you know what the success rates of contraceptive methods are?

The only one that is 100% is abstinence. Even Depo-Provera has a 99.6% rate of effectiveness.

That means there's a .4% failure rate. Small, but not 100%

Condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, IUD's---they all have failure rates as well, some as high as 15%.

So don't say that if you don't want to get pregnant, take BC and everything will be okay---because it won't.

I've gotten DepoProvera shots every 3 months for the last 5 years, and I JUST had a preg scare last week.

I don't want to get pregnant--that's why I'm on BC. But I'm married, so I have the right to be sexually active with my husband when and how I see fit.

Rape isn't the only way unavoidable pregnancies happen. Perhaps educate yourself on the success and failure rates of different forms of contraception and you'll understand that even the most effecient and 'safe' planning methods can cause unintended pregnancies in those who are trying their best to prevent fertilization and implantation

[Jane Roe]

344. More sex ed: I recommend using more than one method of birth control

This helps decrease the chance of unwanted pregnancy. May also want to consider sterilization (for your partner(s) and yourself) to help further supplement the other methods. You would be amazed at how low the chances of unwanted pregnancy become when you use all the methods, rather than just one or two.

[Heddi]

403. SEe, I don't need more sex education

I'm a nursing major---I think I have a broader sense of what causes fertilization and implatation, as well as what inhibits it than you do.

To suggest sterilization for a couple in their early 30's who don't want children NOW, but haven't ruled out the possiblity in the FUTURE just smacks of....ignorance.

Tell me, besides my husband having a vasectomy or using a condom, what stresses of birth control does HE have to face?

Why is it me, the woman, who must take the pill AND depo AND norplant AND use an IUD AND use a diaphragm AND use a cervical cap AND use the female condom AND use spermicide AND track my ovulatory cycle AND track my menstrual cycle AND AND AND infinitum?

Why is the inconvenient burden always placed on the woman?

Why haven't there been the leaps and bounds towards non-barrier forms of MALE contraception in the way that there have been bounds towards non-barrier forms of FEMALE contraception?

I refuse to believe that solely using Depoprovera (which has a 99.6% rate of success in preventing unwanted pregnancies) is....not doing enough to prevent pregnancy. That I must use EVERY FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL AVAILALBE should I not want to get pregnant. And if I REFUSE to use EVERY FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL AVAILALBE then somehow I'm ASKING TO GET PREGNANT.

How about this---TONS of people die every year because of car accidents. Perhaps if I don't want to die in a car accident, in addition to having a car with anti-lock brakes, in addition to wearing my seat-belt every time I drive a car, in addition to having a car with side-pannel airbags, I should just not drive at all. And I shouldn't walk, since often pedestrians are hit by drivers. And I shouldn't take public transportation either since busses and trains are involved in accidents. I should just sit in my house and NEVER GO ANYWHERE because to do so, I would be acknowledging the risks of driving, being a pedestrian, or being a rider of public transportation, and knowing those risks, I'm basically ASKING THE GODS to make me a victim of an auto-accident :eyes:

Based on your comments in this thread, all good girls would get complete hysterectomies at age 14 to prevent unwanted pregnancies. ANything LESS than that is asking for pregnancy to occur, which isn't a good enough reason to have an abortion, unless, of course, the young girl was raped, which is the only method of unpreventable pregnancy, and the only acceptable reason to have an abortion.

Of course, those abortions could be cut down too if those girls just got complete hysterectomies when they entered puberty. Then they'd NEVER get pregnant EVER, even in the event of rape.....

---

Even better---why don't BOYS undergo forced sterilization at puberty--then us gals can have wonton sex whenever and however we want, have NO unwanted pregnancies, have NO early onset of menopause, and again, the rate of abortions would decrease DRAMATICALLY---I guarantee it!!!

Keep your insane logic off of my uterus, thank you

[Jane Roe]

404. ahhh, good

You have mostly mastered the first lesson, which is identifying all the various methods of birth control. Your answer failed to reference rhythm method and withdrawal.

Now we work on the second lesson, which is arranging your attitudes and actions so that you actually follow through and use the redundant, burdensome methods.

Now please keep in mind that we do not control human biology. While the male can only be made to bear the burden of some of the methods, we have only two choices when coping with this unfairness that nature has imposed:

A abstinence

or

B. acceptance of our separately gendered bodies in both the respective advantages and disadvantages that they provide for us. This includes an acceptance of the birth control methods that are specifically tailored for whatever particular gender you happen to be.

If you would like we can move on to discuss coping strategies under option A or option B. For example, I find that cold showers help when pursuing option A (as I have at those times when I have strongly wanted to avoid pregnancy in my partner(s)).

[Pithlet]

408. But...

You're arguing with someone who is pro-choice! </sarcasm>

[liberalhistorian]

345. I know, it really infuriates

me when people, especially men, say that we can avoid pregnancy if we really want to, because of the availability of birth control methods. Well, like I said, my fiance and I used condoms, and used them properly, and look what happened! NO method other than abstinence is completely failsafe. And all the methods except for condoms put the burden all on the woman, so what would men really know, anyway?

THANK GOD I had a total hysterectomy last summer and no longer have to worry about it, anymore! I can't begin to describe what a relief that really is.

[Jane Roe]

258. Sex ed

There are two ways to make (non-rape) pregnancy virtually impossible:

1. abstinence; and

2. redundant forms of birth control. Example: condom, diaphragm, contraceptive foam, withdrawal and rhythm method combined as a 5-way pregnancy prevention program.

Under either of these methods there is control over the pregnancy in that pregnancy becomes virtually impossible and (non-rape) abortion law becomes a non-issue for the woman faithfully practicing either of these methods.

Of course, women are not required to choose one of the above approaches. However, in those cases where pregnancy means death, then it is important that the woman is advised as often as possible to follow one of the above approaches so that she does not die.

[liberalhistorian]

262. Pardon me, but

WHAT ABOUT THE MAN? He's also responsible for birth control, and has control over the method if it's condoms. And a lot of the methods you cite are NOT foolproof guarantees of no pregnancy, since my fiance and I were using condoms at the time I became pregnant. Condoms, in fact, have a 15% failure rate and the same is true for the other methods, with the exception of the pill. Again, we don't get pregnant on our own, we do have some help.

[Jane Roe]

271. condoms do not have a 15% failure rate when used correctly

At any rate, I never suggested relying solely on condoms -- condoms should be part of a more comprehensive plan in those situations where pregnancy carries an unusually high risk of death.

[Pithlet]

267. Yep. Women must be advised

as much as possible because apparently we're too dim to get it.

And, you forgot chastity belts.

[Jane Roe]

272. Correction: both men and women need sex ed

I never singled out women. If a man had a partner who shouldn't get pregnant because of health risks, I would give that man the same unsolicited advice for pretty much the same reasons.

Chastity belts seem a little harsh.

However, voluntary sterilization (for the man and/or the woman) can be a good part of a pregnancy prevention program, especially when used in conjunction with other birth control methods.

[Pithlet]

276. "I never singled out women."

You only mentioned women in your post.

But, I'm glad to hear you don't discriminate in your meddlesome ways.

[Jane Roe]

281. Already addressed this objection

a couple of days ago in post #181.

[Heddi]

342. Nothing sexy like

using Condom AND diaphragm AND foam AND withdrawl AND rhythm method with your spouse, eh?

Takes all the spontanaety out of sex, doesn't it?

"honey, I'd like to get busy right now on the kitchen table, but I must insert my diaphragm, and we must wait 10 minutes after inserting the foam for it to become effective, and oooh! Are my IUD strings tight? Let me put in the cervical cap as well---are you putting on the condom? Good! Ooops! Sorry! We can't do it after all! We'd be having such protective sex on my 3rd day of Ovulation. Oh well. Better luck next week...." :eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

396. LOL!

Unfortunately, that's what the wingnuts expect. Maybe because they almost never have sex themselves, they don't realize what a hassle birth control can be. I'll say it again, I am so very relieved to have had a total hysterectomy last summer, I NEVER have to deal with any of that, especially the fear of pregnancy, ever again!

[liberalhistorian]

254. Did you take English in school?

I certainly didn't get any implication at all from her post that she was "contemplating" a pregnancy, she was simply stating the danger to her if she did get pregnant and how that would affect any decision she'd have to make.

A decision that is, frankly, none of your or anyone else's business and which you have no business at all sticking your nose in, especially as a man. I cannot tell you how strongly we women resent such smug, condescending attitudes one-size-fits-all attitudes.

[liberalhistorian]

71. Men have no right to determine

for women what they will or will not do as far as abortion is concerned. That is the woman's decision alone. And men have been controlling women's bodies and lives for far too long for me to shed too many tears over their not being able to control this decision as well.

[redqueen]

105. Exception here

I was pro-choice, until... now I'm more pro-life, but not to the point of zealotry. The REAL 'pro life' people believe even taking the birth control pill is 'abortion'. That's nuts IMHO.

[liberalhistorian]

30. General Discussion,

started by LoneStarLiberal, "Women must show ID to get abortion."

[Jane Roe]

50. Misquote in original post

As far as I can tell, nobody in the thread said that the abortion decision is "easy." You have misquoted.

As far as "quick" and "rash," the context of the thread was whether the law could require you to make the appointment 24 hours in advance. If you can't set up an appointment for serious surgery 24 hours in advance (absent medical emergency), then there is a lot of reason to think that some people are indeed making quick and rash decisions.

[liberalhistorian]

76. I wasn't just referring to that thread,

there have been plenty of other similar statements around here lately.

[Bridget Burke]

25. So, please let us know about all those other women.....

The ones who pencil their abortion appointment in between a visit to the hairdresser & a night out dancing. (If there are any such, it's probably preferable they end the pregnancy rather than be entrusted with a live child.) Since you object to anecdotal data, kindly present us with solid statistical data from an unbiased source.

"If pregnant women are already carefully considering all of the moral issues, social issues, economic issues and alternatives to abortion, then regulation sincerely designed to facilitate responsible choice would not seem to be any sort of a problem." No, it's a big problem. In Texas, they've just made a 24-hour waiting period compulsory; since abortion is not available in every corner of this rather large state, some women will be forced to take a couple of days out of their lives. Lives that usually include jobs and taking care of the children they already have.

Finally, why is a Canadian Man using the name "Jane Roe"?

[Jane Roe]

39. Responses

1. If the abortion appointment is scheduled in advance, then this waiting period would not seem to be a problem, unless the regulation states that you must show up in person at the clinic to toll the waiting period.

2. Why I am Jane Roe: (1) I wanna be; and (2) you can't stop me.

3. FYI: Jane Roe is a person made somewhat famous by the seminal Roe v Wade case. She had an abortion. She later regretted this as an ill-considered decision.

[Bridget Burke]

51. It is a problem....

The abortion appointment is scheduled at a clinic visit; the woman must show up in person. Then she must come back in 24 hours for the procedure.

[Jane Roe]

183. Well then, I stand corrected

The law does impose something of a burden on the pregnant woman, I will take your word on that.

As far as whether the aggregation of these burdens under this particular regulation outweighs the potential, reasonably expected benefits -- I have no opinion on that.

However, to say that some abortion decisions are made quickly and rashly is a much more reasonable and sympathetic assertion than to say that the decision is easy for any woman who has to make it.

The post stated that people are saying "abortion is an easy decision." I don't suspect that anybody, whatever their political persuasion, has actually said that on DU.

[liberalhistorian]

196. And you're a man, so

what the hell would you know at all about it? And you have no right at all to determine for women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies and their own lives. You have the right to an opinion, but not to force that opinion onto any woman at all.

[liberalhistorian]

96. Ya know, I'm sorry, but I really, truly

have a lot of problems with pro-life men who think they have the right to determine women's lives for them.

In my situation, the concern of the pro-lifers, men included, ended at my son's birth, I guess they figured their job was done once I had the baby. But what really infuriated me were anti-abortion men, some were counselors at the Birthright Center I went to for counseling (because I was so depressed I could hardly get out of bed) and childbirth classes while pregnant. I know they meant well, but really, what the hell did they know? And their preaching about understanding the "error of my ways" and that "God meant for me to have children?" Please. What about my fiance and the other men who treated women like that and shrugged off their responsiblities like an old coat? What about the "error of their ways?"

I'm certainly not saying that men don't have the right to be pro-life, that would be totally wrong and hateful. Men have every right to believe whatever they want on this issue, what they don't have the right to do is shove it down my throat and that of other women. They have the right to speak out however they want, and people have the right to listen, but I want nothing to do with it. I simply will not listen anymore to men who are right-to-life. I really resent it. And I'm sorry, but I have the right to feel that way.

When men can get pregnant and deal with being treated the way so many women are, and when men are held equally responsible for their sexual choices and decisions as women are in this society, then maybe I'll listen to them. But not until then.

[mopinko]

101. 3. The abortion industry does profit off abortion

course, the cost of bullet proof vests is really startin to eat into the big bucks

[Jane Roe]

185. I stand corrected

The abortion industry does not profit from abortion.

I found your bullet proof vest argument to be quite compelling evidence on this point.

[oldcoot]

171. I have several problems with your second point

Abortion is a legal procedure and should be treated as such. It should be regulated no more or less than any other procedure. We do not require people to wait before getting other elective medical procedures such as plastic surgery, why should we require women to wait to get their abortions? Should we treat abortion differently than other medical procedures because some people do not approve of abortion? Should we also cater to those individuals who do not approve of vasectomies? How do we decide who gets to butt into our private medical decisions?

Moreover, abortion is not always an elective procedure for all women. Some women may decide to get an abortion because they cannot safely give birth. What is the purpose of making these women wait and then lecturing these women about their "other choices" if they don't really have other choices?

I also question whether adult women need the government's help to make "responsible" decisions. Like men, adult women make complicated decisions everyday. Why shouldn't they be able to make their own medical decisions?

[Jane Roe]

184. Informed consent procedures

for medical procedures for other procedures are required by law. I know that many informed consent law require the transfer of information that society wants the patient to consider before undergoing electing to consent to the medical procedure. I imagine that some informed consent laws involve waiting periods.

In a more general sense, society often requires a wiating period before an important, non-easy, life changing decision is made.

For example, there is a waiting period required between the wedding license and entry into the private marriage contract. Experience has shown that this waiting period can, in fact prevent quick, rash decisions about marriage. Once a state named Nevada decided to do away with its waiting period. One night a young woman named Britney decided quickly and rashly to get married to a man who occupied a position well below her social station. Of course, Nevada's lack of a waiting period helpfully facilitated Britney's unconsidered decision. To make a long story short, Britney had to undergo an embarrassing annullment and had to wait for the Mars Rover story to distract polite society from its contemplations on Britney's quickness and rashness.

I am not saying that the abortion waiting period is the same thing as a marriage waiting period. I am just trying to dispel the false notion that abortion is currently burdened with more regulation than other important life decisions.

[oldcoot]

198. About informed consent

Since we are talking about popular entertainers, have you seen any photographs of Michael Jackson recently? Do you think it was a good idea for him to get all of that plastic surgery? Do you think he really understands the risks? Jackson is an excellent and frightening example of the dangers of plastic surgery. Yet I have not heard of any state passing a single law requiring a waiting period for plastic surgery or any other elective medical procedure other than abortion as part of their informed consent laws. Why is that? If you give an example of a state that requires a waiting period for a procedure other than abortion, please feel free to name the state and the procedure.

I also question laws requiring informed consent. I have no problems with doctors providing their patients with medical information about the procedure. Unfortunately, political considerations have shaped consent laws. In some cases, doctors are required to show women pictures of what their fetuses might look like. The picture in question is of a healthy fetus. Of course, there is no guarantee that the woman is going to have a healthy fetus that looks like the one in the picture. So I have to wonder if the real purpose of these laws are to inform women or to make them feel guilty about their choice. Trying to make women feel guilty for not wanting to be mommies is not the same as informing them.

A better approach would be to allow doctors to treat their patients as individuals. Doctors can provide information to patients on adoption if they are interested in receiving such information. They should not pressure women into getting abortions nor should they try to discourage them. However, they should be able to provide immediate medical treatment for women who really do need abortions for medical reasons. There is no reason to talk to these women about other alternatives because they really do not have other alternatives.


Believe it or not, I have actually have heard of Nevada and Britney Spears. Nevada has a long history of offering quickie marriages and divorces. During the 1940s and 1950s, people from other states to would come to Nevada get their divorces. They stayed in dude ranches while waiting for these divorces. Even though their home states required them to wait until they could get married, they still ended up getting divorced.

[liberalhistorian]

199. The true purpose of these laws

is definitely NOT to inform the woman, but to make her feel guilty about her choice, or to dissuade her from having the abortion. I can't think of any other medical procedure that requires a waiting period, and I've always thought that the waiting period laws are incredibly insulting to women, and their sole purpose is to dissuade women from having abortions.

Unfortunately, for many lower-income women who live in areas where abortion isn't readily available and they have to travel to obtain one, that has indeed been an effective way to stop them from having abortions.

[Jane Roe]

209. I think you are on to something

1. I think the reason that elective surgeries generally haven't been subject to statutory waiting period may be because these elective procedures always or almost always involve multiple visits with the doctor, spaced out over day(s) of time. In other words, it may be that a waiting period is typically built into (non-emergency) plastic surgery in a way that it is not built into the typical termination procedure.

2. You make a good point about Michael Jackson. He is probably one of the few people who can walk into his doctor's office and say, "I want plastic surgery right now -- no waiting -- no appointments." And look what happened. I think they should have a waiting period plastic surgery -- at least in jurisdictions where people like Michael Jackson live. Since the Michael Jackson fiasco is pretty recent (and kind of unique in the extremeness of the disfigurement), it is not surprising that California law has not yet imposed a waiting period -- I predict that in time they will see the wisdom of your implied waiting period proposal for plastic surgery.

3. I still have no opinion on the particular waiting period regulation for termination being discussed in the other thread. My arguments here are only provided to demonstrate why my mind is still open, rather than closed, on this issue.

[smiley_glad_hands]

13. Thanks for sharing

My wife and I are both pro-choice--but if she were to get pregnant we would have the baby. This is a very personal decision and should be left up to the one person who has to live with the decision for the rest of her life. I agree with el gato----most non fundamentalist repugs are really pro-choice---except when it comes to poor people--"let em multiply--cheap labor."

[liberalhistorian]

16. That's exactly right,

it is your decision alone, whatever you decide, and you have the right to freely make it.

[mopinko]

107. yea, but here at du

you would be decried as a breeder, sucking up valuable social services.

[brainwashed_youth]

19. I agree wholeheartedly with you

Even though I'm a dude, I feel that abortion should be carefully thought before you make a life-altering decision like that. It isn't something to be taken lightly

[Bridget Burke]

31. As a dude, please carefully consider....

That any time you have intercourse with a woman, you could be responsible for a pregnancy. Any form of contraception can fail.

I trust that you don't take this advice lightly.

[liberalhistorian]

49. Good point!

I hope he doesn't take it lightly, either.

[catzies]

87. Welcome to DU, brainwashed_youth.

I hope you think carefully before you make a life-altering decision like having sex. It isn't something to be taken lightly and the consequences can be permanent. Fatal, even.

[Crowdance]

60. LH, you are so right--and courageous to share your story

I don't know why I am always so optimistic that women's issues can be discussed here on DU without the intrusion of the mysogynists. They come running whenever these issues arise, and can't seem to stop themselves from spewing hate. I am intellectually opposed to the "ignore" button, but I try to use my inborn, manual ignore feature, and simply not read. It's hard to do sometimes; I see drawn to them, like our human fascination with an accident scene.

It comforts me to read posts from men who understand that women are competent human beings, able to make decisions about themselves and their bodies. I know you're out there, good DU men; I love hearing from you.

[liberalhistorian]

74. Fortunately, the

"good" DU men far outweigh the mysognynists. That doesn't make the sexists any easier to read or deal with, though.

[Misinformed01]

102. Why are you bringing up this subject again

?

Seriously, LH....but, have you not figured out that abortion is a topic that you are not going to change people's minds on?

Working to keep it legal is so important....bringing it up again and again in GD is ridiculous.

Some people juat are never going to agree with you on this subject. So what?

[liberalhistorian]

110. So, we shouldn't bring up

a subject if people's minds are already made up? In that case, why bother starting any threads at all?

[Misinformed01]

115. You posted this again

and this time started it with this:

"I've been amazed at the comments from DUers about how a lot of women make a "quick, easy, or rash" decision to have an abortion, and how the abortion industry "profits" off of that.

I've told my story on here many times, but I'm going to do so yet again because I'm tired of hearing things like that, and usually from men who, frankly, have no fucking idea what they're talking about."

It offends you that there are some DUers who are anti-choice (and no, I don't get it either) and that there are some obtuse men hanging out here in your opinion (and yes, I have seen them)

But this is the exact same thread--and it's getting to the point where some of these threads are just freaking flame bait to drag out the anti-choice people.

I don't get it.....why do you care what other people think so much? You aren't going to meet 90% of the people on this website...who cares if they agree with you or not?

[liberalhistorian]

120. Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Has it occured to you that maybe I just needed to vent a little? DU is almost a second family to me, and sometimes that's what you do with family.

[Misinformed01]

125. Yes, that occured to me; but do you not

get tired of banging your head against the wall with the same people?

They are NOT going to "get it." Ever. Post all you want...it is not going to help.

I wouldn't have paid much attention to this one except for two things; it is almost verbatum what I have read before, and secondly, you started it by saying you are "amazed" (or some word to that effect) at DUers that are anti-choice.

I am amazed that you are amazed. Leopards don't change their spots.

[Pithlet]

129. You know what they say

about banging your head against a wall. It feels so good when you stop. Or, something like that.

I didn't know that was you, Thatwouldbeme. :hi: I've been away from DU for a little while before coming back recently.

[Lars39]

119. Like any forum, DU cycles in new people that are uninformed

or misinformed. Abortion threads tend to be very educational and thought-provoking, AND unless the truth is reiterated occasionally the RW talking points do start to gain ground here. If they get on your last nerve, use the ignore buttons for the person or the thread.

[Misinformed01]

121. Thanks Lars....this is

"Thtwudbeme" and I have been here from almost day 1.

IF a poster missed the last abortion with the exact same posters and sentiments on it, s/he didn't miss it by much. The last one was ....three days ago? Or less?

[Lars39]

128. Hi ! Is DU predicable, or what?

That's the question: was it really just 3 days ago(and if it was I missed it) or did it just feel it? By my watch/calender, it's juuust about time for another southern bashing thread, too. :D

[Misinformed01]

130. Yep, 'bout time for another one of those too

you know, I bet there are about 15 DUers that could sit down and come up with a complete list of posters, and get damned close to their comments on the Southern and Abortion threads.

Good to see you though; don't think I have for awhile!

And yes, the last abortion thread was about 3 days ago...

[Lars39]

132. Shoot, I bet 10 could do it !

I confess I do have a hard time keeping up with the *reincarnated* DUers. :)

[liberalhistorian]

133. Excuse me, but this

is the first abortion thread I've posted myself in a very long time. I have responded to other threads, but this is the first one I've posted myself for months. If you have such a problem with it, then don't read it.

[Pithlet]

123. Actually

My mind has been changed. Once upon a time I was very much "pro-life". Thoughtful debate with others combined with life experiences that have changed my outlook on life have changed my views. It isn't just abortion; I was raised in a conservative family, but as I've grown and become more independent, I've become far more liberal over the years. A lot of that has to do with political discourse with others who had an opposing viewpoint at the time. You never know who's views you might change. It's always worth it to discuss these issues.

[liberalhistorian]

136. Well-said,

thanks!

[library_max]

106. The best quick analogy I've heard.

A woman doesn't "want" an abortion the way you might want a new car or an ice cream cone. A woman "wants" an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap "wants" to chew its own leg off.

[liberalhistorian]

126. I've heard that before, too,

and having experienced it myself, I can say that's that's extremely accurate. The wingnuts may not believe that, but it's the truth.

[san antonio]

216. Just change one thing and you have it...

Just change one thing and you'll be a little more accurate...

"A woman "wants" an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap "wants" to chew its own CHILD'S leg off."

[liberalhistorian]

265. And you would know this, how?

Unless you're a woman who's actually been in that situation, you wouldn't know that, now would you?

[mopinko]

109. behind MOST abortions

is a man who is a shithead.

[liberalhistorian]

127. Well, no, I don't

think that's true!

[tigereye]

153. wouldn't it be great if it were no one's business

but the woman (and her partner). I hope the morning after pill becomes an option. Having sat in the clinic with a friend who decided to get an abortion because she was young and not ready to have a child, I know it was not an easy decision for her. I have had other friends who chose to have an abortion for the same reasons. Since I have had my own child, I know how complex this decision would have been for me and it has made me more open-minded about why others find it so upsetting.

But you are right in saying that no one really knows what goes on for each person making the decision and it really is not the country's or politicians' business. The scariest things for me as a former escort were:

1. men yelling at terrified teenagers as they walked to the clinic ( while I thought, what business is it of yours, buddy)
2. The Operation Rescue goons' level of violence in the supposed support of protecting life. Tar, chains, fighting, the whole works.
3. The religious group who walked around the clinic three times. ( like at Jericho, I guess). That made my hair stand on end.

Just my two cents, as a person with very strong feelings about this issue.

[LeahMira]

288. Really?

behind MOST abortions...
is a man who is a shithead.

Yeah, there are plenty of those, but most? I don't think so.

Do you know how many abortions are performed on happily married women? Their husbands are not shitheads. Sometimes a couple comes to a carefully considered decision that another child is just not in the best interests of themselves and their family at a particular time.

Given the state of the economy right now, with the numbers of jobs being lost almost daily and overtime pay in jeopardy, I wouldn't be surprised to see the rate of abortion show an upswing in the not too distant future.

Given the current horrendous policies on the environment and the pollutants that are now making their way into our air, water and earth, I wouldn't be surprised to see the rate of abortion take another jolt upwards as seriously damaged fetuses become more common.

[liberalhistorian]

314. Yep, there's our

"pro-life" president at work again!:puke: :grr:

[Selwynn]

148. As a man, I think I am almost as equally angered and outraged when....

Things like the comments you describe get said by other men. I have been there for three different friends of mine who faced the question of abortion and every time - every time - in each case it was the most difficult decision of their lives.

Nothing angers me more than the idea that if we really did boldly stand up and say loudly and without apology that "woman have the right to make medical decisions about their bodies, in consultation with a medical professional and without interference from the state," that somehow we would be giving a green light to all these "wild, sex-crazed, careless, clueless, indifferent. reckless" woman out there with "casual" attitudes who would get up in the morning and try to figure out how many abortions they would get to have this year.

To me, its the ultimate form of stealth-misogyny. Because your basically saying that woman are too stupid and too inferior to be trusted to make the right decisions about their own bodies, and don't have the same capacity for discernment and serious decision making, and if left unto themselves will degenerate into this hedonistic and sadistic crazed state of running around trying to fuck anything that moves on order to go have an extremely invasive medical procedure just for kicks. Women are inferior and can't be empowered to make thoughtful, carefully reflected upon, rational, ethical and moral decisions about their own bodies. So your fat, old, white, male congressman will be in shortly to make the decision for you, because there's a bastion of purity and uprightness if there ever was one :eyes:

So, my fellow men who use phrases like the "quick" or "easy" or "rash" decision to have an abortion, I offer you this middle finger salute.

[liberalhistorian]

152. LOL!

Very well said, thank you.

[hlthe2b]

154. I've been waiting all day for a male DUer to post something like this

Selwynn. I've avoided posting in this thread until now because I got sort of emotionally caught up in the one earlier about Texas requiring photo id for abortions now and some of the comments that came through on that thread had me pretty darned depressed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1024485&mesg_id=1024485


So, I am extremely appreciative of your comments Selwynn. I hope you are in a position to pass your enlightenment on to other men, perhaps your own sons, nephews, friends. You give me hope.

[liberalhistorian]

162. That thread is what

prompted me to post this, there was someone on there, a male poster, who was going on and on with the usual nonsense, and then he made a comment about the abortion industry profiting off of quick, rash decisions made by young, vulnerable girls, and that just made my blood boil.

[hlthe2b]

163. Yup... me too

And if you glance at the thread, those comments are continuing.

My sig line underscores the many problems we have today. I think so many do not know the history of women's fight for reproduction rights that even if they are open to women's choice, they are sometimes easily swayed by propaganda against women's groups, like planed parenthood. I don't know how we educate folks like that except (as you have done) continue to bring up the issue and try to expand folks perception.

[REP]

187. It's Not Agonizing nor Easy

See imnotsorry.net for real stories of women who don't think about their abortions every day, and who are glad they had abortions. No, women don't take it likely, but neither are we wrecked for life by abortion. That's the newest pro-lie propaganda, and it isn't particularly useful.

[liberalhistorian]

197. I never,

EVER meant to imply that women are "wrecked for life" or any such thing at all. I simply meant to point out that women don't take the abortion decision as lightly, quickly, and easily as the wingnut right-to-lifers would have people believe.

[Yupster]

203. No offense liberal historian

But if you're a historian, you should know better to use the word "never". Using words like "never" or "always" is pretty much guaranteed to get you in trouble, especially when talking history.

As far as abortion goes, I saw some HBO special which followed a bunch of drug addicted prostitutes for a year.

That special alone disproved your word "never."

[liberalhistorian]

204. See one of my responses above

where I already conceded that I shouldn't have used the word "never" in my thread title. I was more than a little emotional when I first posted the thread in response to some really sexist, misogynist, condescending, smug anti-abortion posts from MEN (of course, lol!) on another thread. I probably should have waited until I cooled down a little before posting the thread.

[Selwynn]

225. There are exceptions to every rule, however the rule is ....

it is not an easy, or simply, or casual decision in the vast majority of cases. The problem is when stealth-misogynist try to make it appear that abortion is primarily a "quick" and "easy" out for dumb sluts who want to fuck everything and don't give a damn about the consequences. That's when its the problem.

And though not usually stated as gutturally as I just have, that exact sentiment is alive and well right here in DU. And that, I believe is what liberalhistorian is reacting to.

[liberalhistorian]

268. That's exactly what I was reacting

to, especially since I've been there myself.

[0007]

208. I respect your feelings and your right to express them....

but your freedom ends where my nose begins.

[san antonio]

211. We're willing to...

...make other's personal lives our business in the subjects of murder, theft, pedophilia, possession of drugs, drinking before you turn 21, etc. We make unborn children our business through numerous programs to help expectant mothers. Why wouldn’t we make something impacting children before they are born our business? Making other people’s personal lives our business is what a government does. Otherwise, I don’t ever want to have to pay taxes to help another human being again.

No, the only argument for abortion/choice is that you do not believe the child is actually a human until he or she is born. There’s nothing else that can be argued on the subject without accepting a certain level of murder, regardless of whether it’s personal or not.

[LeahMira]

212. I don't accept that...

No, the only argument for abortion/choice is that you do not believe the child is actually a human until he or she is born.

I don't believe the child is actually a human until he or she is born. Nonetheless, I understand that you do, and diversity is the spice of life!

If you believe that you are arguing for the life of a child, please read my post "What about the child?" farther up on this thread. As an adult dangerously close to senior citizenhood who was born and adopted, I feel that I have some maturity, perspective and expertise on the matter.

[san antonio]

215. Humans still deserve a life

“I don't believe the child is actually a human until he or she is born. Nonetheless, I understand that you do, and diversity is the spice of life!”

I respect your opinion and I’m also sad that is why the government will never be able to do anything to stop abortion. It just isn’t the place of the government to decide when life starts, it will take a change in the views of the people on when life starts.

I’ve read your “What About the Child” argument. While well thought out, you are missing one thing.

Was the pain of not knowing who your parents are enough of a reason to not exist? Why would you deny a child a life simply because they won’t know who their biological mother or father was? Are you claiming that the people you speak of would have been better off never being born because of the situation they were born into?

I have more faith in humans than to instantly write a person’s entire life, all of their accomplishments, all of the people they love, all of the good things they do, and all of the original thoughts the have simply because the don’t know who their biological parents are.

(BTW, I realize none of what I brought up should mean anything to you if you truly believe a human is not a life until her or she is born)

[LeahMira]

269. Deserve?

It just isn’t the place of the government to decide when life starts, it will take a change in the views of the people on when life starts.

I agree that it isn't the place of the government to decide when life starts. For that exact reason, I do not want the government to decide that it starts at conception and consequently to ban abortion.

Was the pain of not knowing who your parents are enough of a reason to not exist? Why would you deny a child a life simply because they won’t know who their biological mother or father was? Are you claiming that the people you speak of would have been better off never being born because of the situation they were born into?

In answer to your first question, yes it was at the time that I did not know who they are and yes, it still is. Sometimes those feelings come back even now. But that is not the only source of the problems. If it were, reunions would be the simple solution, wouldn't they? It is difficult to explain, though. I think I can locate an article for you to read, and I'll post it for you shortly.

In answer to your other questions, no I would not deny anyone life simply because they won't know who their birthparents are because that is not for me to decide. For myself, I can answer. For others, I wouldn't dare answer. But, again, many of the people themselves who were adopted as infants and who are now adults are saying that their preference would be to never have been born if the only other possibility were to be born and adopted.

I have more faith in humans than to instantly write a person’s entire life, all of their accomplishments, all of the people they love, all of the good things they do, and all of the original thoughts the have simply because the don’t know who their biological parents are.

You assume a lot. Sometimes people don't "accomplish" or don't feel that they have done much good. There's also the response that a person who was adopted gets from others, including even their adoptive parents. My adoptive parents were good people, and they did everything they could for me. Still, I was never as "good as" the child of their own bodies that they might have had. But that's just my experience, and other adopted adults have other experiences. For some, there seems to be no real problem. For many, however, there is a problem that bothers us at some level for our entire lives.

It seems to me that people who advocate adoption, especially those who advocate it as an "answer" or an "alternative" to abortion, cite the "benefits" to the birthparents (which are debatable and you should ask birthparents how they feel), and the benefits to the adoptive parents (they have a child at least), but while these people speak for themselves, no one is asking the adult who was adopted how s/he feels about it. If the pro-life groups are so focused on saving a life, maybe they need to ask the person whose life was saved how s/he feels about being saved.

[LeahMira]

274. San Antonio...

This is a speech that was given in San Antonio. The purpose of the speech was to promote open adoptions, or at least more openness in adoptions that have already taken place, but it is one of my favorites in terms of "explaining" how a person who is adopted feels about adoption.

http://www.openadoption.org/brosnan.htm

There's another article about "Split Feathers" that you might find by googling around. It deals with research on American Indians who were adopted into white families. That's a whole other issue, but you might take notice of some of the comments from the "Split Feathers" themselves and from their adoptive parents.

Should you, or anyone else reading this, be interested in helping to end the secrecy and the lies that characterize adoption, and you don't mind a little irreverence, go and look around at:

http://www.bastards.org

[san antonio]

280. The same could be said for...

"You assume a lot. Sometimes people don't "accomplish" or don't feel that they have done much good. There's also the response that a person who was adopted gets from others, including even their adoptive parents."

That's called life. The same thing, feeling different, could be said for African American, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and women.

"Still, I was never as "good as" the child of their own bodies that they might have had."

The middle children in families also feel this about their older and younger siblings. It's part of life and what makes each one of unique and beautiful. The difference is a great many people, despite not being the 'favorite' child make something of themselves.

You imply that because you were adopted there is almost a feeling that you wish you wouldn't have been born. Fortunately, your mother gave you the chance to fell that way.

Please don't imply that you would have chosen not to exist because of the family you were born into. You have had the CHOICE not to exist every day of your life. Every day of your life you have CHOSEN to keep your heart beating. Thankfully, your mother allowed YOU to make that choice for yourself and gave you a chance to have a wonderful life.

[liberalhistorian]

275. I hate to burst your bubble,

but even if abortion were once more made illegal, (and I personally don't believe that will ever happen, we will NOT ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN), that would NEVER stop them.

There were hundreds of thousands of abortions a year before it was legal, the difference was women quite often were butchered, died, or permanently maimed simply because the fetus was considered more important than she was, and it's life was considered more important than her life.

Even in the 19th century, abortion was fairly common. This was before there were any laws at all regulating it. Doctors began to be concerned because middle-class white women were the ones who had the majority of abortions, and they were worried about the "superior" classes being overrun by the "inferior masses", including immigrants from "less desirable" nations. THAT was when abortion laws began to be passed, and it had NOTHING to do with the "sanctity of life" or "protecting the unborn", etc., etc. The Catholic Church didn't even have any doctrines for or against it at that point.

You just cannot stop it, and to pretend otherwise is naive burying your head in the sand. Everyone talks about the fetus, no one seems to care about the thousands of women who died from botched abortions, women who had their whole lives ahead of them, or who were mothers and wives, and who all meant something to someone. And the thousands more who were butchered or maimed every year. And where were men in all of this, anyway? Why were women the ones to suffer all of the consequences of society considering a clump of cells to be more important than a living, breathing, woman?

I remember my college sociology professor, she had tons of statistics and facts and figures about abortions pre-Roe v. Wade. She came of age at the time that women either had a career or a family, but they generally couldn't have both. Her mother couldn't get into university because there were quotas on how many women were allowed to attend, and there were many programs where women weren't permitted to be admitted at all. She talked about how once a month one of the fraternities on campus would get a carpool together for all of the women students who needed abortions, and they'd take them to a particular doctor or "hidden clinic" that, for that time, was fairly safe.

She told me about the student who came into her office screaming for help because she was bleeding badly and couldn't stop it; my professor rushed her to the emergency room but it was too late, she died an hour or so later, at all of 19 years old. Her crime? Being unable to afford a doctor who could do a safe but "hush-hush" abortion, and having to go to an underground abortionist where she was basically butchered, and WITHOUT ANESTHETIC. And that kind of shit was very common at that time. And this was in the forties, fifties, and sixties. My mom and grandma told stories of women enduring butchery at the hands of underground abortionists, WITHOUT ANESTHETICS, being given nothing more than a shot of whiskey and a rag to bite down on. And again, I ask, WHERE WERE THE MEN AND WHY DID IT/DOES IT FALL ALL ON THE WOMEN?

So, you see, all this utopian, naive, bury-your-head-in-the-sand nonsense about the government finally stopping abortions for good is just pure bullshit. And women don't appreciate decisions about their lives and their bodies being made by perfect strangers who don't even know them and their situation, and mostly by MEN. And we are NOT going back to all of the bullshit I just described, it's just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So you might as well get used to that right now.

[san antonio]

282. "Rusty Coat Hangar" Excuse

Just FYI that is the rusty coat hanger argument. It doesn’t hold water either. Murder and rape still happen each and every day even though they are against the law. Does that mean we should get rid of the laws against those actions?

Should we open Planned Existence centers where you can take your murder victim to so they can be killed humanely? Should we setup a Planned Sexual Assault center to take women to so they can be raped in a clean environment.

That's exactly what the "we shouldn't outlaw it because it will still happen" argument is. It's claiming that abortion is okay when it's done in a sterile environment rather than in a back alley.

Again, the only Pro Choice argument that passes the hypocrisy test is the argument that an unborn child is not a human life. Otherwise, you are condoning the ending of an innocent child's life. If that’s what you truly believe, that human life doesn’t begin until birth, there is no other argument needed to be Pro Choice.

[san antonio]

283. ..

"Her crime? Being unable to afford a doctor who could do a safe but "hush-hush" abortion, and having to go to an underground abortionist where she was basically butchered, and WITHOUT ANESTHETIC."

Just FYI, she made the choice to have an abortion. Why do you weep for her and forget to mention the child?

[liberalhistorian]

286. Jesus, you really don't give

a damn at all about women, do you? You're not pro-life, you're pro-BIRTH, and there's a real difference. If you were pro-life, you'd give a damn about ALL life, including the loss of the life of a living, breathing, woman, who just happens to be the wrong sex, so that people don't give a damn about her. Why do you people insist on having a "love affair with the fetus", as Jocelyn Elder derisively called it, and fail to see the worth of any other life? Why should the young woman, or any of the young women for that matter, have DIED in such a way, and the father of the baby, and the men in general, get off totally scot-free? Why should the women have paid for it with their LIFE, for God's sake? I realize people like you don't give a damn, but the rest of us do.

And maybe they made such a choice out of desperation because of the horrible stigma attached to unwed motherhood, and the hell society made of your life as an unwed mother. The MEN, of course, weren't affected at all, it was all the woman. And it still is in many circles today, apparently. Or maybe their husbands forced them to make such a choice because they wanted their fun, and it was the woman's "wifely duty" to give them their fun, but they didn't want any more children. My mom and grandma and a lot of their friends could give you plenty of examples of that. Not exactly the "Ozzie and Harriet" world you've been led to believe existed in the past, now, is it?

I recall a sign I once saw at a pro-choice march in Washington seventeen years ago. It was a huge white sign, the message was written in scraggly red letters. It said "My mom had an illegal abortion. I don't miss the baby, I miss my mom." The woman holding it said she grew up motherless because of people like you. Her father didn't want her mother to have any more children, and demanded and ordered that she have an abortion, even though there was no other way for non-rich people to get one besides going to one of the underground butchers. And this was in the forties, when women did what their men said or else. Of course, I realize that to you and people like you the father had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, and it was all HER fault for getting pregnant in the first place, even though her husband was the one who demanded that she perform her "wifely" duties.

[san antonio]

289. You COMPLETELY confused what I said.

What I was saying was she made the 'choice' that you hold so dear and want her to have. That choice resulted in a greater tragedy than just the death of her child. Why am I 'sick' for pointing that out while you can just completely forget to even mention the innocent child in the story?

I don't care if a child's heart is stopped in a back alley with a rusty coat hangar or in a sterilized clinic with a vacuum. You are still ending the life of an innocent child.

Regardless, I can tell you have no value for the beating heart of a child unless that child has been born. You will never see it as something that is wrong, I will never see it as anything but the death of innocent children.

[dawn]

397. I find it amusing how so many "pro-lifers" care about fetuses only

A great majority of them seem to not give a damn about the kid after birth.

If social conservatives were truly pro-life, wouldn't they also care about the children born to homeless parents? Children living in poverty? Severely disabled children, who lose benefits when conservatives slash government programs? They don't seem to care about adults, either. They just care about themselves and marking other people as "immoral."

I've met some pro-life people who do truly care about the life of all human beings, and I take them seriously. To me, those people are truly pro-life. The others, who only care about the unborn, show their true colors. They hate the fact that women have reproductive freedom.

Abortion is a horrible decision to make, but we shouldn't be making the decision for them unless we are committed to caring for those kids AFTER they are born.

[liberalhistorian]

287. You must not really believe humans

deserve a life, since you don't give a damn about women who died because of horrible, botched abortions. You and those who believe as you do are, frankly, pro-BIRTH, NOT "pro-life." And I don't see the so-called "pro-lifers" giving much of a damn about life once it's born.

[san antonio]

290. Spin it all you want.

"deserve a life, since you don't give a damn about women who died because of horrible, botched abortions. You and those who believe as you do are, frankly, pro-BIRTH, NOT "pro-life." And I don't see the so-called "pro-lifers" giving much of a damn about life once it's born."

You're talking to the wrong person. I BEGGED my brother-in-law to allow me to adopt him and his girlfriends child rather than have him/her aborted. Me and my significant other offered to pay for EVERYTHING, but his girlfriend didn’t want the embarrassment of having a child in high school.

I admit it, I feel more sympathy for unborn children than I do for the 95% of women who have abortions as the result of consensual sex and decide to end their child’s life rather than take responsibility for their actions. If that makes me a bad human being, so be it. I’m a stickler for responsibility.

Yes, there are people who don’t care about what happens to children after they are born, I’m not one of them. Why the hell else would I be a pro-life dem?

[liberalhistorian]

291. That's good that you're a stickler

for responsibility. Does that include urging men to be responsible as well, because I haven't heard you say anything at all about the responsibility of the MEN involved. The men are also responsible for the pregnancy, and should be held equally accountable. They almost never are, however.

My son's father threw me out of the house when I was three months pregnant because he didn't want to deal with it. Well, I didn't want to deal with it, either, but, being the woman, biologically I didn't have any choice in the matter. As I've described above, I resisted pressure from my parents to have an abortion. My fiance had claimed, before he threw me out, that he was anti-abortion and that my parents would have to go through him first if they insisted on my having one. Well, then, where the hell was he? And to this day, he's gotten away with only paying child support whenever he damn well feels like it.

And there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many more women with similar stories. And while I respect the fact that those who call themselves pro-life consider abortion murder, the taking of innocent life, why do I always hear them going on and on about the responsibility of women, how women must make responsible sexual decisions, etc., etc., and I almost never hear ANYTHING about the equal responsibility of the MEN?

[san antonio]

293. That is so obvious that I assumed it was given..

"Does that include urging men to be responsible as well, because I haven't heard you say anything at all about the responsibility of the MEN involved"

Sorry, I just assumed that it was obvious from my numerous posts that a woman AND a man make a choice to potentially have a child when they have sexual intercourse that I hold men responsible as well. I really don't know what in any of my posts would make you think that I don't hold men responsible as well.

Since you brought up the responsibility of men, do you feel that if a man wishes to keep the child rather than have an abortion that the woman should be obligated to have the child? That's something that comes into the argument when you make sure men are just as responsible for the child as women.

[liberalhistorian]

295. How are you going to force it?

If abortion is legal, how are you going to force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term because the father wants her to?

[san antonio]

296. Right.

You can't. However, if you want to hold men responsible without being a hypocrite, they need to have a say in whether the child is born or not.

My point is that if you truly want a child to be the reasonability of BOTH the father and the mother the choice of whether the child is born or not should ALSO be the choice of BOTH the father and the mother. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

[liberalhistorian]

297. Too often,

and I've seen this firsthand way too many times, the father doesn't even want to be involved and wants nothing to do with the whole situation. And he can get away with it because, biologically, he's not the one that has to deal with it whether he wants to or not.

[san antonio]

298. You're right.

You are most certainly right. However, if we are going to hold men responsible for the child if the woman chooses to give birth, why don't we give them a say in whether the child is born? If we can't give them a right in the choice of whether the child is born, how can we expect them to be responsible for him/her when he/she is born?

[liberalhistorian]

300. Because HE ALSO

MADE THE CHOICE TO ENGAGE IN SEX KNOWING THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES! It's just that simple. If those who are pro-life argue, as they constantly do, that women already have a choice, that it's the choice of whether or not to engage in sex knowing what the possible consequences are, then that applies to men also. Men also engage in sex knowing that a pregnancy could result even if protection is used. And what about the man who demands that the woman have an abortion when she doesn't want to?

[san antonio]

301. Exactly.

So if the man makes his CHOICE when they have sex and cannot have a say in the process at a later date, why doesn't a woman make her CHOICE at the time of sex?

Why does a woman have that choice later but a man does not? Your argument would make sense if you didn't hold the man responsible for the child but you are still holding the father responsible after the act of sex. If you want men to be just as responsible for the child you MUST give the man the same choices as the woman.

“And what about the man who demands that the woman have an abortion when she doesn't want to?”

I think you already know MY opinion on that. I don't think the mother OR the father should be allowed to cease the life/heartbeat of their child.

However, if you want to hold the man responsible for the child the same way the woman is and he chooses to have the child aborted, why can’t he make the same choice as her?

BECAUSE THE CHOICE THAT PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE VALUE SO MUCH IS TRULY MADE AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION.

[liberalhistorian]

309. These are meaningless platitudes.

Platitudes that are very easy to say but don't take into account the realities of human lives.

It's very easy to say that men should have an equal say and equal choice, but that's just not the way it works. Women are the ones who have to deal with it biologically whether they want to or not, women are the ones who are expected by society to deal with it whether they want to or not, women are the ones the burden falls on the most whether they want it or not, and women have the most to lose, whether they want to or not. Women are still considered the sluts, men are the studs who can still get away with it. When men are held as equally responsible by society as women are, and I frankly don't think that day will ever come, for biological and cultural reasons among many others, THEN they can have full choice. And the decision of a couple regarding abortion is no one else's business, anyway.

[Jane Roe]

312. How do you know what its like to be a male?

You clearly have no idea what it is like to be a male in the modern world. Let me clue you in: it may be different than being a woman, but there are substantial responsibilities for a typical man, often mandatory responsibilities toward children (and pregnant mates), and (in the case of many male-dominated occupations) there is a constant threat to life, health and limb involved in meeting the responsibilities.

You claim that a male can never know what it is like to be female, but now you are a female claiming that you know what it is like to be male. Inconsistent standards.

[liberalhistorian]

316. "Mandatory responsibilities

toward children and pregnant mates?" Huh-uh, try again, because that's TOTAL BULLSHIT! That may be true on paper, but not in real life.

Too many men get away with not being held responsible at all, and the burden still falls disproportionately on the woman, as it always has. I've been lucky to get any child support checks at all in the past few years, and that's only because of a county child support agency that's far more aggressive than most other counties in my state.

I had to spend money to drag my son's father to court to prove paternity. His life's been a helluva lot easier than mine since our son was born. So cry me a river, why doncha?:nopity:

[Jane Roe]

318. Yes, mandatory

like when a child's male biological parent doesn't take a job and doesn't make any money for the child.

In these kinds of cases involving evil males, male biological parent lives in poverty as a punishment for avoiding his mandatory child support responsibilities.

In happier cases, when better males are involved, the male works as a miner or a migrant farmer or a military reservist and makes his mandatory child support payments (usually without a court order). Sometimes the male is injured or dies in meeting his responsibilities. When the man is severely injured or dies, the child sometimes gets some extra money form the gov't and/or the life insurance company because the child has lost his mandatory support.

It is not as easy being a male as you might think!

[liberalhistorian]

322. Oh, poor men,

actually having to support the babies they willingly assisted in creating. And in most cases, what they are required to pay on paper (and I say on paper because nine times out of ten they really aren't forced to pay it at all), barely makes a dent in what the woman has to pay for the child every single day.

For instance, my son's father is "required" to pay around $250 a month for our son, not that he's made any payments at all within the past year. But that amount is NOTHING compared to what I have to pay monthly for Chris's needs; food, clothing, shelter, school needs, medical care, etc., etc., and on and on and on. NOTHING. The burden still falls mainly on me, as it does on most women.

[Jane Roe]

325. It would be interesting to see which gender earns . . .

more of the money that is spent on child care in the US. I think I know the answer, but I do not have any stats to cite.

Hopefully your child's legal guardian has gone to court to fight for his/her rights vis-a-vis his/her male parent. That money belongs to the child and it should go to him/her.

On edit: it truly saddens me to see the pain caused when a parent of either gender fails to live up to their parental responsibilities. Sounds like you may be one of the main victims in that kind of sad situation. I wonder if that is related to your general view of males, their rights, their positive contributions and their responsibilities.

[liberalhistorian]

326. I"m pretty sure women

earn more of the money for child care, and the burden falls disproportionately on them. I am my son's legal guardian, and yes, I've had to fight for years to get the child support he is entitled to.

[Jane Roe]

328. attached is a link to an article with a different viewpoint

http://www.glennsacks.com/male_female_wage_pf.htm

This author seems to believe that males generally provide more financial support for children and that males are more likely to risk life and limb to provide this financial support.

Although I am not supporting any children myself, I will point out that *all* of the financial support I received as a child came from the earnings of males (me and my father, specifically). Some people may have had different experiences, but I bet I am not alone in having had this kind of childhood and I may even be in the majority as far as this living-off-the-male's-money childhood thing goes.

[liberalhistorian]

331. Too bad that simply

ain't true in my case and about 50 other cases I know of first-hand and about 200 other cases (and probably more, that's just an estimate) where that just simply isn't true. I know far too many struggling women for that to be the case. Maybe it was decades ago, but it sure as hell ain't the way it is now.

[Jane Roe]

333. That is odd

I have met so many people in my life who were mainly or completely financially supported by their fathers.

I find it strange that you haven't met anybody like this. Maybe I have lost touch. Was anybody out there financially supported by their fathers as a child -- or is that just an RW myth?

[liberalhistorian]

337. Like I said, that may have been true

decades ago, but it isn't the case at this time.

[Jane Roe]

339. You really don't understand the financial contributions that males make.

Maybe no female can understand this.

[liberalhistorian]

346. That's pretty condescending, don't you think?

Yes, I understand them perfectly well. I have a stepbrother now who's supporting a family as well as paying child support for the son from his first marriage, and another stepbrother who's the sole support of his wife and two daughters. And in a lot of dual-income marriages (certainly not all, but many) the man makes more than the wife. So please don't tell me I don't understand the financial contributions men make. I just wish my son's father would make even a tiny contribution to his son's welfare. And I have plenty of friends and family members who wish the same thing about the fathers of their children as well.

[Jane Roe]

348. Now that is what I was trying to get you to understand.

Males do carry burdens. Sometimes it is the burden of faking poverty. More often it is the burden of spending more hours at work than the average parent. These burdens, as you now seem to understand, are substantial (and often met with resolve, courage and great ability).

btw, if you can now understand male burdens, why can I not understand female burdens?

As a male:

Do you think my flesh has never been stretched, ripped or cut?

Do you think I have never strained my back carrying a heavy load?

Do you think my life has never been in peril?

Do you think I have never had a bloody operation?

Do you think I have never been the one primarily responsible for birth control?

You would be surprised at how much of the human condition can be understood by males.

[liberalhistorian]

363. Yes, but you will still

never know what it is like to be pregnant, alone and desperate, and having to deal with it whether you want to or not, for obvious biological reasons. There are some things that men will never truly understand about women's experiences, just as I'm sure there are some things that women will never truly understand about the experiences of men.

[san antonio]

358. My Point.

My point is that if you are going to claim that the man must make his choice when he has sex and then have no say in whether the child is born or not, you need to hold women to the same standard. If you are going to hold both parties to the same financial responsibilities, you must hold them to the same sexual responsibilities. Otherwise you are just contradicting yourself.

(sorry I didn't reply sooner, I forgot about this thread)

[Jane Roe]

361. Women are held to equal financial responsibility as men . . .

and I don't hear anybody here advocating to upset that bit of gender equality.

However, the argument I hear is that the physical, bodily invasion burdens of pregnancy and birth entitle the woman to a voice in the termination decision that the man does not deserve because he does not suffer the direct physical burdens of fetus continuatrion and expulsion.

As far as the reference in post #309 to cultural differences between mothers and fathers, I am not sure what the poster means exactly or why the poster is so confident that "culture" is responsible for the gender differences she is there referring to.

[Pithlet]

372. If both men and women

were equally physically affected by a pregnancy, I would agree with you. But, men don't have to be the ones that are pregnant. The way things are now, women are also the one's who are more likely to be saddled with the responsibility after the baby is born.

[liberalhistorian]

395. And women are also the ones

the burden falls most heavily on, and the ones still considered "responsible" (or irresponsible, in the case of the wingnuts), while society lets men off the hook in that respect. The truth is, society calls men studs and women sluts. And until that changes, I'm not really interested in what men have to say about abortion, particularly if they claim to be "pro-life."

[Jane Roe]

213. Disagree -- abortion is not "murder"

Even if you believe that a late term abortion terminates a life, this does not make the termination into "murder."

There are many types of terminations of one human being by another. Examples: killing by auto accident, killing in war combat, killing in self defense, killing in defense of others, killing by reckless behavior, all kinds of manslaughter, etc, etc. Of course these examples are not "murder."

I think "murder" is not a good synonym from abortion because the late term fetus always is intruding on its female host in a substantial way, even in a healthy, relatively low risk pregnancy. This intrusion makes abortion unlike murder, regardless of how you feel about the metaphysics of the late term fetus.

In plainer language, if somebody innocently gets their hand buried deep in your guts and you kill them to get rid of the bodily intrusion, then that may or may not be legal -- but it sure ain't "murder."

[san antonio]

214. The "Parasite" Argument

That's a classic one too, comparing an unborn child to a parasite. It's a crutch of people who want to find a way to make sure abortion isn't compared to murder.

Regardless of what you want to compare an unborn child to, he or she is not an enemy combatant, drunk driver, a tick, flea, or somebody 'sticking their hand in your uterus'. They are a child who you brought into existence through the choice of having sex. Regardless, I doubt you accept ending the life of the other person in the situations you listed, why do you accept it when it applies to an unborn child?

Before you start, I’d even be willing to ‘sacrifice’ the 3% of abortions due to incest and rape if it meant saving the other million plus lives. I still feel it is a shame that the lives are ceased simply because they were conceived in unfavorable conditions. However, sacrificing that 3% for the 97% that are the result of the CHOICE to have sex is something I could live with.

Even using the ‘parasite’ argument, if a child is a human you are ceasing it’s life. I agree, murder is the improper term. Murder is the ceasing of life against the law. Currently ceasing the life of an unborn child is legal.

If you believe that a child with a beating heart is not a human until he or she is actually born, more power to you. That is where we differ in opinion and that is something that can’t be argued via law. It’s also the only argument that stands up to the hypocrisy test in favor of abortion.

[Jane Roe]

218. You did not follow my argument

and are putting words into my mouth.

I did not compare a fetus to a parasite. I argued that even if a late term fetus should be considered as a person, that the word "murder" would not be a fair word to describe the abortion. In my view, this is because the fetus is committing an annoying and potentially risky bodily intrusion.

However, committing a trespass does not make one a parasite, and I am not saying that a fetus is a parasite. I am merely saying that the fetus (whatever its status or non-status as a person) is often an unwelcome, innocent and burdensome intruder.

You have not argued that pregnancy does not involve bodily intrusion, or that this intrusion is somehow trivial. Rather, you argue that consent to sex amounts to a license for the fetus to conduct her uterine intrusion in peace. This is an interesting argument -- maybe you are correct about this.

However, none of this makes abortion "murder." Whether we consider that the fetus has effective permission or not, the high degree of intrusion caused by a late term pregnancy is undeniable. Because we are responding to this serious bodily intrusion, "murder" is an inapt word. Even assuming that late term abortion, absent self-defense justification, should ever be considered a crime, the analogous crime would be "manslaughter" -- not that other inflammatory m-word.

My preferred solution is that the word "abortion" should be used. Preganancy and termination of pregnancy involve unique metaphysical considerations that, in my opinion, cannot be solved by trying to engraft pre-existing categories of termination directly on to the abortion situation.

[san antonio]

219. The Parasite Argument is just a term.

What you are arguing is an example of what is called the parasite argument. It’s a quite common argument of the Pro-Choice crowd. While you don't want to call a fetus a parasite the way many are willing to do, you are willing to make every comment in the word implying exactly that. You can say you aren’t calling an unborn child a parasite but your comments do everything possible to imply it.

I agree that pregnancy does involve a bodily intrusion, that’s life (literally). It’s also something that we have all done, without choice and without the intent to harm our mothers. I also believe that in the 97% of abortions not due to incest or rape, both the man and the woman have made the CHOICE that the risk of that ‘bodily intrusion’ is worth taking for the short term pleasure or sexual intercourse.

In my view, that is when the choice is made. I realize and respect the fact that others do not feel there should be as much responsibility applied to having sexual intercourse. If it weren’t the fact that a child is the one who pays the ultimate price for that choice, I would agree.

Regardless, if an unborn child is a burden on a mother before birth, how does that change once he or she is born?

If you want to argue that abortion should be legal, the only argument that doesn’t fail a hypocrisy test is that the child isn’t a viable human life until birth. Otherwise you are arguing that ceasing life in some situations is acceptable while in others it is not.



BTW, read my post again regarding using the word “murder”. It’s what I believe in my heart but I was incorrect in my original use of it, I apologize.

"Even using the ‘parasite’ argument, if a child is a human you are ceasing it’s life. I agree, murder is the improper term. Murder is the ceasing of life against the law. Currently ceasing the life of an unborn child is legal."

[Jane Roe]

220. Parasite versus intruder

Not everybody who commits an intrusion or a trespass is a parasite.

The lost hobo traveller who carelessly tramples your corn plants is not a parasite.

The invading soldier fighting in the American Civil War was not a parasite.

The confused driver who, for mysterious reasons, speeds through the fruit market running people over is not a parasite.

The toddler who gets away from her caregivers and runs out onto the freeway is not a parasite.

I could go on with examples, but I think you get my point: saying "intruder" is not the same as saying "parasite." Even though fetuses do intrude, I think it is disrespectful to call them parasites. Please stop accusing me of using this disrespectful slur, because I am being careful to avoid this verbal act of fetal disrespect.

[san antonio]

221. Okay, I'll give you that.

I'll agree that you are calling them intruders instead of parasites, I apologize. However, what does that have to do with whether abortion should be legal or not?

Should I be able to murder (the word murder is appropriate in this case) a hobo for trampling my corn plants? Does a person who drove through a fruit stand and killed numerous people deserve to face the death penalty? Does a toddler who gets away from his/her caregiver deserve to have his/her life brought to an end? Whether you want to call unborn children intruders or some other term to make your argument sound more palatable, do they deserve to have their lives ceased for that?

Again, the only Pro Choice argument that passes the hypocrisy test is that an unborn child is not a human life until birth. Otherwise you are accepting the ending of a human life because they were conceived in non-ideal circumstances.

[Jane Roe]

222. What I was discussing, not discussing

The reason that I engaged in this part of the conversation was to criticize the use of the word "murder," not to outline my ultimate conclusions on the metaphysical start of life.

More particularly, I was pointing out that "murder" is an inapt word, regardless of one's feelings about when life should be deemed to begin. I made my case on this point, and you seem to understand my arguments in this regard.

Moving on to the ultimate question of when I think life begins, I think the following things:

1. after the point of fetal viability, the fetus is fully human in the metaphysical sense and should be accorded substantial human rights (eg, right to be continued, absent a meaningful, serious and specific self defense imperative on the part of the female host).

2. prior to fetal viability, the metaphysics are less clear and I do not have firm conclusions regarding the humanity of a zygote. Therefore, I think that the female host is the best decisionmaker during this philosophically uncertain time period. However, I think the government is entitled to enact regulations reasonably tailored to help ensure responsible deliberation and decisionmaking on the part of the female host. Reasonable deliberation, to me, includes consideration of what the fetus is, what its cognitive abilities are, its capacity to feel pain, what the fetus looks like and the availibility of adoption. Any discretionary abortion that fails to consider these factors is, to me, irresponsible and cruel to what Roe v Wade calls "potential human life."

3. My views on viable and non-viable fetuses may change as we get more information on fetal cognitive development. If I found out that, as a hypthetical, that a 3 week old fetus had the cognitive intelligence and pain-feeling capacities of my pet dog, then I might want abortion to be be somewhat more restricted, even early on.

4. Roe versus Wade was decided in the early 70s. As new facts about fetal development come in, this old decision might begin to look too prochoice to me or too antichoice to me, depending on what new information we are learning about the fetuses and zygotes whose existence we are unavoidably legislating.

[san antonio]

223. I agree.

Thanks for the great reply.

The only difference between what you said and I my opinion is due to my religious beliefs I truly believe that life begins at conception. I truly fear the day I will have to stand before God and explain why we didn’t stop abortion. However, the important thing is that I don’t think abortion should be illegal because of my religious beliefs.

If we ever SCIENTIFICALLY, without doubt, prove that a child is a viable human being at a certain point in the pregnancy, we as a society will be obligated to outlaw abortion. At that point it will no longer be a matter of women’s rights, religion, or choice.

Have a nice day,

[Selwynn]

226. The rights of the mother supersede the rights of a fetus --

that may sound harsh, but that's the way it is, and the way it should be. You can call it whatever you want, including murder - I really don't care anymore. I value the rights of an existing fully developed self-sustaining human being more than I value the rights of a non-fully developed, non-self sustaining, potential.

When a "fetus" can live on its own outside the womb, then it can have some rights. Until then, the rights of the mother are the only rights that matter, period. And I just don't feel like making a nice warm, flowery-language case for this fact today.

I don't take the argument that the "mere potential for human life is sacred" very seriously, because that leads us to the conclusion that we shouldn't use contraceptives, because that's interfering with the potential for human life - and if you do that, then you have to realize that every time you choose not to have sex you are interfering with the potential for human life. The bottom line is, we interfere with the potential for life every day, and it is not right or wrong - its just part of life's decisions. Every choice not to have sex is one potential shunned and another choice embraced. Getting sucked into arguments about potentiality is a mistake.

I don't support rights for a non-self-sustaining developing future human that supersede or take away rights from an already self-sustaining existing human being. And one of the rights I hold very dear is the right to make medical decisions about my own body in consultation with a medical professional and without interference from the state. Now, since I am a man, I don't really have to worry about that. I can just assume I will have that freedom. But for woman its different.

I think we have to accept that the rights and status of a developing lump of cells and tissue is not the same as the rights and status of an existing adult woman. And we already make these kinds of distinctions. A 6 year old does not enjoy the same rights or status that a 32 year old enjoys. The "rights" of a non-self-sustaining collection of cells and tissues are not the same as the rights of a 32 year old woman. That 32 year old woman has the right to make medical decisions about what goes on with her body in consultation with a medical professional and without interference from the state.

I personally believe the REAL argument should be about "when" the fetus acquires additional rights, just like a child gains additional rights as he/she grows up. Personally, I think that a fetus gain the "right to life" once it reaches a point of sustainability - by that I mean, once there is any possibility that the child could survive outside the womb, then it gains that right. To me, this is when it becomes an independent entity and not an extension of the mother - one. While that developing potential for self-sufficiency is still dependent on and a part of, literally and inseparable element of the mother, I believe the mother enjoys the right to make decisions about her body.

[Jane Roe]

228. Incorrect: here is how it really is:

According to Roe v Wade:

the rights of a pregnant woman must supersede the rights of a fetus in certain situations.

In other situations, Roe v Wade allows each state legislature to decide whose rights are paramount.

That is the way US law on pregnancy termination stands now. Your assessment of current US law is not correct.

[Selwynn]

231. I'm not saying how it really is, I'm saying how it should be.

[Jane Roe]

232. What about somebody who supports Roe v Wade as written?

Do you consider those people prochoice or antichoice? (I am curious because I am one of those people)

[Selwynn]

239. This is not meant disrespectfully, but I don't care.

Look, I don't care what you're "labeled." State a claim for me, if I agree I'll say so. If I disagree I'll say so. But you call yourself whatever label you feel is most appropriate.

I think, if I understand you correctly, we would be on the same page, because I do believe that there can and should be some regulation of abortion, and I adopt the talking points from Al Gore's 2000 campaign when I say I want to see abortion be "safe and rare."

I do not however, believe the best way to keep abortions safe and make them rare is to ban abortion, or persecute abortion doctors, or enact ridiculously bad legislation like the so-called "partial birth abortion ban." I believe instead that decision would be left with the mother, and the state should instead focus on rebuilding an infastructure of social services and care for mothers, both married and single, rich or poor. I believe that state should focus on reforming the adoption system in this society, and should invest money into places like planned parenthood and other agencies so that they can employ doctors, counselors, and other support so that a woman never, ever has to feel trapped.

I believe education helps keep abortion safe and rare. I believe that fighting to reduce the growing disparity between wealth and poverty in this nation helps keep abortion safe and rare, and I believe focusing more on love and support of the mothers while making some of the most difficult and complicated decisions of their lives and less on passing laws taking that responsibility away from them also helps keep abortion safe and rare.

If we were to have these focus, I think the abortion rate would drop by 50% over ten years. However, that does not mean I don't actually support a womans right to make these kinds of decisions. I do. I believe that there are times when an abortion may be the most appropriate, though difficult choice for a woman, but I don't believe that I nor any congressman is better equipped to know that than that individual woman would be. I'd like to live in a society where abortion was legal, with some restrictions, but that our culture and society was such that the need to choose abortion, though a protected personal and private decision, would be a rare occurrence.

[Jane Roe]

242. Glad you agree that I am prochoice

I like the label you have now permitted me to use.

[Selwynn]

279. I don't agree that you are pro-choice.

Nor do I disagree that you are pro-choice. I don't care about labels. I don't care about fitting into a little club. Say what you think, if I agree I'll say so, if I don't I'll say so. :)

[san antonio]

230. Too many holes...

“I value the rights of an existing fully developed self-sustaining human being more than I value the rights of a non-fully developed, non-self sustaining, potential.”

Yes, women and men have the right to CHOOSE to have sexual intercourse. 97% of abortions are the result of consensual sex in which a CHOICE was made on whether to have sexual intercourse between both a man and a woman. I’m not going to discriminate against a child who did not choose to be born into that situation in favor of somebody whose actions created the beginning of human life.

“When a "fetus" can live on its own outside the womb, then it can have some rights. Until then, the rights of the mother are the only rights that matter, period.”

When is the EXACT point at which that becomes true? If you don’t know the EXACT second that becomes true, are you willing to err on the side of potentially killing hundreds of thousands of unborn children each year?

“I don't take the argument that the "mere potential for human life is sacred" very seriously, because that leads us to the conclusion that we shouldn't use contraceptives, because that's interfering with the potential for human life - and if you do that, then you have to realize that every time you choose not to have sex you are interfering with the potential for human life.”

I agree. However, a beating heart is a pretty darn good indication of a life in my book. It’s what we use to determine is somebody has passed into death, why don’t we use it to determine is somebody is coming into life?

“And one of the rights I hold very dear is the right to make medical decisions about my own body in consultation with a medical professional and without interference from the state.”

The state already tells us that we cannot have marijuana, cocaine, or heroin. The state tells us that we cannot use silicon breast implants. The state tell us which new prescription can and cannot be allowed for sale and how they can be sold. The state gives assistance to expecting mothers. The state gives medical assistance to those who cannot afford it.

Do you feel the state should get out of all of those issues? If not, why does the state have a say in all of those subject but not in the protection of rights for an unborn child with a beating heart.

“A 6 year old does not enjoy the same rights or status that a 32 year old enjoys.”

Yet, that 6 year old still has the right to live. We’re not arguing over giving a fetus the right to vote. We’re talking about giving the fetus the right to not have its heartbeat stopped by the choice of the person who gave him or her that heart beat in the first place.

“I believe the mother enjoys the right to make decisions about her body.”

Do you not believe that in the 97% of the abortions conducted in the United States each year that are not the result of rape or incest that the mother made the choice to have sexual intercourse? Do you feel there is responsibility in making the choice of having sexual intercourse with another human?

[Selwynn]

235. You're assuming that a woman's choice is free an uncoerced...

"Yes, women and men have the right to CHOOSE to have sexual intercourse. 97% of abortions are the result of consensual sex in which a CHOICE was made on whether to have sexual intercourse between both a man and a woman. I’m not going to discriminate against a child who did not choose to be born into that situation in favor of somebody whose actions created the beginning of human life."

The choice argument is a favorite of the pro-life crowd. It holds next to no wieght in my book, however. You are acting as though amoung the number of pregnancies where abortion is considered as an option, 97% of woman made a free, unmanipulated and uncorerced choice to have sex. Sadly, that's completely untrue, especially in this sub-category. In this society, your idea of a free an mutual consentual choice is a reality far less of the time than you might think. Woman, especially young woman are coerced, manipuated and compelled into sexual activity many times. Society rewards young men for their sexual activity and both looks down on and then pressures young women to "put" out. Love is frequently misassociated with sex, and before you know it, sex happens and there really wasn't a whole lot of genuine, free and fair choice involved.

The idea that a choice was made to have sex is based on the erroneous idea that the majority of woman faced with the possibiltiy of abortion have actually made a genuine choice. I find that this is not always the case.

But even if it is the case, it doesn't matter to me. Notice I didn't say "a woman's choice." I said a woman has the right to make medical decisions about her body, just like I have the right to make medical decisions about my body. I don't lose the right to do that becuase I have sex. Neither does a woman.

"When is the EXACT point at which that becomes true? If you don’t know the EXACT second that becomes true, are you willing to err on the side of potentially killing hundreds of thousands of unborn children each year?"

Yes. I'm serious. Yes. If that's the way you think of the issue, then I am so tired of arguing it that you can call it whatever you want. The bottom line is yes, I am comfortable with Row V. Wade. First of all, the complete totality of abortions performed in this country each year doesn't even come remotely close to hundreds of thousands. But, I get your point, and I respond thusly: I am very comfortable with the decision to terminate pregencies - a fetus does not have the same rights as you or I. And the reason is does not is because to bestow that level of rights is to undermine and betray the rights of existing adult human beings, and I won't make that trade off. I've already told you what I think of the "potentiality" argument.

"I agree. However, a beating heart is a pretty darn good indication of a life in my book. It’s what we use to determine is somebody has passed into death, why don’t we use it to determine is somebody is coming into life?"

Well, no.. that's not what we use to determine if someone has passed into death. We use, heart right, breathing, brainwave activity, and a host of other biological functions to determine that someone has passed into death. No one is arguing that there is "life" there. There is "life" in the skin on my arm, there is "life" in the cells on my scalp. No one is saying a fetus is "not" alive. The point is, just like we don't give rights to skin cells protecting them from being scratched off, neither do we give the same kind or rights to every manifestation of life universally. Plants have different rights than humans, skin cells have different rights (or no rights) than humans. And fetuses have different rights than humans. They are all different forms of life.

"The state already tells us that we cannot have marijuana, cocaine, or heroin. The state tells us that we cannot use silicon breast implants. The state tell us which new prescription can and cannot be allowed for sale and how they can be sold. The state gives assistance to expecting mothers. The state gives medical assistance to those who cannot afford it.

Of course we have laws. Of course the state says we can't go rape someone, and can't wantonly hurt ourselves. But that is not the case with the issue of abortion. Here, the law of the land stands. Abortion is a medical proceedure that bears little risk to the mother and is affirmed as apporpriate by the United States Supreme Court, and I agree with them.

Do you feel the state should get out of all of those issues? If not, why does the state have a say in all of those subject but not in the protection of rights for an unborn child with a beating heart.

The state always has say in some part of our lives and not in other parts of our lives. Why does the state maintain some gun laws but not make others? Why does the state have some tax laws but let other kinds of income go untaxed? Why does the state have some criminal laws but let other kinds of behavior go unpunished? Why does the state have a "say" in some things an not in others? Becuase when it comes to issues of perosnal liberties and privacy, the state should make only what laws are absolutely and critically essential for the protection of its citizens. A feuts is not a citizens, and the rights of a citizen should be garunteed. Those rights include the right to medical care, and the right to privately make medical decisions in consultation with medical professionas and without interference from the state.

Yet, that 6 year old still has the right to live. We’re not arguing over giving a fetus the right to vote. We’re talking about giving the fetus the right to not have its heartbeat stopped by the choice of the person who gave him or her that heart beat in the first place.

What I am talking about is the choice of a mother over her own body, verses the so-called "rights" of a non-self sustainable mass of tissue and cells. That's a cold way to say it, but its necessary to emphasize the fact that I do not place equal weight on the personhood of the mother and the potential personhood of a fetus. To me the rights are not equal. If it cannot exist independant of the mother, its the mothers decision.

I'm not here to debate abortion with you all day. I'll write one time, to respond. You're free to rebutt and have the last word, but I am not uncertain about my stance in this issue, and not interested in debating it all day long on my holiday. So my best to you.
Sel

[san antonio]

241. 1.3 Million a Year (quite a bit more than a couply hundred thousand)

I realize this debate will get nowhere. It's impossible for two people who disagree on what constitues a human life to come to an agreement on this issue. However, there is one thing that you do need to understand...

“First of all, the complete totality of abortions performed in this country each year doesn't even come remotely close to hundreds of thousands.”

For such an important issue, truly a life and death issue, you really should do a little research on the subject. In any typical year there are around 1.3 MILLION abortions performed each year in the United States. That number has historically been pretty constant and fluctuates up and down by about 200,000 abortions per year. It also means that about 1 in five children are not given the opportunity to be born.

It absolutely shocks me that you are willing to put out such strong opinions but haven’t taken ten minutes to research just how big the issue is. Please don’t try to sound like you are somehow informed if you aren’t going to do the homework on the issue. It only hurts both sides of the argument.

[Selwynn]

243. Source please -- otherwise you're full of it.

Oh and by the way - the number of abortions is absolutely irrelevant to any of my argument.

However, I'd like to see a source for 1.3 million, not becuase I give a damn, but simply becuase I'm anal about accurate information.

[Selwynn]

245. Nevermind - how about I supply my own

"The overall abortion rate in the United States decreased by 11% between 1994 and 2000, from 24 to 21 abortions each year per 1,000 women aged 15-44."

And this was the point I was trying to make - there is not some epidemic of abortions. You say "hundreds of thousands" becuase you desire to make it sound as though there's an abortion happening on every street corner and woman are just runnign out to have this "quick" and "easy" fixes. But that's not true 21 out of every 1,000 pregnant woman ages 15-44 is not exactly a stop the presses epidemic.

In 1999, the abortion "rate" was approximately 800,000 - and has been on the decline in recent years. 1.3 million is not a "typical" year, because the abortion rate has not remained steady but has fallen through the 1990's and into the new century. I misspoke in my earlier post - thinking hundreds of millions, saying hundreds of thousands. Turns out we were both wrong. But again, the number could be 50 billion - its irrelevant to my argument.

MY source is the Allan Gutmacher insitutue and can be reveiwed here:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/archives/nr_340502.html

[san antonio]

247. Don't call one Google search research...

A. You are quoting only the legal abortions number for which you are right, is around 800,000. Just like there is a difference between rape and sexual intercourse, there is a difference between reported legal abortions and total abortions each year.
B. There are tons of sources that put the number above one million. Many of them biased, many of them not. Many of them from the same source you just quoted.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3026398.html

From your source,

“In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996 (in America). From 1973 through 2000, more than 39 million legal abortions occurred”

“Each year, an estimated 46 million abortions occur worldwide. Of these, 20 million procedures are obtained illegally”
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

But heck, in your view it's just a difference of 500,000 'lumps of cells' any way so what does it matter?

[Selwynn]

278. Worldwide. We're were talking US... and you're right.....

...it doesn't make a difference.

And let's not speculate on our comparative expertise on the subject of abortion. I'll accept that you've thought about the issue and studied it carefully; I have done the same. My study has a different emphasis than yours. The number of abortions, worldwide or US, legal or non legal, really aren't as relevant to the issues I'm interested in. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm not, even pro-choice. What I am is pro-woman, pro-privacy, and pro-rights -- the right to wrestle with some of the most difficult and complicated moral questions for yourself and come to the answer that are best for you, in your given context, rather than try to blanket-apply the same standards wholesale across the board; the right to privacy when it comes to legal medical treatment, and abortion is legal. The right to not be told how to decide some of the great philosophical and ethical questions of my life by a bunch of white congress men in Washington DC.

You disagree with me. Fine. But get it through your head, neither of us disagrees with each other because we're stupid. We disagree because in the end this is a largely unresolvable issue - the entire country disagrees with each other on it, and there is no consensus. Religious people disagree, politicians disagree, Democrats disagree, republicans disagree. In the face of that much ambiguity, I absolutely want the right for individual woman to struggle to find the best and most appropriate course of action in consultation with a medical professional and with privacy and without interference from others.

Like I said, we disagree. So what? Do you think that's going to change anytime soon? No, neither do I. So is this whole exchange rapidly becoming little more than seeing who can have the last word?

I said earlier I wasn't going to argue anymore, and then I did because you came back with the stat thing, where I did misspeak, so I felt I had to say so. But now, I'm ready to move on.

[san antonio]

284. 1.3 Million IS the US Number

According to the same source you used. There is a difference between the number of legal abortions and total abortions. I'm only responding because you decided to claim that my facts were made up when in reality you haven't researched the issue enough to know the difference.

[Selwynn]

292. 46 million worldwide

That's what I was refering to saying worldwide. We're talking US. I did not respond that your facts were made up. I asked you for a source, and then when you gave it and started citing WORLDWIDE stats, I responded that I didn't think we were talking about world wide.

1.3 million is also *NOT* the number, unless you want to go back ten years. And the far more important statistic in my book is that abortion has been on a stready DECLINE for the last decade.

Again, I didn't claim your facts were made up, however this is the second time you've assumed I haven't studied the issue enough. So I'll say again, I'm not questioning your "knoweldge" of the subject, you shouldn't question mine. You know nothing about me. The only difference is that the annual number of abortions plays absolutely ZERO part in my beliefs about abortion, while it apparently does play a large part in your beliefs. Having spent part of my life working with planned parenthood and the ACLU I've devoted a lot of my life to thinking seriously about the issue - I've even changed my opinion as I gathered more evidence. I'm sure you've done the same.

So, let's back off the accusations about who knows more than who and just ACCEPT the fact that you and I disagree, on an issue where many many many many many people disagree, and there's really not much more to talk aobut.

[san antonio]

294. Sigh...

From Guttmacher (the source you cited)

"In 2000, 1.3 million abortions were performed in the United States"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html#14

[Selwynn]

299. Sigh.... back

The number for 1993 was 1.3 million, I didn't realize the number for the year 2000 was the same. So you're right on that - congratulations.

My totally casual and dismissive attitude toward seriously worry about getting the numbers right is because I don't care at all about the numbers. You'll notice that every time I've posted back, I've said I don't care about the numbers. I don't care about the numbers, you could tell me that 50 billion abortions happened while I blinked and I wouldn't care about that in and of itself Have you gotten that through your head yet? That doesn't mean I don't care about the issue, nor does it mean I'm not well "researched" enough. It means that the numbers don't matter. Here's why:

If something is right, then its right whether or not it happens 1 time or 1 billion times. And if something is wrong then its wrong whether it happens 1 time or 1 billion times. Even if there are restrictions on abortion, the fact remains that if given the right set of circumstances abortion is right then it is right regardless of the number, and if it is wrong then it is wrong regardless of the number.

So I don't really care if there are 5 billion abortions in the United States before I finish eating my sandwich today - what I care more about is whether or not its justifiable, right, or "a" right. I believe it is, therefore the number is meaningless to an argument of the "right" to choose. However people like yourself constantly try to throw around large numbers for emotional reasons, with some variant of the phrase, "so its ok with you if BILL-YUNS and BILL-YUNS or poor unborn children are murdered each year?" It's a manipulative argument tactic, which is a poor substitute for honest debate.

I would like to see society transformed to the place where no woman ever - ever felt so trapped by circumstance that she choose to abort a pregnancy she would have rather kept. And so, I would love to see the number of abortions decline. But its incline or decline doesn't have anything to do with an argument about whether it is right or wrong.

So - that's why I've not been more than casual with the stats - because I never cared about them in the first place, as you clearly do. That and I've been at work all day and only able to give a fraction of my attention to this mess. But I'm home now, so if you'd care to really test your hypothesis that I don't really "know the issue" all that well, you are more than welcome to go for it.

[san antonio]

302. lol

For somebody who said they were done arguing about half a dozen posts ago, you have a lot of spunk in you. My intent behind posting the fact was to make sure you don't pass on false information the way you so arrogantly did earlier. When you haven’t researched the facts, don’t pretend that you have and accuse others of your mistake.

[Selwynn]

303. lol....ol

Well, we've ceased arguing about anything romotely relevant to the issue of abortion, and now I'm just pretty much making sure you don't drag my name through the mud. For instance, so arrogantly did earlier? I beg to differ. What I posted was accurate, if you look at the link to what I provided. My problem is that it wasn't current. It actually had nothing to do with factoring in legal or illegal abortions, it had to do with not being current enough.

Ask anyone - and they will tell you I'm pretty concerned about accurate information. If I'm wrong about a factoid, and someone points it out - that's a good thing that I'm glad for. I'm glad to clarify what the correct number for the abortion rate in 2000 is: 1.3 million. That's great. And as I mentioned earlier, I misspoke in my first response, where my mind thought hundreds of millions and not hundreds of thousands, so I'm glad we clarified that too.

And, once more, and again, nay again I say, I'd like to point out that numbers don't matter, which is why I didn't get in my car and drive home from work so I could dig up my information on the issue which I had to poor over for months at one point in my life for work I was doing. It's also why I didn't tell my boss, I need the next three hours to myself to really build a big case about numbers. Because I don't care. Because its not relevant to the issue at all. Why? See my post above for that - but in brief, because it amounts to little more than a cheap argument tactic. Something is right whether 1 person does it or 1 billion people do it, and something is wrong whether 1 person does it or 1 billion people do it - the number of abortions is irrelevant to the question of right and wrong.

This monster chain of threads is ultimately totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and I've pointed out more than once.

[Selwynn]

304. Hey let's examine your source --

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm

Lists a bunch of numbers, then in small print, the source:
Ohiolife.org. I go there, and I can't find any source information for their numbers. All I know is now I'm getting statistics from a pro-life website. Yeah, I trust that. :eyes:

Now if you go back to the Guttmacher institute, your claim about only counting "legal" abortions is unevidenced and superfluous. You cannot exactly "count" illegal abortions. No source is counting "illegal" abortions unless they are guessing, and guessing wildly. In 1998, the number of abortions was 800,000. But as you rightly point on, in 2003, that number was 1,300,000. Abortion had been falling through the nineties and up to 2000, then apparently, it started to rise again.

And again as I said earlier, the more important statistic is that 20 out of 1000 pregnant woman get an abortion. Not 20 percent - 20 people. Out of every 1,000. And that number was falling - I guess maybe that's changing since the Bush Administration took office, coincidence or not. Either way, its not exactly an epidemic.

[san antonio]

305. I admitted those sites were biased

Read my post. I admitted those sites were biased. There are B.S. stats anywhere you look, you have to know how to sift through them.

I then quoted facts DIRECTLY from the SAME SOURCE (the only source) you used. If you want to play 'my source is better than yours', don't get upset when the other person uses your source.

BTW, regarding not counting illegal abortions, anybody how knows the first thing about the subject knows that not making staircase estimates on the amount of illegal abortions is absolute folly. With as many illegal abortions as there are you don't even get close to the whole picture when you don't consider them. You would know this if you researched the subject in any depth.

The legal reported abortion rate is around the 800K level each year. The total abortion rate for the United States is around 1.3MM each year. That's just the way it is and has been for quite some time now. Both rates are dropping, but they have been around those levels for quite some time now.

Why do you care any way? You said you were going to stop posting about a dozen posts ago.

[arwalden]

356. Nicely worded.

-- Allen

[He loved Big Brother]

233. It was for me.

And I have yet to have a problem with my decision, years later.

[Jane Roe]

237. Not clear what you mean. was your decision:

a. quick

b. rash

c. easy

d. taken lightly

e. some of the above

f. all of the above

g. none of the above?

[liberalhistorian]

277. I'm glad to hear that.

Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. To me, it doesn't matter what the woman's decision is as long as she's free to make it herself, without any interference, pressure, or hassle (either way) from anyone else, and as long as she can live with whatever decision she makes. And to hell with whatever anyone else thinks!

[noonwitch]

315. I'm sick of the anti-abortion side claiming the moral high ground on this

Sometimes, abortion is the best alternative and it is not the government's right to decide what circumstances are acceptable for a woman to be deemed "worthy" of making her own decision.
I have no problem with the christian right believing abortion is wrong, telling people that they think it's wrong, offering women alternatives to aborting (especially if the reason a woman is considering it is only financial) or even protesting at abortion clinics as long as the protests are respectful and don't violate any laws or any woman's privacy. But don't try to make your religious beliefs law.

[liberalhistorian]

317. Exactly, thank you!

And that's what it ultimately gets down to, people trying to shove their own religious beliefs down other people's throats by turning their beliefs into law. People have every right to whatever religious beliefs they want. They do NOT have the right to demand that everyone else adhere to their beliefs and to attempt to make them public law.

[Jane Roe]

319. Questions for you:

Is it okay to ban abortion as long as the ban is not enacted for religious reasons?

--

as long as the new hypothetical abortion ban is enacted for reasons similar to the non-religious reasons upholding our current bans on manslaughter, theft, slavery, cruelty to pets, rape, etc, etc.

[liberalhistorian]

320. You didn't ask me, but I'll answer

anyway, and no, it isn't, it's still none of the government's or anyone else's business. Interesting question, though, and I'm sure everyone will have their own answer.

[Jane Roe]

327. Are you calling for the repeal of animal abuse laws?

None of the government's beeswax?

[iverglas]

329. ya got one, friend?

Is it okay to ban abortion as long as the ban is not enacted for religious reasons?
--
as long as the new hypothetical abortion ban is enacted for reasons similar to the non-religious reasons upholding our current bans on manslaughter, theft, slavery, cruelty to pets, rape, etc, etc.

I mean, that's EXACTLY what I keep asking for!!!

Am I getting closer to getting an answer???

What JUSTIFICATION would the state have for interfering in the exercise of women's right to terminate their pregnancies???

That's what yer asking, right?

Well, I mean, actually you're assuming that there is potentially some such justification, "similar to" what there is in those other cases. I guess I'm just assuming that you can prove your premise for us ... 'cause otherwise your question might just be loaded with the false premise that there IS such justification, if there actually isn't ... and of course nobody in his/her right mind would answer a question loaded with a false premise; you know: you stopped beating your dog yet? Is it okay to ban abortion with justification? Got no dog, can't and won't answer the question; got no justification, can't and won't answer the question.

Now, the ban on homicide (i.e. our practice of imprisoning people who commit it, thereby interfering in their exercise of liberty) is JUSTIFIED by the compelling interest we assert in protecting the members of our societies from being bumped off, and the success of that assertion by the rules for evaluating it.

Granted, we might not quite be able to say *why* we think we have that interest, and *why* it is compelling enough for us to be able to go interfering in people's liberty interests, but the thing is that we've pretty much all agreed ... y'know, consensus and liberal democracy and all that jazz ... so there we are.

Ditto for any other offences against persons and property, pretty much.

Offences against animals? Well, I'll leave that one to you. If you think it's relevant.

And ah, there's the rub. Relevance.

Me, I don't answer questions that drop out of the blue in the middle of a discussion about something in particular unless I can see their relevance to that something in particular.

I mean, otherwise, I could just ask you what colour boxer shorts you're wearing. (You switched to Stanfields since your move to the currently frozen north? ... or was it balmy Vancouver you were relocating to? ... and did this actually happen?).

(And of course if you weren't wearing any, and you were being honest and said so, I could point at you and cry "horrible unhygienic hussy!" -- surely men can be hussies -- and tell everybody not to listen to you, and that we must offer you literature about the hazards of going shorts-less, and set about trying to reduce the incidence of this nasty practice generally ... but I digress.

So ... if you can come up with some hypothetical reasons for this hypothetical abortion ban of yours, I could maybe come up with an answer.

But don't be telling me that the reason for banning homicide is religious, 'cause it ain't.

Your reason for *wanting to ban* homicide might be religious, or it might be economic, or it might be a matter of pure whim; but *our* reason for *doing* it is that we *agree* that we have a sufficiently compelling reason for prohibiting homicide that we are justified in locking up people who commit it -- according to the rules that we have agreed to for determining when we have such justification, and in the opinion of the people/institutions (courts) to which we have assigned the authority for evaluating those determinations.

So give us a non-false hypothetical reason, and maybe you'll get a hypothetical answer.

I'm having a hard time not holding my breath for this one.

.

[liberalhistorian]

330. LOL!

Great post, Iverglas! There's really nothing to add.

[Jane Roe]

332. To the extent that abortion is banned under Roe v. Wade . . .

my justification for this ban would be similar to my justification for animal abuse laws.

That justification is:

(1) there is a creature with some metaphysical value as an intelligent, living being;

(2) when possible, we should avoid hurting the valuable being as a matter of morality and ethics;

(3) society (by proxy of its governement) balances the value of the being and other relevant circumstances and decides how and when we can hurt the being in light of this balancing.

(4) Of course, the laws resulting from this balance are generally detailed in the standards they set. For example, not all killing of animals is illegal animal abuse. In fact, not all killing of highly intelligent animals is illegal animal abuse. The rules and standards of this law is complex and only the research lab with all the chimps really knows what the law is, in all its detail.

But, whatever the details, at a general level how we do the balancing of interests and "rights" of intelligent beings illuminates what moral and ethical values we have in common as a society. That is why some people are so glad that the government sticks its nose into potential animal abuse situations. That is also why some non-DUers want abortion to be prohibited more than it is now.

Question for you: Am I correct about the animal abuse laws, or is there some other justification for these laws, or should these laws be stricken from the law books?

CAUTION: In my life, I often confuse z/e/f's with pets and I do not really know or acknowledge that any differences could possibly exist between z/e/f's and pets. Because I think z/e/f's and pets are absolutely identical, I therefore might be overplaying the similarities between human fetuses and already-born animals.

[iverglas]

335. to the extent that I care

Oh, wait; I don't. I think that Roe v. Wade is a completely unconstitutional decision. I think that the US Supreme Court asserted a compelling state interest in certain pregnancies, without offering up any demonstration either of that interest or of what made it compelling. And I'll be blowed if anyone has ever been able to prove me wrong.

(That's not to say that it couldn't be demonstrated that the state has such an interest, or that its interest is compelling, thus giving it justification for interfering in women's exercise of rights. Just that it has never been. So hey, the question is still open for anybody who wants to answer it.)

And besides, it hasn't got a durned thing to do with me. I mean, it's not like it some universal truth or something.


Now, let's have a look at those "reasons" of yours for prohibiting animal abuse and punishing those who commit it. (Let's even assume that this is a universal human prohibition, which it isn't. I'm quite willing to agree that it oughta be, and that it undoubtedly will be.)


That justification is:

(1) there is a creature with some metaphysical value as an intelligent, living being; ...

Hmm. That's a strange one. "Some" "metaphysical" value. I'm afraid that "metaphysical value" just doesn't convey any meaning to me. Even if it did, I just wouldn't get this "some" business.

Nothing has metaphysical value. Ding.

And even if anyone could demonstrate that something does, that wouldn't be *my* reason for wanting animal abuse to be illegal. And so it wouldn't be the *state's* reason for *making* it illegal. The state's reason would still be *our* agreement.

The state's justification, well, I'd just love to hear somebody argue "some metaphysical value" in a court.

... (2) when possible, we should avoid hurting the valuable being as a matter of morality and ethics; ...

Sez ... you? Let's insert the inexplicably omitted modifiers, and we get:

when possible, we should avoid hurting the metaphysically somewhat (somewhat metaphysically?) valuable being as a matter of morality and ethics

This is making my head hurt.

"As a matter of morality and ethics"? Okay. We should avoid adultery (which I'm sure we'll hypothetically agree often hurts hypothetical metaphysically definitely valuable beings) as a matter of morality and ethics. Shall we now proceed to the outlawing adultery stage?

... (3) society (by proxy of its governement) balances the value of the being and other relevant circumstances and decides how and when we can hurt the being in light of this balancing. ...

Oops. I'm still stuck on that "value" stuff.

If it's valuable and society concludes that in certain circumstances we may not hurt it, shouldn't society be saying that in those same circumstances, not to mention others, we may not kill it??

... (4) Of course, the laws resulting from this balance are generally detailed in the standards they set. For example, not all killing of animals is illegal animal abuse. In fact, not all killing of highly intelligent animals is illegal animal abuse. The rules and standards of this law is complex and only the research lab with all the chimps really knows what the law is, in all its detail. ...

Ah, how convenient that we don't know what we're talking about.

I'm pretty much afraid that, in our societies here, we would find that killing an animal, ANY animal, intelligent or dumb or dumber, is NEVER illegal animal abuse. Certain treatment of an animal that in some cases leads to the animal's death would indeed be illegal animal abuse, but that would be the case whether the animal died or not, eh?


So where are we?

We have some vague assertion of "value" assigned to (hmm, inherent in?) something.

We have absolutely no prohibition whatsoever against killing that something. (I mean, we're not talking about endangered species, or somebody else's animal, here, right? We could if somebody wanted to, but they'd be just as easily disposed of.)

We have a prohibition against causing pain to non-human entities that are regarded as capable of feeling pain, in certain circumstances. And oops, those circumstances don't generally include circumstances in which the pain is unavoidably (or even, in some cases, avoidably) caused to the animal for purposes of a human being securing food. Fishhooks, arrows, bullets ... they all cause pain. Maybe we'll eventually do away with the avoidable instances, but I just don't see us ever prohibiting people from unavoidably causing pain to an animal in the process of securing food. Hmm, I wonder whether that would be because people have a right to life?

So. What's the obvious solution?

Anaesthetic. Like the one the vet administered to my dying cat last winter before euthanizing it, and to my other cat before pulling its teeth.

This is your analogy, so you do the math.

Here's my solution (the work is all set out above). If anyone wants to argue that z/e/fs are analogous to animals, and that we should therefore avoid causing them pain (the analogy just doesn't support a ban on "killing" them), well there ya go. Anaesthetic.

Next?


But, whatever the details, at a general level how we do the balancing of interests and "rights" of intelligent beings illuminates what moral and ethical values we have in common as a society. That is why some people are so glad that the government sticks its nose into potential animal abuse situations. That is also why some non-DUers want abortion to be prohibited more than it is now.

Ah, more patchwork quilts, things strung together as if they were related.

"That" is why some whoevers want abortion to be "prohibited more than it is now"? Really? Because abortion causes z/e/fs pain?

Er ... no ... it's because "at a general level how we do the balancing of interests and 'rights' of intelligent beings illuminates what moral and ethical values we have in common as a society"?

What's a " 'right' "? Is it at all like a "right"?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that animals have interests. Surely one of those interests would be an interest in staying alive. So how come we don't even put that interest on the scales when we do that balancing?

The arithmetic looks self-evident to me.


Question for you: Am I correct about the animal abuse laws, or is there some other justification for these laws, or should these laws be stricken from the law books?

As far as I can tell you're all at sea about animal abuse laws, since where we're at, there are no laws prohibiting the killing of any animal (other than laws to protect species against extinction, laws governing land use, laws about destroying other people's property, and like that).

But in any event, since you're the one asserting the analogy, you're the one needing to establish it. Otherwise, we could just wander off into a discussion of the justification for animal abuse laws that would be of no relevance to the matter at hand whatsoever. I'd rather discuss your underwear, if we're going to do that.


CAUTION: In my life, I often confuse z/e/f's with pets and I do not really know or acknowledge that any differences could possibly exist between z/e/f's and pets. Because I think z/e/f's and pets are absolutely identical, I therefore might be overplaying the similarities between human fetuses and already-born animals.

No, no, no, you really shouldn't confuse yourself like that.

You're actually underplaying the similarities between z/e/fs and pets, do you see now?

.

[Jane Roe]

338. I replied because you asked me to do that

And now you make a big point of saying that you don't care what I have to say after I do answer? Make up your mind, please.

As far as your failure to understand the concept of metaphysical value:

Do you see any sort of fundamental difference between smashing a jackrabbit to pieces and smashing a rock to pieces?

A. If you do see this difference, then you will understand that this is an example of what I choose to call "metaphysical value."

B. If you don't see the difference, then I feel awfully sorry for your pet rabbit, Lenny.

[iverglas]

343. follow the dots, maybe (ed.)

Your post was headed

To the extent that abortion is banned under Roe v. Wade . . .

My post was headed

To the extent that I care

Do you think that what I didn't care about was the extent to which abortion is banned under Roe v. Wade? Maybe? Especially because that was what I said I didn't care about in the opening lines of my post?

And now you make a big point of saying that you don't care what I have to say after I do answer? Make up your mind, please.

Lucky you put a question mark after that declarative sentence. Otherwise it might have looked like you were declaring that I had made a big point of saying that I didn't care what you had to say. And such a declaration would of course have been rather patently, um, incorrect.

As far as your failure to understand the concept of metaphysical value: ...

My who?

Where did I say that I failed to understand the concept of metaphysical value? What else might have caused you to think that I failed to understand the concept of metaphysical value?


edit -- oh, dang. I said: I'm afraid that "metaphysical value" just doesn't convey any meaning to me. Even if it did, I just wouldn't get this "some" business.

I just have to stop being facetious, don't I?

The fact that I then said: Nothing has metaphysical value. Ding.

... might have suggested that I was, and was implying that what I wasn't getting was wot the hell it had to do with our little chat.

end edit.


I understand the concept of fairies quite well. I still deny that I have fairies at the bottom of my garden, or that anybody else has 'em anywhere else, for that matter.

Understanding the concept of something really doesn't mean that it exists, eh? or that anything or anybody has any of it.


Do you see any sort of fundamental difference between smashing a jackrabbit to pieces and smashing a rock to pieces?

Mmm ... I certainly see differences. Whether they are "fundamental" or not would depend on a few things, like what you mean by the word (really really big difference? okay; so different as to be completely dissimilar? well, probably not ...). And whether we share a view as to what sort of differences are "fundamental", which I guess would depend on the purpose for which we are defining (classifying) differences.


A. If you do see this difference, then you will understand that this is an example of what I choose to call "metaphysical value."

Mmm ... no. I can see really huge differences between lots of things and lots of other things, but that isn't helping me "understand" what you choose to call "metaphysical value".

How about if I call the difference between smashing a jackrabbit and smashing a rock "Tinkerbell". Are we ad idem now?


B. If you don't see the difference, then I feel awfully sorry for your pet rabbit, Lenny.

Well, my actual rabbit was named Bunny Hopwell, and Jerry the kid next door's older brother kicked in her hutch door one night (or so we always believed, though we had no actual physical or eywitness evidence) and she got away. Had Jerry's brother, whose name I unfortunately forget (I was three at the time; I'm sure my mother would remember -- let me know if you think it's relevant), confessed to the crime, do you think he would have been charged with abduction? House-breaking? Bunny Hopwell had "metaphysical value", so surely stealing her was kidnapping, and breaking into her home was one of those home-invasion thingies, no? I mean, surely he wouldn't have been charged with plain old theft or mischief to property.

But you're right, he might well have been charged with something different for cracking her skull from the charge if he'd merely cracked her front door.

But if he'd just painlessly killed her, well, he would just have been charged with mischief to property, right?

And I'll still be waiting to hear what relevance you think all this has to women's decisions about their pregnancies. Are you maybe under some mistaken impression that embryos/fetuses at 7 or 12 weeks LMP feel pain? Or that administering an anaesthetic would not avert it?

.

[Jane Roe]

347. Requirement of fetal anaesthetic . . .

for z/e/f's to be terminated after the 12th week. That is a good idea. I must admit, I never thought of that. Will have to start lobbying for a new law to that effect. We'll call it "Iverglas's Law!"

[iverglas]

351. eh? moi? and you -- so ignorant of fetal development? or ...?

I hope you get paid for saying weird things; I suspect you might be rich by now.

Requirement of fetal anaesthetic . . .
for z/e/f's to be terminated after the 12th week. That is a good idea. I must admit, I never thought of that. Will have to start lobbying for a new law to that effect. We'll call it "Iverglas's Law!"

Well, you hadn't better be trying to sell that idea, 'cause you'd be nicked for fraud. That would be like selling your own hamburgers and calling them "McDonalds' hamburgers", doncha think?

I asked whether you were thought that a 7 or 12 week LMP embryo/fetus felt pain. **I** would never suggest such a ludicrous thing, of course.

You see ... what I said was:

Are you maybe under some mistaken impression that embryos/fetuses at 7 or 12 weeks LMP feel pain? Or that administering an anaesthetic would not avert it?

That means ... even if you are under some such mistaken impression, would you also not think that there is a solution to the problem ... in the non-existent case that the problem existed?

It just doesn't mean "I, iverglas (note the case of the letters), advocate that a pointless procedure be performed on pregnant women to avert a non-existent problem".

And it sure as heck doesn't mean "I, iverglas, advocate that a law be enacted mandating the performing of pointless procedures on pregnant women to avert non-existent problems". No sir-ee.

So, since I would not (and certainly did not) suggest such a thing, why would I propose a law to address it?? And if I didn't and wouldn't propose such a law, why would you name your hypothetical proposed law after me?? Just a random honour? Or ... a less than random misrepresentation?

And how come you didn't respond to anything I actually did say? -- and I assure you, I speak for many besides me on that one.


Surely you must be aware that some rather credible work has been done on the question of whether fetuses feel pain. (We can be very certain that embryos and all of their precursors do not.) I mean, I can't imagine that you would be here discussing things like the nature of fetuses if you weren't.

The report of the UK Royal College of Obstricians and Gynaecologists is available only hard-copy, for hard cash, but you can read about it here, if by some quirk of fate you haven't already.

The Working Party has addressed four questions: Might a fetus be aware of pain?; If so, at what stage might this ability develop?; Is it in the future interests of a surviving baby to attempt to alleviate any such sensations? ; What are the implications for the practice of obstetrics and gynaecology in relation both to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures carried out on the fetus, and to the termination of pregnancy when the fetus is not expected to survive?

In the Report`s findings and conclusions the Working Party indicates that both awareness and pain are phenomena incorporating a combination of cognitive and physiological elements. It is not easy to define or evaluate fetal awareness generally, or fetal awareness of pain in particular. Very early in pregnancy fetuses will react to stimuli, but that reaction does not in itself provide any evidence that the fetus experiences those stimuli. Determining when the fetus can experience pain cannot be an exact science. The evidence presented to the Working Party demonstrated that until nerve connections were established between two crucial areas of the developing brain, the cortex and the thalamus, sensations of pain cannot be experienced by the fetus. The minimum stage of structural development that is necessary - but not that which is sufficient - to confer awareness on the developing fetus is identified as some time after 26 weeks` gestation.

You'll want to keep in mind that the working party was looking for evidence of pain, because the reason for their study was to determine when and whether anaesthetic should be administered to fetuses on which in utero surgery was being performed -- not to produce an apologetic for late-term abortion or some other dreadful thing.

So ... where were we? Oh yeah. Some law.

I dunno. We don't make laws ordering doctors to administer anaesthetic to people whose tonsils they are taking out; we don't make laws ordering veterinarians to administer anaesthetic to cats whose teeth they are taking out.

Are physicians who perform abortions a particularly stupid and/or evil breed of creature, who must be placed under a statutory obligation not to cause suffering if it is preventable -- or are women on whom abortions are performed more properly disregarded in favour of some other interest so that their doctors' discretion as to what is in the best interests of their patients (those will be the women, you see) must be fettered by a law compelling them to place some other interest above them?

I dunno, I dunno. Maybe you could explain it.

.

[liberalhistorian]

352. Abortion doctors,

despite the attempts of wingnuts to demonize them, are not stupid, evil, money-grubbing, etc., etc. I think they care far more about women than many male OB-GYNs, some of whom even refuse to prescribe birth control for even those patients who are married, and who advise women to "pray" their way out of PMS and similar afflictions (believe me, these doctors do exist, even today).

And their number is drastically decreasing each and every year, thanks to harassment and persecution by the wingnuts whose example of "sanctity of life" includes murdering abortion doctors. This makes it ever more difficult for women to obtain abortions, particularly in more rural areas.

[Jane Roe]

354. I agree

As a group abortion doctors are no more evil or money-grubbing then the z/e/f's they terminate at the rate of a million a year or so.

On edit, note: Some find the term "abortion doctor" offensive, but it is used in this reply for the sake of keeping terminology clear and consistent with respect to the previous post.

[liberalhistorian]

355. Well, give me

a doctor who provides a safe abortion any day over the underground butchers women had to suffer with before Roe, and that some poor women still have to suffer with. Read just one account of what women went through at the hands of these butchers, usually WITHOUT ANESTHETIC, and how far too many died or were permanently maimed, and I guarantee you'll be convinced of that.

My mother (age 62) and her friends could tell you some real hair-raising horror stories, as could my grandmother were she still alive. Nothing pissed my grandmother off more than those who were anti-abortion, particularly if they were men. She lost friends and personally knew of a lot of similar cases. A lot of older women are pro-choice, albeit many of them secretly, because they know the reality of life for women before Roe v. Wade.

[Jane Roe]

359. Agree again

I have always supported Roe v Wade on this message board.

Roe v Wade rocks!

(I am not sure that any of this makes the current crop of abortion doctors (1974-2004) any more heroic than any other kind of doctor or any more heroic than the z/e/f's they terminate)

[iverglas]

367. or, well, hey

(I am not sure that any of this makes the current crop of abortion doctors
(1974-2004) any more heroic than ... the z/e/f's they terminate)

Or any more heroic than rocks, eh? Or jackrabbits ... or jackasses, for that matter.

Me, I tend to think that someone who is heroic, even just a little bit, is "more heroic" than something that is not heroic, even if, by virtue of ... what, its "metaphysical nature"? ... it is not capable of being even a tiny bit heroic.

I'm not capable of being green and leafy, or feline, or a thousand feet tall. Z/e/fs are not capable of being heroic. Why do I feel like I'm stating the obvious? Why would it never occur to me to say that I'm not sure that celery is any greener and leafier than me? Maybe because it doesn't occur to me to say dumb things, and to suggest that the opposite of what I'm claiming not to be sure of is actually potentially true?

If I say that I'm not sure that celery is greener and leafier than me, then I'm saying that I think that it's possible for me to be green and leafy. Or, hmm, I'm saying that celery isn't green and leafy at all. If you say that you're not sure that doctors who perform abortions are more heroic than z/e/fs, are you saying that it is possible for z/e/fs to be heroic -- or are you saying that doctors who perform abortions are not heroic at all?

I mean, hey, being "not green and leafy" doesn't make me bad, so why would I care that celery is greener and leafier than me, or claim that I wasn't sure whether it was?

Z/e/fs are not capable of being heroic. So why would you say that you are not sure that doctors who perform abortions (forgive me if my terminology isn't disparaging enough for you) are more heroic than z/e/fs? If you want to say that doctors who perform abortions are heroic, why not say it?

I mean, if a doctor who performed abortions were to be not as heroic as a z/e/f, then s/he would be not as heroic as not heroic ... which is kind of negative heroic I guess ... which would be, what, cowardly?

Doctors do not "terminate z/e/fs". They terminate pregnancies. They do that by removing z/e/fs from women's bodies. You sure do talk funny.

.

[Jane Roe]

371. "terminate" "z/e/f's"

Doctors do terminate z/e/f's. I don't see how you can say that they don't.

I got these funny terms from you and I use them so that you won't criticize me for overusing more common terms like abortion and fetus. I use these funny terms so that you will listen to the substance of my arguments, rather than quibbling about my terminology.

Now I am accused, by you of all people, of using funny terms.

What is your preferred term for the z/e/f now?

What is your preferred term for the physiological change that a z/e/f undergoes during an induced abortion medical procedure?

Hopefully we can get my terminology straightened out and politically corrected soon so that we can move discussion back to more important issues.

[liberalhistorian]

374. LOL!

At least you were able to make SOME sense of what he was saying about the "current crop of abortion doctors" being more heroic than z/e/f, whatever in the hell that's supposed to mean. If anyone manages to figure it out, let me know.

[Pithlet]

375. "...on this message board".

You don't support it elsewhere?

[Jane Roe]

377. Clarification

I haven't ever written on abortion issues before.

I haven't discussed abortion issues verbally with anybody in a long, long time (years).

So the views you read here on DU are the only expressions of my current views on the issue.

I am aware that this is a progressive message board. If I happened to hold a non-progressive opinion on pregnancy termination or any other subject, then I might naturally be disinclined to express those opinions here to avoid breaking the DU rules. Notwithstanding the rules, I assure you that the things I write here are sincere opinions, all.

[Pithlet]

379. There are actually pro-life DUers

Although, not many that I've seen.

I could very well be wrong, and you could be sincere. Message boards can be hard because we don't get non-verbal cues. Which makes it easy to misinterpret as well as deceive.

I reserve my doubts, though. I do apologize if I'm wrong.

[Jane Roe]

353. If we really don't know when z/e/f's start feeling pain

1. We ought to find out -- it is very relevant to how we should treat these z/e/f's at various stages of development.

2. To the extent that medical science can't completely figure this fetal pain issue out, we ought to err on the safe side with the fetal painkillers. This is in order to save the z/e/f from excruciating pain that may not or may exist.

[iverglas]

389. if we really don't know whether pigs can fly

We ought to find out. Surely it is relevant to how we treat pigs that we know whether they can fly.

Of course, we know that pigs can't fly.

Or, at least, we're pretty sure they can't. Certainly all the pigs we know about can't.

So should we treat the pigs that we know can't fly as if they might be able to -- just because there might be other pigs somewhere that might be able to fly?

We know that embryos and their precursors, and fetuses up to at least a particular stage, DO NOT feel pain. We know that. We know that in the same way that we know that pigs cannot fly. Pigs don't have the wings or jet engines that they would need in order to fly, and embryos and their precursors, and fetuses prior to that stage, don't have the neurological structures that they would need in order to feel pain.

Should we imagine that there are pigs somewhere, even pigs we know, that have no wings or jet engines and yet might still be able to fly through ... magic? Are you imagining that embryos and their precursors, and fetuses prior to a particular stage of development, might be able to feel pain through magic? If they can't feel it through the neurological structures that are required to feel pain, exactly how else would they feel it than by magic?


To the extent that medical science can't completely figure this fetal pain issue out, we ought to err on the safe side with the fetal painkillers.

The only extent to which medical scientists can't figure the fetal pain issue out is the extent to which fetal pain might exist after a particular stage of pregnancy. So the only safe side that might possibly need erring on would be after that stage of pregnancy. Were you suggesting something else?

Now, the stage of pregnancy in question is known to be no earlier than 26 weeks. (I assume the experts are talking LMP, but whatever.) Are we aware of many abortions that take place later than 26 weeks (that being generally recognized as after a theoretical and sometimes actual viability point)? Any at all that aren't performed for some rather compelling reasons? Any doctors that perform them at that stage if they aren't? Many fetuses aborted at that stage that aren't already either incapable of feeling pain or already in pain as a result of the seizures, etc., caused by their deformities? Any reason to believe that any doctors who perform abortions after 26 weeks do not take into consideration the possibility that the fetus feels pain? Any doctors that do not act to avert that risk unless doing so would endanger or harm or cause suffering to their patient (that's the woman)?

So just who is this "we" who "ought to err on the safe side with the fetal painkillers"?

A bunch of nosey parkers trying to interfere in physicians' provision of medical services to their patients in accordance with their profession's ethical standards and having regard to the best information available to them, by making laws to fetter their exercise of professional judgment discretion? You don't seem to have any better information. So, are you one of those nosey parkers?

.

[Jane Roe]

390. I seriously doubt that pain capacity and viability emerge at the same time

I may not have all the answers re z/e/f pain capacity, but I am pretty sure that capacity to feel pain develops prior to viability.

I agree with you to the extent that reasonably certainty exists in the following areas:

(1) pain capacity is not present at conception;

(2) pain capacity does not develop before the brain begins to develop; and

(3) pigs can't fly.

Now let's start drafting that fetal anaesthetic regulation and help to stop unneccessary pain.

[iverglas]

409. who on earth cares what you doubt, seriously or rashly?

I seriously doubt that pain capacity and viability emerge at the same time

Who said they did?

Damn, talking to you is fun. Ya just never know what strange and wonderful pigeon is going to get tossed into the pot. Every click a surprise waiting to happen.


I may not have all the answers re z/e/f pain capacity, but I am pretty sure that capacity to feel pain develops prior to viability.

Anything that you might express your "pretty sure"ness of is really of no consequence to me or anyone else at all. Why on earth would you bother making such a statement?

If you're "pretty sure" of something and want the thing you're pretty sure of to be taken into consideration by someone else (presumably to assist them in forming an opinion about something, or to get them to change the opinion they hold) -- and if you didn't want that, dawg knows why you'd bother saying anything at all -- why wouldn't you offer up your grounds for being pretty sure about it?

Why would you think that a statement that you doubt something that someone else has offered authority for would be of any interest to anyone?

Disproof by blatant assertion of doubt, anyone?


I agree with you to the extent that reasonably certainty exists in the following areas:
... (2) pain capacity does not develop before the brain begins to develop ...

Why would you state that you agree with *me*, when what you are "agreeing" to is something that I never said? (Rhetorical question. I'm quite aware of the answer ... although the usual two possibilities are always present, possibly simultaneously.)

I did not say that pain capacity does not develop before the brain begins to develop. I said that (I accept the findings of the RCOG working party that) pain capacity is not present before at least the 26th week.

Did you somehow mistake before the 26th week for "before the brain begins to develop"? If so, your knowledge of fetal development must be waaay worse even than one might have thought to date.


Now let's start drafting that fetal anaesthetic regulation and help to stop unneccessary pain.

Sure. If you'll join me in drafting that flying pig regulation and help to stop unnecessary mid-air collisions.

Or if you'll answer the questions put to you, by way of demonstrating some need for regulation.

You know, right? If I may paraphrase someone you might know and who has been called a profit (oops, Sigmundian slip of the fingers) prophet of deregulation: Unnecessary law is baaaad law. If you'll forgive me for making sheep noises in a discussion of pigs.

Which would, of course, be one reasonable explanation for why there are no operative laws about abortion at all, in Canada.


.

[liberalhistorian]

417. I thought abortion was

not only legal in Canada, but government-funded in many cases? And you are, indeed, correct, that an unneccessary law is a bad law.

[iverglas]

334. but hey, I'll play

Is it okay to ban abortion as long as the ban is not enacted for religious reasons?
--
as long as the new hypothetical abortion ban is enacted for reasons similar to the non-religious reasons upholding our current bans on manslaughter, theft, slavery, cruelty to pets, rape, etc, etc

Here's the hypothetical "reason" I sometimes consider as being sufficiently compelling to justify interfering in women's pregnancy decisions <exercise of the right to life and liberty etc.>.

It's now 2030. The world's oil reserves have been depleted, global warming has resulted in a severe reduction of the earth's habitable land mass, migratory movements as populations move from place to place seeking food and water have resulted in serious civil disorder, famine is already occurring in many places, prospects for survival in the numbers we have grown to are pretty much nil. Medical resources are strained way beyond capacity, of course.

May states (let's assume that there are still functioning states, backed up by a lot of force) compel women to terminate pregnancies -- based on the prediction, or at least hope, that if no new mouths are added to the global household over, say, the next five years, humanity, or some clusters thereof, might be able to survive?

Hmm. I, personally, might have qualms; I might not be sure that a species that was willing to oppress certain of its members to that extent actually deserved to survive. But I might value the survival of the species above all else. We'd just have to ask the supreme court what it thought, if there were pregnant women who didn't go along with that.

Now, conversely. It is now 2025, five years after a nuclear conflagration wiped out all major population centres on earth, leaving isolated pockets of people trying to eke out an existence from a wasted globe, and suffering disease and death at high rates. The number of people alive, let alone able to make a productive contribution to their groups' survival, is declining every day, and of course horrific birth defects are occurring as a result of radiation. Some groups are finding that birth defects are not as widespread, though, and are becoming less common, in areas that somehow escaped the worst of the devastation. If they don't start reproducing, not only their group, but humanity as a whole, may disappear in a very few years.

May states (or the local tribal council, whatever) compel women to terminate pregnancies or even to get pregnant -- based on the prediction, or at least hope, that if they start having children now, and breed early and often, then the group can weather the storm and keep the species going?

Well, you can imagine my qualms.

In both cases, I'd just have to hope that whoever disagreed with me, whatever side I ended up on, was willing to debate the issue democratically ... by acknowledging the rights of anyone who objected to their exercise of them being interfered with, by acknowleding their full and equal prima facie entitlement to exercise those rights, and by presenting sincere and honest argument for their own position.

Not by calling women who object to having their choices taken away irresponsible, selfish, stupid, immoral breeders (in the first scenario), or irresponsible, selfish, stupid, immoral non-breeders (in the second scenario). Not by invoking some god who wants its pet humanity to go forth and multiply ... or who is sick of humanity and just wants it to finish the job of killing itself off; whatever. And not by pretending that compelling women to reproduce or prohibiting women from reproducing isn't a violation of their rights.

And not by appointing a bunch of men looking to hire cheap child labour, and make a fortune, to the tribunal that gets to decide the dispute, of course. And certainly not by pointing guns at dissenting women to make them continue/terminate their pregnancies, at least not unless the supreme court had said they could.


But, like, in North America, in 2004, I'm not seeing much in the way of compelling reasons that would justify such profound interference in women's exercise of their most fundamental rights, either way, eh?

Maybe you've come up with one while I was writing my novel ...

.

[san antonio]

360. How could...

How could somebody who truly beleives the line of the Christian right be just fine with doing nothing more than have an opinion? If they truly feel that a child is a human life, this is a life and death issue, not something you can express an opinion on over tea and then forget about.

[liberalhistorian]

362. I don't really know.

I've known pro-life people who walk the talk and do what they can to assist pregnant women as well as children who are already born, and I respect and admire that, though I may not agree with their stance on abortion.

Then again, I've known far too many others who were pro-life who did nothing but make their opinions known and be very judgmental and moralistic, doing nothing for either pregnant women or children who are already born, including voting down children's services levies and funding for foster care programs, etc., etc. And they just don't see the hypocrisy in that.

[KLA2004]

321. nice

post

[David Zephyr]

336. Liberalhistorian, Great Post! I Stand With You 100%.

:thumbsup:

[liberalhistorian]

340. Thanks!

n/t

[arwalden]

357. Excellent Post

I have to wonder if the people who claim such a thing actually BELIEVE their own specious arguments, or are they just being myopic and illogical for the SAKE of trying to win the argument?

Sometimes they are so loud and so repetitive that it's easy to understand why folks start to believe them. You've done a great job at helping to dispel the myth that they are trying to perpetuate.

-- Allen

[liberalhistorian]

364. I think it's a prevalent idea

because the RW wingnuts have pushed it so strongly in order to further their own agenda. They're not that keen on the rights of women and women in general, anyway, so it doesn't matter to them if it's correct or not.

[veracity]

365. Compassionate conservatives..Not!

Women through the ages have been faced with pregnancies that would destroy them - their families, and often the unborn embryo. The bans on abortion were always society's way of punishing women for being sexual in any way, - even against their will. I've seen anit choice women, as well as men, posting on other forums - stating that women have to pay for being "irresponsible." There is a viciousness in people who are socially 'conservative' that astounds me. And yet, it shouldn't. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. Maybe, some others who never thought this through will understand.

[Jane Roe]

366. yes conservatives are so preoccupied . . .

with the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is being torn apart by surgical instruments that they completely forget about the interests of the pregnant woman. This is an unbalanced approach, IMO.

[liberalhistorian]

368. Didn't you claim to be

pro-choice? I rather highly doubt that at this point.

[Jane Roe]

369. We are having trouble figuring that out . . .

see posts 232, 239, 242 and 279 above for some great discussion of what label is right for me.

[Pithlet]

376. I'm not having any trouble at all.

I think I know where you stand on this issue.

[Jane Roe]

378. Yup, right there behind Roe v Wade

I have finally found somebody here who seems to admit that my support for this important caselaw automatically makes me "prochoice."

[Pithlet]

380. No

Somehow, I don't think so. See post #379.

[Jane Roe]

381. Some possible labels I like for me:

a. Pro Responsible Choice

b. Abortion Rights Balancer

c. Iconoclast

d. Roe v Wade-ist

[Pithlet]

385. Heh

I find b. amusing. I don't know how anyone can call it choice if someone else is making that choice for them. But, you may call yourself whatever you like. I still haven't changed my mind on where I think you stand.

[Jane Roe]

388. sounds like you think Roe v Wade needs to be enlarged . . .

Unusual. I thought most prochoicers were satisfied with Roe v Wade as written (like I am).

[Pithlet]

391. Maybe you should go back

and read Roe V Wade. The kinds of things you've been talking about are not supported by Roe V Wade. Who's responsible choice? Yours? Because it sounds like you intend to take the choice away from the woman and her doctor, and give it to somebody else based on YOUR definition of what is responsible. The designation is pro-choice, not pro-choice as long as I agree with the choice. As a "responsible choicer" that is an important distinction you've seemed to miss.

[Jane Roe]

392. I have read Roe v Wade several times in the past six months.

The case says that states may choose to pass laws to prohibit third trimester abortions (subject to a health / life exception).

The case also allows states to regulate pre-viability abortions, but not to forbid these outright.

This is exactly the type of balancing I am suggesting -- and it is just fine by Roe v Wade. If it is not fine by you, then all that means is that you want Roe v Wade enlarged to stop people like me. This is why I believe that you are not happy with Roe v Wade as written.

If you would like to learn more, here is a link to the opinion:

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

[Pithlet]

393. Aha

There's the rub. "If you want to stop people like me". You mean, "pro-choice" people like yourself?

I was right. I knew it...

Anyway, I've read Roe V Wade as well. To be charitable, your interpretation of the pre-3rd trimester piece of Roe V Wade is questionable. The kinds of restrictions it's talking about are parental notification and short waiting periods. There is nothing that allows the state to outright prevent an adult woman from getting a pre-viability abortion.

[liberalhistorian]

398. I hate to keep asking,

but once again, what business is it of yours what decisions a woman makes about her own body and her own life, and what business is it of yours what reproductive decisions they make? You have no right to interfere, and I also consider it to be incredibly condescending for you to even think you have some idea of what it is like to be a woman dealing with an unintended pregnancy, especially with society's double standard, and especially if she's been abandoned.

[Jane Roe]

400. Now that you know about the redundant birth control sex ed I provided . .

You have substantially the same probability of undergoing an unwanted pregneancy in the future as I do.

As such, we have the same rights, or lack of rights, to discuss the future of pregnancy termination law.

If you are not following my redundant birth control device, we need to stop talking about abortion and go back to discussing birth control so that no unwanted pregnancies get started. That is always the first priority.

edit: deleted non sequitur "and I"

[liberalhistorian]

401. First of all, I, personally,

do not have to ever again worry about birth control or pregnancy, since I had a total hysterectomy last summer (I can't begin to tell you what a relief that is)!

Second, as I believe you were advised earlier, absolutely NO birth control method is EVER 100% effective. The only way to never have an unintended pregnancy is to not have sex in the first place. In my case, my fiance and I used condoms, and we used them correctly. I was a college graduate who knew the importance of protection and using it correctly, and he, being older, was also well aware of it. And I know of many other cases of the failure of birth control methods. So, it's really a myth that ALL unintended pregnancies could be avoided.

Yes, it's true that a lot of people probably don't use it correctly, or don't use anything at all, for that matter, and many of the resulting unplanned pregnancies could have been avoided. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

[Jane Roe]

406. I stand corrected then

It is your hysterectomy, not your birth control, that makes you as ineligible as I to talk about the future of pregnancy termination law.

It just won't apply directly to either of us!

[liberalhistorian]

410. I never said I was ineligible

to talk about the future of pregnancy termination law! I'm a woman, which makes me very eligible. I thought I had made that clear by now.

[Jane Roe]

412. I never said you were ineligible either . . .

I only said that you were "as ineligible as I am" because our degree of fertility is the same. That is all I said and that assertion remains true.

More sex ed: When it comes to unplanned pregnancy, infertility will categorically prevent unplanned pregnancies just as surely as being of the wrong gender. Our future pregnancy prospects are the same.

[liberalhistorian]

415. Are you infertile?

Because if you aren't, you can still get someone pregnant, in which case I would hope you're following your own advice about birth control and high-risk behavior.

[Jane Roe]

418. I have been following my own advice

However, an unplanned pregnancy would not be an entirely bad thing for my family at this particular point in time so I may get a bit careless and let the chips fall where they may.

I kind of hope that my s.o. does not choose abortion, but I acknowledge that that is her right (and it would save me a bundle of my earnings, too!)

On edit: a more direct answer: I don't know whether I am infertile or not. Assuming I am fertile, I have been practicing birth control successfully for almost 2 decades now without a mishap!

[liberalhistorian]

419. Well, that's good.

Just recognize that other couples who use birth control correctly aren't always as lucky.

[Jane Roe]

420. Redundant birth control is not about luck

It is about vanishly small probabilities of pregnancy.

It is only when one relies on a single method (other than abstinence) that lady luck enters the picture.

[liberalhistorian]

421. That may very well be true,

but there are still a lot of couples who use double protection who still get pregnant, and I know of several examples first-hand. And it would be very nice if they'd come up with another method for men besides condoms, because right now the burden falls on women with most of the other methods.

[Jane Roe]

422. I didn't say "double" protection was sufficient

You may want to go back and review my helpful sex ed posts.

[liberalhistorian]

423. Well, are you

a sex ed teacher, lol! And even people who've had a lot of sex ed, and who follow what they've learned, can find themselves in a "certain" situation. I know that first-hand!

[Jane Roe]

424. Yes, the problem is that you didn't take *my* sex ed course

Compared my sex ed, conventional sex ed is worthless and weak as you found out the difficult way.

Please help me spread the word, especially if you know any teenagers. Good sex ed is everybody's responsibility and good sex ed is the sex ed I have given here on DU, not those half measures advocated by my junior high health teacher.

[liberalhistorian]

399. How wonderful that we gals

have you to interpret Roe v. Wade for us and to make our decisions for us!

[Jane Roe]

402. I encourage a full and open discussion of Roe v Wade

with no gender discrimination in the discussion. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'll let you start the discussion: what do you think about the fact that Roe v Wade allows states to prohibit some 3d trimester abortions? Good move or bad move, gals?

[liberalhistorian]

411. I don't see where too many

states have enacted such a ban.

[Jane Roe]

413. Have you done the research on this?

Or are you guessing?

[liberalhistorian]

414. I'm guessing, I have not

done any actual research. Frankly, it has not been on my list of urgent priorities lately.

[liberalhistorian]

383. Yeah, and it sure

isn't in the women-have-the-right-to-their-own-decisions-and-to-control-their-reproductive-rights camp, either.

[Jane Roe]

384. If you think that, then you haven't read Roe v Wade

Roe v Wade allows women to make their own pregnancy termination decisions in a very free way in most circumstances. As you know, I support Roe v Wade.

ON EDIT: Of course, like Roe v Wade, I don't think the right to terminate is always necessarily absolute or always necessarily the paramount relevant interest involved.

[liberalhistorian]

387. And just who decides

whether and/or what the "paramount relevent interest involved" is, how do they decide, and what gives them the right to decide that and to have control over the woman and her own decisions?

[Jane Roe]

405. who decides

in the first instance, each state's democratically elected legislature

if the restrictions passed by a state legislature go to far, then the federal courts have limited power in that they can overturn state law (see, eg, the Webster case from the early 1990s).

[liberalhistorian]

370. That's certainly true,

and what really infuriates me is that the men who were equally responsible for the pregnancy were given, and are still largely given, a free pass by society. It's always the woman who's "irresponsible" and who's made the "wrong sexual choices and decisions".

Well, what about the man who's also participated in the act? Christianity Today ran a cover article several years ago on how to cut the abortion rate by "working with women" and "helping women make better sexual choices and decisions", and I just wanted to scream WHAT ABOUT THE MEN? WHAT ABOUT THE MEN'S "SEXUAL CHOICES AND DECISIONS?"

[AngryAmish]

373. Boy

This is a long thread.

[liberalhistorian]

382. That's for sure, I had no

idea when I posted it last FRIDAY that it would go on this long! Guess it touches a nerve with a lot of people.

[Pithlet]

386. I'm jealous.

I've never had a thread go past 30, I think.

[liberalhistorian]

394. LOL!

This is the only thread I've had go this far. My homeless thread only went to around 220.

Just stick the words abortion, gun control, or Dean in your thread title, and I guarantee you'll get a flood of responses!

[petrock2004]

407. last in a long line of replies, but...

thank you so much for saying that.

i thought about writing more, but i think you pretty much covered exactly how i feel. i wish more women would stand up and SHOUT this.